Artificial geochemical barriers for additional recovery of non-ferrous metals and reduction of ecological hazard from the mining industry waste

Our plain-English summary of Artificial geochemical barriers for additional recovery of non-ferrous metals and reduction of ecological hazard from the mining industry waste, by V. Chanturiya, V. Masloboev, D. Makarov, et al (Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 2011).

The study

• Authors: V. Chanturiya, V. Masloboev, D. Makarov, S. Mazukhina, D. Nesterov, Y. Men'shikov
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering
• Published: 2011;46(13):1579-87
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Laboratory tests and physical-chemical modeling have determined that mixtures of activated silica and carbonatite, serpophite and carbonatite show considerable promise for developing artificial geochemical barriers. The obtained average contents of nickel and copper deposited on geochemical barriers in the formed mining induced ores are acceptable for their subsequent cost efficient processing using either pyro- or hydrometallurgy methods. Some tests of geochemical barriers have been carried out, involving the use of polluted water in the impact zone of the "Kol'skaya GMK" JSC. A possibility of water purification from heavy metals down to the MAC level for fishery water bodies has been displayed.

In plain English

This article did not study asbestos or human health. It reported laboratory experiments and physical-chemical computer modeling of mineral mixtures used as "artificial geochemical barriers" to capture nickel and copper from water, aimed at mining areas of the Kola Peninsula, Russia. One barrier (N1) mixed activated silica with carbonatite. The other (N2) mixed serpentine (serpophite) with carbonatite. In columns fed nickel or copper sulfate solutions for 500 days, barrier N1 retained over 90% of the nickel and kept copper in the outflow at or below 0.05 mg/L. Barrier N2 retained over 99% of the nickel. Metals collected mainly in the top layer, reaching 33.4% copper in barrier N1. In stirred tests, purification ranged from 89.5% to 99.8% depending on how much material was added. With water from Lake Nyudyavr, residual metals did not exceed the MAC limits for fishery water bodies at 10 to 20 g/L. The authors concluded that these mixtures hold much promise as barrier materials. They noted that their computer model did not fully match the experiments.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: laboratory experiments (column tests over 500 days and short stirred tests) plus physical-chemical computer modeling
• Who was studied: no human or animal subjects; two mineral barrier materials: barrier N1 (activated silica and carbonatite, 1:1) and barrier N2 (serpentine, also called serpophite, from the Pilguyarvi massif, Kola Peninsula, and carbonatite, 1:1); natural water from Lake Nyudyavr near the "Severonikel" smelter of "Kol'skaya GMK" JSC
• Exposure: barrier materials exposed to nickel sulfate and copper sulfate solutions (0.2 and 0.1 g/L of metal, respectively) for 500 days in columns; also stirred tests at 2 to 20 g/L of barrier material for 0.5 to 2 hours
• Main results:
  • Barrier N1 with nickel sulfate solution: after 500 days over 90% of the nickel in the solution was deposited on the barrier
  • Barrier N1 with nickel: nickel content reached 27.1% in the top layer and 0.87% in the bottom layer
  • Barrier N1 with copper sulfate solution: residual copper in the filtered solution did not exceed 0.05 mg/L throughout the experiment
  • Barrier N1 with copper: copper content reached 33.4% in the narrow top layer and 0.005% in the bottom layer
  • Barrier N2 with nickel sulfate solution: residual nickel did not exceed 3 mg/L, and after 500 days over 99% of the nickel was deposited on barrier N2
  • Barrier N2 with copper sulfate solution: residual copper in most tests did not exceed 0.2 mg/L, with bursts up to 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L after 300 days
  • Stirred tests, barrier N1, nickel (initial 29.5 mg/L): purification was 90.2% at 2 g/L, 98.6% at 10 g/L and 99.5% at 20 g/L
  • Stirred tests, barrier N2, nickel (initial 32.1 mg/L): purification was 89.5% at 2 g/L, 98.1% at 10 g/L and 99.8% at 20 g/L
  • Polluted water from Lake Nyudyavr: at 10 to 20 g/L of barrier material, residual metal concentrations did not exceed the MAC for fishery water bodies
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that mixtures of activated silica and carbonatite, and of serpophite and carbonatite, hold much promise as materials for artificial geochemical barriers
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The computer model showed some discrepancies with the laboratory experiments
  • The authors stated that kinetic factors need to be considered in the model
  • The reasons for the rise and later fall of residual nickel with barrier N1 were not clear

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Related studies

• Growth of carbon structures on chrysotile surface for organic contaminants removal from wastewater — B.R.S. Lemos, É.A.R. Soares, et al. (2016)
• Metal contamination of Posidonia oceanica meadows along the Corsican coastline (Mediterranean) — C. Lafabrie, C. Pergent-Martini, et al. (2008)
• Utilization of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica to evaluate the spatial dispersion of metal contamination — C. Lafabrie, G. Pergent, et al. (2009)
• First results on the study of metal contamination along the Corsican coastline using Posidonia oceanica — C. Lafabrie, C. Pergent-Martini, et al. (2008)
• New detoxification processes for asbestos fibers in the environment — F. Turci, M. Colonna, et al. (2010)
• Evidence of arsenic release promoted by disinfection by-products within drinking-water distribution systems — S.S. Andra, K.C. Makris, et al. (2014)

Browse more research in Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, or return to medical research.