Acid pond sediment and mine tailings contaminated with metals: physicochemical characterization and electrokinetic remediation

  • Oznur Karaca
  • Claudio Cameselle
  • Krishna R. Reddy
Original Article


Mine tailings and acid pond sediment from a former mining area in Canakkale (Turkey) were analyzed for physical (e.g., moisture content, particle size, specific gravity and hydraulic conductivity) and chemical parameters (e.g., organic content, pH, ORP and EC) as well as metal content and sequential extraction analysis, in an attempt to evaluate their risk as a source of contaminants. Column extraction tests were conducted to investigate the leachability under model field conditions using simulated rainwater. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure and synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) methods were performed to evaluate the expected concentrations in the water in contact with the solid material. The column tests proved that Fe and Pb can be released to the waterbodies in contact with the solid materials. Pb was released easier than Fe due to its content in the more labile fractions in the sequential extraction analysis. SPLP-Pb in both tailings and sediment exceeded the USEPA regulatory limit, confirming the hazardousness of those materials. Electrokinetic remediation has been tested as a possible technology for the removal of metals from mine tailings and sediment. Electrokinetics removed 20% of Pb and Fe in 9 days of treatment at 1 VDC/cm. The metal removal efficiency was very affected by metal speciation. Electrokinetics could remove metal fractions I–IV [as described by Tessier et al. (Anal Chem 51(7):844–851, 1979) especially in the closest section to the anode of the solid matrix, and the metals accumulated in the following sections. The results suggested that Fe and Pb could be effectively removed from the mine tailings and sediment if the advance of the acid front was favored and the treatment time increased. However, considering the physicochemical characterization and the results from the electrokinetic treatment, other green and more sustainable remedial strategies have to be proposed for mitigation of environmental risks of former mining areas. Instead of focusing on metal removal, the results of this work suggest that the immobilization and stabilization of metals in the site are more practical solutions. Thus, phytocapping is recommended as a practical green and sustainable method to mitigate the environmental risks of former mining areas.


Mine tailings Sediment Lead Iron Electrokinetic remediation 



The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) awarded a fellowship to Oznur Karaca, which made it possible to conduct this research at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Authors would also like to thank Prof. Mustafa BOZCU for his help in the field work.


  1. Akcil A, Koldas S (2006) Acid mine drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and case studies. J Clean Prod 14(12–13):1139–1145. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkorta I, Hernández-Allica J, Becerril JM, Amezaga I, Albizu I, Garbisu C (2004) Recent findings on the phytoremediation of soils contaminated with environmentally toxic heavy metals and metalloids such as zinc, cadmium, lead, and arsenic. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 3(1):71–90. doi: 10.1023/B:RESB.0000040059.70899.3d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett PHT (1989) The use of extractants in studies on trace metals in soils, sewage sludges, and sludge-treated soils. In: Stewart BA (ed) Advances in soil science, vol 9. Springer, New York. pp 143–176. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3532-3_3
  4. Bharti S, Banerjee TK (2012) Phytoremediation of the coalmine effluent. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 81:36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameselle C, Chirakkara RA, Reddy KR (2013) Electrokinetic-enhanced phytoremediation of soils: status and opportunities. Chemosphere 93:626–636. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chirakkara RA, Reddy KR (2015) Phytoremediation of mixed contaminated soils: enhancement with biochar and compost amendments. Geotech Spec Publ 256:2687–2696. doi: 10.1061/9780784479087.250 Google Scholar
  7. Flores L, Blas G, Hernández G, Alcalá R (1997) Distribution and sequential extraction of some heavy metals from soils irrigated with wastewater from Mexico city. Water Air Soil Pollut 98(1–2):105–117. doi: 10.1023/A:1026472611589 Google Scholar
  8. Grathwohl P, Susset B (2009) Comparison of percolation to batch and sequential leaching tests: theory and data. Waste Manage 29(10):2681–2688. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen HK, Rojo A (2007) Testing pulsed electric fields in electroremediation of copper mine tailings. Electrochim Acta 52(10):3399–3405. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2006.07.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen HK, Rojo A, Ottosen LM (2005) Electrodialytic remediation of copper mine tailings. J Hazard Mater 117(2–3):179–183. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen HK, Rojo A, Ottosen LM (2007) Electrokinetic remediation of copper mine tailings. Implementing bipolar electrodes. Electrochim Acta 52(10):3355–3359. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2006.02.069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson DB, Hallberg KB (2003) The microbiology of acidic mine waters. Res Microbiol 154(7):466–473. doi: 10.1016/S0923-2508(03)00114-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson DB, Hallberg KB (2005) Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review. Sci Total Environ 338(1–2):3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karaca O, Reddy KR (2014) Environmental assessment of mine tailings: can-etili basin (Turkey) as a case study. In: Proceedings of 14th international multidisciplinary scientific geoconference and expo (SGEM 2014). Albena Resort, Bulgaria, June 17–26, 2014Google Scholar
  15. Li MS (2006) Ecological restoration of mineland with particular reference to the metalliferous mine wasteland in china: a review of research and practice. Sci Total Environ 357(1–3):38–53. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li X, Thornton I (2001) Chemical partitioning of trace and major elements in soils contaminated by mining and smelting activities. Appl Geochem 16(15):1693–1706. doi: 10.1016/S0883-2927(01)00065-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maiz I, Arambarri I, Garcia R, Millán E (2000) Evaluation of heavy metal availability in polluted soils by two sequential extraction procedures using factor analysis. Environ Pollut 110(1):3–9. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00287-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra VK, Upadhyaya AR, Pandey SK, Tripathi BD (2008) Heavy metal pollution induced due to coal mining effluent on surrounding aquatic ecosystem and its management through naturally occurring aquatic macrophytes. Bioresour Technol 99(5):930–936. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nordstrom DK, Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ (2015) Hydrogeochemistry and microbiology of mine drainage: an update. Appl Geochem 57:3–16. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reddy KR, Cameselle C (2009) Electrochemical remediation technologies for polluted soils, sediments and groundwater. Wiley, Hoboken. doi: 10.1002/9780470523650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Salomons W (1995) Environmental impact of metals derived from mining activities: processes, predictions, prevention. J Geochem Explor 52(1–2):5–23. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(94)00039-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharma HD, Reddy KR (2004) Geoenvironmental engineering: site remediation, waste containment, and emerging waste management technologies. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh AN, Raghubanshi AS, Singh JS (2004) Comparative performance and restoration potential of two albizia species planted on mine spoil in a dry tropical region, India. Ecol Eng 22(2):123–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sola C, Burgos M, Plazuelo A, Toja J, Plans M, Prat N (2004) Heavy metal bioaccumulation and macroinvertebrate community changes in a mediterranean stream affected by acid mine drainage and an accidental spill (Guadiamar river, SW Spain). Sci Total Environ 333(1–3):109–126. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tessier A, Campbell PGC, Blsson M (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal Chem 51(7):844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ure AM, Quevauviller P, Griepink B (1993) Speciation of heavy metals in soils and sediments an account of the improvement and harmonization of extraction techniques undertaken under the auspices of the BCR of the Commission of the European Communities. Int J Environ Anal Chem 51(1–4):135–151. doi: 10.1080/03067319308027619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. USEPA (1992) Method 1311, Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). Publication SW-846: test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methodsGoogle Scholar
  28. USEPA (1994) Method 1312, Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP). Publication SW-846: test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methodsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological EngineeringCanakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityCanakkaleTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of VigoVigoSpain
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Materials EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations