ARTICLE IN PRESS

Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

This article is also available online at:
www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Comparison of limestone, dolomite and y ash

as pre-treatment agents for acid mine drainage
S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak

a,*,1

, J.H. Potgieter b, P. Monama c, R. Van Grieken

Department of Chemistry, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, Wilrijk, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium

School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag X3, 2050 Wits, South Africa
c
Department of Chemistry, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, 0001 Pretoria, South Africa
Received 21 June 2005; accepted 22 July 2005

Abstract
The physical, chemical and biological nature of Vaal Dam water, the main source of water in Gauteng, South Africa, is often
aected by underground water pollution (acid mine water) and industrial euents. The ecological signicance and detrimental
eects necessitate investigations into treating the water prior to discharge into public streams. Although several acid mine water
treatment techniques and methods exist, they all have certain disadvantages. Lime treatment is the most common approach. In this
investigation, limestone, dolomite and y ash were selected as pre-treatment agents based on their low cost. Simulated acid mine
water containing these agents was tested using a Jar Test apparatus. Samples were analyzed before and after treatment for pH, ferrous, ferric, calcium, magnesium and sulphate ions. The study demonstrated that the quality of the water improved with an increase
in the amount and surface area of the raw material dosed and an increase in contact time. It was also inuenced by the chemical
composition of the acid mine water and aeration. Chemical cost savings of 38% are achieved when lime is replaced with limestone,
and cost savings of 23% and 48% can be accomplished when limestone is substituted with dolomite and y ash respectively. This
could result in signicant savings to the gold and coal mining industries, and could lead to a mutual benet/gain between industrialists/polluters and the public.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Acid rock drainage; Mining; Tailings; Environmental

1. Introduction
South Africa is particularly rich in mineral resources
located all over the country, which represent 40% of global reserves, of which gold is a signicant foreign income
earner. The scale and nature of mining activities make a
profound impact on the surrounding environment. Acid
mine water is an unavoidable by-product of the mining
and mineral industries and one of the signicant contributors to water pollution.
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 3 820 2346; fax: +32 3 820 2376.
E-mail address: sanja.potgieter@ua.ac.be (S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak).
1
Permanent employee of Tshwane University of Technology,
Pretoria, South Africa.
0892-6875/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.07.009

The famous gold-bearing Witwatersrand basin is

massive and stretches through an arc of approximately
400 km. It has been mined for more than 100 years producing more than 41 000 ton of gold and remains the
greatest un-mined source of gold in the world. The gold
is extracted from a 12 m thick tabular conglomerate
layer. These conglomerates are pebbles of quartz in a
sand matrix and contain about 3% of pyrite (FeS2), as
well as several other sulphide containing minerals, such
as pyrrhotite (FexS) and galena (PbS). Gold mining
operations typically continue to depths of 2.5 km or deeper in South Africa, after which it becomes nancially
unfavourable to continue. Abandoned mines became
ooded with groundwater, which can re-enter the catchment areas by means of adits. These waters are rich in

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2

S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

sulphates and dissolved metals and have an acidic pH

due to the oxidation of the sulphide containing minerals,
such as pyrite, to form sulphuric acid as illustrated in the
following equation.
2FeS2 712O2 7H2 O ! 2FeOH3 4H2 SO4
Other sources of acid mine water from the gold mining
industry arise from the sand and slime dumps resulting
from tailings. These dumps have been subjected to oxygenated rainwater resulting in the oxidation of the residual sulphide containing minerals. The oxidation acidies
the percolating water, which is also believed to enter
streams along the Witwatersrand (Jones et al., 1988).
In a recent survey (Naicker et al., 2003), it was found
that the ground water in the mining district of the Witwatersrand was heavily contaminated with heavy metals
and acidied due to the oxidation of pyrite containing
tailings. The authors have also found that the deleterious eect of the addition of contaminated water persists
for more than 10 km beyond the source.
Mine water from the coal mining industry is also periodically discharged directly into local streams (Geldenhuys et al., 2001). Whether these mine waters
originate from the ooded mines, sand and slimes
dumps or direct discharge of euents, it implicates an
environmental hazard. The acidic character (pH as low
as 2 has been reported Feng et al., 2004), high sulphate
content and dissolved heavy metal content of the mine
water prohibit its discharge in public streams and pose
a real threat to aquatic life.
The treatment of acid mine water is costly and the
trend to submit to mine closures rather than mine water
treatment in South Africa has become a matter of great
concern (Labuschagne et al., 2005). Traditionally acid
mine water is treated with lime to increase the pH and
concomitantly precipitate heavy metals. The use of limestone as a cheaper alternative was explored by Maree
and du Plessis (1994) and a combination of lime and
limestone by Maree et al. (1998a) and Geldenhuys
et al. (2001). Other agents investigated are blast furnace
slag (Feng et al., 2004) and y ash (Petrik et al., 2003;
Xenidis et al., 2000). Feng et al. (2004) reported that
the use of slag as a potential sorbent for metal ions in
acid mine water increased the pH to neutral and most
of the heavy metals were removed successfully. Petrik
et al. (2003) reported that neutralization of various
sources of acid mine water with y ash or y ash leachate was possible, without the additional use of liming
agents. Some novel applications to control acid mine
drainage at the source with the use of thiocyanate compounds and phosphate derivatives are also currently under discussion (Mudder et al., 2005)
In this investigation a comparative study was conducted to determine the feasibility and eciency of the
use of limestone, dolomite and y ash as pre-treatment
options for acid mine water. The main purpose of the

study was to compare the increase in pH, extent of ferrous, ferric and sulphate ion removal and the change in
the calcium ion concentration, for the three dierent
neutralizing agents using a simulated acid mine water.
Such a direct comparison would enable one to select
the most cost eective pre-treat agent for acid mine
drainage.

2. Experimental
2.1. Reagents
The chemical compositions of the three neutralizing
agents are reported in Table 1. All other chemicals were
of analytical grade quality and de-ionised water from a
MilliQ system with resistivity of 18 MX was used.
2.2. Instrumentation
The pH was measured with the use of a Metrohm 900
pH meter. An Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (Varian
1275) was used to determine the calcium, magnesium
and total iron content. The instrumental parameters
used are displayed in Table 2. Lanthanum was used as
a releasing agent to minimize interferences from sulphate, in particular and possible trace quantities of silicates and phosphates. An Ultra Violet Visible
Spectrophotometer (UVVIS) (Ultrospec 3000) was

Table 1
Composition of the neutralizing agents investigated
Limestone % (m/m)

Dolomite % (m/m)

SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
MnO
TiO2
CaO
MgO
P2O5
K2O
Na2O
LOI
SO3

0.5
0.3
0.1
0.5
<0.1
55.3
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
43.0

3.3
0.9
1.0
1.1
<0.1
29.1
17.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
46.3

Fly ash % (m/m)

52.6
34.6
3.2
<0.1
1.7
4.1
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
1.5
0.4

Total

100.7

99.3

100.3

Table 2
Instrumental parameters for the determination of calcium, magnesium
and iron by means of AAS
Element

Wavelength
(nm)

Slit width
(mm)

Lamp current
(mA)

Range
(mg l1)

Calcium
Magnesium
Iron

422.7
202.6
248.3

1.0
1.0
0.2

5
5
5

220
525
110

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

Whatman no. 41 paper and the ltrate analyzed for:

pH, total iron, calcium and magnesium content by
means of AAS, ferrous ion concentration by means of
wet chemical analysis and sulphate ion concentration
by means of UVVIS spectrometry.

used at a 420 nm wavelength, to determine the sulphate

concentration in the samples.
2.3. Simulated acid mine water solution
A water sample was prepared to simulate typical concentration levels of contaminants usually found in acid
mine water from the coal and gold mining industries
and the nal concentrations are displayed in Table 3.
The pH of the solution was 1.2.

3. Results and discussion

The eciency of the dosage and type of neutralizing
agent depend on several factors; usually costs and health
considerations limit the choice. Other selection criteria
of neutralizing agents include reaction rate, sludge production and disposal, safety and ease of handling, total
costs and the eect of an over-dosage.
The three neutralizing agents investigated in this
study, limestone, dolomite and y ash, were compared
on neutralization reaction rate and the amounts of residual contaminants after treatment.
The neutralization reaction rate was investigated by
determining the change in pH as a function of dosage
and particle size. A summary of the results illustrating
the dependence of dosage on the rate of neutralization
in order to reach a minimum pH of 5.5 is represented
in Fig. 1. In all cases the particle size of the dosing agent
was <150 lm. It was determined that a minimum dosage
of 10 g l1 of limestone with 120 min contact time was
required to reach a pH of 5.5. Larger dosages of limestone ensured a reduction in contact time, such as
100 g l1 with 30 min of contact time. For dolomite
the minimum dosage required was 40 g l1 and
240 min contact time, while for the y ash a minimum
dosage of 500 g l1 and 240 min contact time was necessary. For both the limestone and dolomite there seem to
be a direct relationship between the dosage used and the
neutralization rate.

2.4. Methodology
A Jar Test apparatus was used to study the inuence
that the dierent neutralizing agents had on the pH and
the ferrous, ferric, calcium, magnesium and sulphate ion
concentrations. Aliquots of 500 ml freshly prepared acid
mine water were placed in 1000 ml round plastic beakers
and conditioned by agitation for a few minutes. The
amounts of dosing agents, as well as their respective particle sizes, were varied, while the solution was suciently
stirred for a specic chosen period of time (30 min6 h)
at a constant rate to ensure aeration and sucient suspension of solids. All the tests were conducted in triplicate. Each solution was left to settle, ltered through

Table 3
Concentrations of the dierent contaminants in the simulated acid
mine water
Contaminants

Concentration (mg l1)

Sulphates
Ferrous
Ferric
Calcium
Magnesium

6000
1500
500
300
200

600

180

Dolomite

160

Fly ash

Limestone

500
140
400

Dosage (g/l)

120
100

300
80
60

200

40
100
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

0
260

Contact time (min)

Fig. 1. The minimum dosage and contact times required to reach a pH of 5.5 after treatment of the acid mine water.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4

S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

The results obtained for limestone are in agreement

with those reported by Maree et al. (1998b). In previous
studies, Maree et al. (1992) found that the eciency of
limestone neutralization is strongly inuenced by the
iron content of the acid mine water. A two stage process
was proposed. The rst phase is associated with the neutralization of pure sulphuric acid. The slower second
phase can be ascribed to the increasingly thick layer of
ferric hydroxide precipitate forming on the limestone
particles, masking them from further dissolution. This
is illustrated by the data depicted in Fig. 2, where a
slight decrease in pH is observed after the initial fast
increases.
The y ash results concur with those reported by Petrik et al. (2003); they found that a 500 g l1 y ash dosage to an acid mine water from a coal colliery resulted in
a pH rise to 7 after 150 min of contact time. They also
reported a limited capacity of low y ash dosages to
raise the pH suciently.
The eect that various particle sizes of the limestone
and dolomite had on the neutralization rate was also
investigated. In general an increase in surface area resulted in an increased neutralization rate, as can be expected. The initial contact time period of 30 min
showed the most acid removal. Maree et al. (1992) conrmed this behaviour and found that limestone at particle sizes <150 lm is inecient when a uidised-bed
reactor is employed.
The amounts of residual contaminants were investigated by reporting the ferrous, ferric, calcium and
sulphate ion concentrations before, during and after
treatment with the dosing agent. The concentration
dependency on pH, dosage and particle size were
determined.
The oxidation of ferrous ions results in large quantities of ferric ions in acid mine water, imparting a yellow

brown colour to the solution. Ferric ions are removed as

a ferric hydroxide precipitate in the presence of hydroxide, carbonate or oxide containing materials, up to a pH
of minimum solubility (pH value about 4.0). Ferric ions
are relatively easy to remove from acid mine water because they start to precipitate at a pH as low as 3.0
(Maree et al., 1992). The percentage removal by the
smallest particle size fraction for selected periods of contact time and dosage sizes is illustrated in Fig. 3. The results observed in this study indicate that 100 g l1 of
<150 lm limestone or 500 g l1 of y ash require a minimum of 6 h contact time to reduce the levels of ferric
ions in acid mine water to below 0.1 mg l1 (near complete removal of ferric ions). This removal was obtained
at pH values of 7.4 and 7.8, respectively. The results
indicate that a contact time slightly longer than 6 h is
needed for the 120 g l1 or 160 g l1 of <150 lm dolomite to decrease the concentration of ferric ions to near
completion. The results are also in agreement with the
acidity prole established in the rst part of the
research.
These results are comparable to the ones that Maree
et al. (1992) reported, even though these researchers did
not treat and determine the ferric ions directly (the inuence of ferric ions on the neutralization of acid mine
water was investigated instead). In another investigation, Maree et al. (1996) noticed that the uidised-bed
reactor process required a pH of 7.5 to be maintained
for eective treatment of ferric ion rich water. Petrik
et al. (2003) investigated the removal of total iron
(instead of ferric ions) when the Navigation Bank coalmine
s acid drainage was treated with y ash. They
observed a sharp decrease in the concentration of
total iron from 3500 mg l1 to 70 mg l1 for low dosages and below detection limits for a 500 g l1 y ash
dosage.

pH

10g

-1

dolomite

10g

-1

limestone

160g

-1

dolomite

100g

-1

limestone

0
0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

Contact time (min)

Fig. 2. The eect of dosage and contact time on the pH.

320

360

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

Fig. 3. Percentage Fe3+ removal after selected dosages of neutralizing agent with particle size <150 lm.

Iron is predominantly present in acid mine water as

reduced ferrous ions that are associated mainly with sulphates, and occasionally as low amounts of ferric ions
(Murray, 1987). The actual composition of iron species
in solution is highly dependable on the pH of the water
and more ferrous ions than ferric ions are found at the
very low pH values typical for acid mine water.
As in the case of the ferric ion, removal of ferrous ions
takes place due to the precipitation of ferrous hydroxide. Although the molar solubility product constant of
ferrous hydroxide is relatively small (AWWA, 1995), removal is dictated by pH (Maree and du Plessis, 1994).
At pH values less than 7.5 precipitation is slow and
incomplete. Limestone and dolomite are relatively insoluble at pH values greater than 7, and therefore, pre-oxidation of ferrous ions to ferric ions is necessary for
eective removal of iron from acid mine water (Maree
and du Plessis, 1994).
The percentage ferrous ion removal for selected periods of contact and dosages is illustrated in Fig. 4.
Dosages of 100 g l1 of <150 lm limestone and
500 g l1 y ash remove the ferrous ions in acid mine
water to very low levels, provided that a contact time
of 6 h is allowed. A dosage of 160 g l1 of <150 lm
dolomite decreases the concentration of ferrous ions to
at least 6 mg l1 when in contact with acid mine water
for 6 h. It seems that a slightly longer contact time than
6 h may result in the levels of ferrous ions below
0.1 mg l1.

The results are in agreement with those reported by

Petrik et al. (2003). The ndings in this study apparently
show a dramatic improvement on the quality of treated
mine water with respect to ferrous ion concentration,
when compared to those reported by Maree et al.
(1992, 1996, 1998b). The dierences can possibly be ascribed to the following: Firstly, Maree et al. (1992)
investigated the inuence of ferrous ions on the neutralization of acid mine water with limestone rather than the
removal of ferrous ions from acid mine water as such.
Secondly, Maree et al. (1992) used a dynamic approach
in sampling the solution under investigation for analysis,
which could possibly lead to dierent results.
When reviewing these results as a function of pH it is
observed that removal of the ferrous ions start at a pH
around 4. The data presented in Fig. 5 indicate selected
dosages of particle size <150 lm, where the pH after a
specic contact time (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 6 h) has been correlated with the relevant percentage Fe2+ removal.
It is interesting to note that up to 30% removal of the
ferrous ion took place with the addition of 300 g l1 y
ash even though the pH never reached 5.0. On the other
hand at pH values as high as 5.8 only 520% of ferrous
ions could be removed with the addition of 80, 160 g l1
dolomite and 100 g l1 limestone.
Acid mine water contains high concentrations of calcium ions which are removed as a calcium sulphate precipitate when the solution is saturated with respect to
calcium and sulphate ions. Fig. 6 depicts the dissolution

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6

S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

Fig. 4. Percentage Fe2+ removal after selected dosages of neutralizing agent with particle size <150 lm.

-1

% Removal with 300 g l fly ash

-1
% Removal with 160 g l dolomite

-1

% Removal with 500 g l fly ash

-1
% Removal with 10 g l limestone

-1

% Removal with 80 g l dolomite

-1
% Removal with 100 g l limestone

8.0
7.0
6.0

pH

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

2+

% Removal of Fe

Fig. 5. pH versus % Fe2+ removal for selected dosages and all the dierent contact times.

and precipitation prole of the calcium ions with respect

to dosage and contact time. The initial concentrations of
between 200 mg l1 and 300 mg l1 increased to 861
mg l1 (120 g l1 dolomite dosage), 1307 mg l1 (100 g
l1 limestone dosage) and 1412 mg l1 (500 g l1 y
ash dosage), respectively after a 6 h contact period. Initial stages are characterized by sharp increases in concentration due to dissolution of the limestone and
dolomite and the free lime in the y ash.
These observations are in agreement with those from
previous studies investigations by Maree and du Plessis

(1994). These authors showed that the calcium level increases to 1900 mg l1 as CaCO3 (760 mg l1 Ca2+)
upon treatment with limestone. It was noticed in the
treatment of coal mine water with limestone that the level of calcium in untreated water was 520 mg l1 Ca2+
and remained constant at 540 mg l1 after treatment.
In later work, Maree et al. (1996) showed that limestone
increased the levels of calcium from 100 mg l1 to
175 mg l1 during pilot scale neutralization of underground water. Petrik et al. (2003) detected an initial
and gradual increase followed by a decrease in the con-

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

Fig. 6. Calcium ion concentration as a function of dosage and contact time.

centrations of calcium ions when Navigation Bank

acid mine water was dosed with dierent amounts of
y ash.
Acid mine water is characterized by high amounts of
sulphates and sulphuric acid resulting from the oxidation of pyrite when exposed to air and moisture. Dosages of 120 g l1 dolomite, 100 g l1 limestone and
500 g l1 y ash reduce the sulphate ions to approximately 2100 mg l1 (64% removal), 1800 mg l1 (72% removal) and 1300 mg l1 (78% removal), respectively.
These results conrm those previously obtained by Maree and du Plessis (1994) and Maree et al. (1998b). Maree
and du Plessis (1994) reported a 43% removal as a result
of gypsum crystallisation in earlier work and a 83% re-

moval using a sequential batch mode operation in later

studies (Maree et al., 1998b). It was observed that when
300 mg l1 magnesium (as Mg2+) is present, sulphates
could be reduced from 18 000 to <2500 mg l1.
Calcium rich neutralizing agents will inevitable also
remove the sulphate ions in the acid mine waters by
precipitation. A distinct relationship between both dissolved species is therefore to be expected. This relationship is presented in Fig. 7.
From the data presented in the graph it is observed
that, except for the y ash, the ratio between the sulphate and calcium contents stayed nearly constant for
the low dosages of limestone and dolomite. This was
due to the fact that the change in calcium ion concentra-

2-

% [SO4 ] decrease

10

0.40

20

0.60

30

0.80

40

1.00

50

1.20

60

1.401

70

.60
0

80

90

-150

-50

%[Ca2+] decrease

-350
-100
-550
-150
-750
-200
-950

-250

-1150

-1350

2+

0.20

%[Ca ] decrease (FA+10 Dolomite)

0.00
50

-300
160 g

-1

dolomite

10 g

-1

limestone

100 g

-1

limestone

500 g

-1

fly ash

10 g

-1

dolomite

20 g

-1

fly ash

Fig. 7. Relationship between the % decrease in [Ca2+] and [SO2

4 ] over the contact period times of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 4 and 6 h.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8

S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

tion remained constant irrespective of the contact

time, and only in the case of limestone was a slight increase in sulphate removal observed. On the other hand
a nearly linear increase is observed with the high dosages
of limestone and dolomite and one can therefore conclude that the percentage sulphate removal is dependent
on both the calcium ion availability and the contact
time.
It is further noted that the highest removal of sulphate was with the 500 g l1 y ash dosage and that this
relationship was not linear at later contact times. Petrik
et al. (2003) reported similar results with a substantial
and near complete removal of sulphate ions (>90%),
when Navigation Bank coalmine
s acid drainage was
dosed with 500 g l1 of y ash. These authors observed
high amounts of precipitated aluminium accompanied
by a large quantity of sulphate ions being removed from
the treated mine water. Petrik and co-workers found the
sulphate ions concentration to be controlled by the precipitation of gypsum (CaSO4 2H2O) at low pH and
ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3 32H2O) at high pH. Furthermore, they suggested that another aluminium sulphate
phase was precipitating, but it was not suciently crystalline to be identied by X-ray diraction.
Table 4 summarizes the results obtained for the treatment of acid mine water with limestone, dolomite or y
ash when in contact with it for about 6 h with the neutralizing agent, as well as the associated costs.
Dosages of 500 g l1 y ash and 100 g l1 limestone
could produce reasonable quality water with respect to
pH, ferrous ions and ferric ions only. Dolomite dosages
required longer contact time (than 6 h) to reduce ferrous
and ferric ions appreciably. The ecient reduction of
sulphate ion levels in the water with y ash additions
renders it suitable for potential agricultural purposes.
The running costs of dolomite treatment were found
to be similar to the limestone treatment and double that
of the y ash. Therefore, the y ash treatment is more
cost-eective compared to the limestone and dolomite
treatments for similar results.

4. Conclusions
The classical lime precipitation method generally
used is expensive (R405 ton1, 2002) and produces a
low-density sludge, resulting in increased capital costs
for the construction and operation of sludge ponds.
These costs could be substantially reduced if lime is replaced with either limestone (R250 ton1, 2002), dolomite (R160 ton1, 2002), y ash (R1624 ton1, 2002)
or a combination of these, as pre-treatment agents. In
addition, these alternatives also have benets such as
ease of handling, high-density sludges, more ecient
pH control and limiting of possible over-dosages.
This study showed that 100 g of <150 lm limestone is
required to neutralise 1000 ml of acid mine water, in 6 h
to pH value of 7.4. This dosage reduces both the ferrous
and ferric ion concentrations to an acceptable level due
to an oxidation process during precipitation. Although
signicant removal of sulphates by the removal of 70%
of the original concentration was achieved, the level is
still higher than the maximum allowed level for discharge into sewerage systems. The dolomite was outperformed in every aspect by the limestone. The y ash
performed on par with the limestone and outperformed
it with the additional capacity to precipitate sulphates in
the ettringite form.
The reaction rate of limestone, dolomite and y ash
treatments as neutralizing agents proved to be dependent on the amount and surface area of material, the
contact time and the chemical composition of the acid
mine water.
The study showed optimal and eective treatment
costs of R25 000 Ml1, R19 200 Ml1 and R12 000 Ml1
for a limestone, a dolomite and a y ash treatment process
respectively, when the acid mine water contains 6000 mg
l1 sulphates, 1500 mg l1 ferrous ions, 500 mg l1 ferric
ions, 400 mg l1 magnesium ions, 300 mg l1calcium ions
and the pH value is 1.2. The corresponding running costs
include only chemicals (excluding electricity, labour and
other capital costs). Running cost savings of 23% and

Table 4
Economic and technical eciency of limestone, dolomite and y ash as pre-neutralizing agents
Material

Limestone
1

Price (R ton )
Material amount (g)
Sample volume (ml)
Dosages
Cost (R Ml1)
Particle size (lm)
Contact time (h)
Final pH
Ferrous (mg l1 Fe)
Ferric (mg l1 Fe)
Calcium (mg l1 Ca)
Sulphates (mg l1 SO2
4 )

250
25
500
50 g l1
12 500
<150
6.0
7.2 0.0
22 0
31 0
1395 10
1869 36

Dolomite
50
500
100 g l1
25 000
<150
6.0
7.4 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
1307 11
1827 5

160
60
500
120 g l1
19 200
<150
6.0
6.5 0.0
68 3
23 3
861 5
2165 8

Fly ash
80
500
160 g l1
25 600
<150
6.0
6.9 0.0
60
27 2
1539 9
3019 5

24
250
500
500 g l1
12 000
<150
6.0
7.9 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
1412 4
1333 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.S. Potgieter-Vermaak et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxxxxx

48% can be achieved when either dolomite or y ash are

applied instead of limestone. Chemical savings of 38%
are achieved when lime (R405 ton1, 2002) is replaced
with limestone (R250 ton1). Maree et al. (1992) found
the chemical cost in case of limestone treatment to be
29% of that of lime.
The investigation proved that y ash can be considered
as a cost eective alternative pre-treatment agent for acid
mine drainage, and that signicant cost benets can be derived from the use of pre-treatment agents before employing the widely practiced lime dosing of acid mine euents.
References
American Water Works Association (AWWA), 1995. Water Treatment, second ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers, pp. 314353.
Feng, D., van Deventer, J.S.J., Aldrich, C., 2004. Removal of
pollutants from acid mine wastewater using metallurgical byproduct slags. Separation and Purication Technology 40, 6167.
Geldenhuys, A.J., Maree, J.P., De Beer, M., Hlabela, P., 2001. An
integrated limestone/lime process for partial sulphate removal.
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM) 103
(6), 345371.
Jones, G.A., Brierly, S.E., Geldenhuis, S.J.J., Howard, J.R, 1988.
Research on the contribution of mine dumps to the minerals
pollution load at the Vaal barrage. Water Research Commission
Report no. 136/1/89. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
Labuschagne, P.F., Usher, B.H., Mateld, F., 2005. Geohydrological
management approaches for site closure in South African gold
mines. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on
Processing and Disposal of Minerals Industry Wastes (PDMIW
05), Falmouth, UK.

Maree, J.P., du Plessis, P., 1994. Neutralisation of acidic euents with

limestone. Water Science Technology 29 (9), 285296.
Maree, J.P., du Plessis, P., van der Walt, C.J., 1992. Treatment of
acidic euents with limestone instead of lime. Water Science
Technology 26 (12), 345355.
Maree, J.P., Van Tonder, G.J., Millard, P., Erasmus, C., 1996. Pilot
scale neutralisation of underground mine water. Water Science
Technology 34 (10), 141149.
Maree, J.P., Dingemans, D., Van Tonder, G.J., Mtimkulu, S., 1998a.
Biological iron (II) oxidation as pre-treatment to limestone
neutralisation of acid water. Water Science Technology 38 (4),
331337.
Maree, J.P., De Beer, M., Strydom, W.F., Christie, A.D.M., 1998b.
Limestone neutralisation of acidic euent, including metal and
partial sulphate removal. In: Proceedings of the International Mine
Water Association Symposium, Johannesburg, South Africa, 613
September, pp. 449460.
Mudder, T.I., Olson, G.J., Clark, T., 2005. Chemical source control of
acid mine drainage. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Processing and Disposal of Minerals Industry Wastes
(PDMIW 05), Falmouth, UK.
Murray, K.A., 1987. Wastewater Treatment and Pollution Control,
rst ed. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, SA, pp. 66200.
Naicker, K., Cukrowska, E., McCarthy, T.S., 2003. Acid mine
drainage arising from gold mining activity in Johannesburg, South
Africa and environs. Environmental Pollution 122, 2940.
Petrik, L.F., White, R.A., Klink, M.J., Somerset, V.S., Burgers, C.L.,
Frey, M.V., 2003. Utilisation of South African y ash to treat acid
mine drainage, and production of high quality zeolites from the
residual solids. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Ash
Utilisation Symposium, University of Kentucky, USA, Paper no. 61.
Xenidis, A., Mylona, E., Paspaliaris, I., 2000. Potential use of lignite
y ash for control of acid generation from sulphuric wastes. Waste
Management 22, 631641.