Issue

Vol. 26 No. 22 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 22

Copyright (c) 2014 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Study on Geochemical Behaviour of Gangue Potential Acidic Release

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.16646
Ya-Qiao Sun
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Chang'an University, Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Region of Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Environmental Protection & Pollution and Remediation of Water and Soil of Shaanxi Province, Xi'an 710054, Shaanxi Province, P.R. China
Yuan-Yuan Shen
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Chang'an University, Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Region of Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Environmental Protection & Pollution and Remediation of Water and Soil of Shaanxi Province, Xi'an 710054, Shaanxi Province, P.R. China
Lei Duan
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Chang'an University, Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Region of Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Environmental Protection & Pollution and Remediation of Water and Soil of Shaanxi Province, Xi'an 710054, Shaanxi Province, P.R. China
Lin Dou
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Chang'an University, Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Region of Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Environmental Protection & Pollution and Remediation of Water and Soil of Shaanxi Province, Xi'an 710054, Shaanxi Province, P.R. China

Corresponding Author(s) : Ya-Qiao Sun

sunyaqiao@126.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 26 No. 22 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 22

Abstract

Geochemical behaviour of gangue potential acidic release has been investigated through soaking experiments under different conditions of liquid/solid ratio and soaking period. The results show that leachate pH ranges 6.99-7.71 (neutral or weakly alkaline) during immersion test which lasted for 30 days. The closed state where soaking test was performed inhibited the oxidation and dissolution of sulfur minerals containing in coal gangue, thereby affecting acidic release of gangue and making leachate weakly alkaline, resulting in only a small number of heavy metals Co, Cu, Mn and Sr at exchangeable state dissolved by water (dissolution rate £ 62.79 %) with the exception of Cr (completely dissolved) in gangue soaking. Under alkaline conditions, dissolution rates of Co, Cr, Cu, Mn and Sr carbonates, iron and manganese oxide phase, organics matter and residual are extremely low (£ 16.67 %). During soaking test, dissolution release rates of sulfur containing minerals in gangue with acid production (H2SO4) capacity of 57.56 Kg/t range merely 2.70-10.34 %. Along with the proceeding of soaking, enhancement of dissolution-release rate of sulfur containing minerals will lead to the solubilization-release of harmful trace elements in gangue. Hence, acidic release of gangue has a potentially considerable impact on environment.

Keywords

Gangue Potential acidic release Heavy metal Geochemical behaviour
Sun, Y.-Q., Shen, Y.-Y., Duan, L., & Dou, L. (2014). Study on Geochemical Behaviour of Gangue Potential Acidic Release. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 26(22), 7505–7511. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.16646
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. L. Shi, D.J. Niu, L. Jin and Y.C. Zhao, Coal Chem. Ind., 119, 15 (2005) (in Chinese).
  2. Q.G. Zhou, Res. Conserv. Environ. Prot., 3, 45 (2013).
  3. Z.F. Bian, J.H. Dong, S.G. Lei, H.L. Leng, S.G. Mu and H. Wang, Environ. Geol., 58, 625 (2009); doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1537-0.
  4. Y. Zhang, Q.Y. Feng, Q.J. Meng, P. Lu and L. Meng, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 89, 1225 (2012); doi:10.1007/s00128-012-0828-z.
  5. A.P. Chandra and A.R. Gerson, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 75, 6893 (2011); doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.09.020.
  6. D. Kossoff, K.A. Hudson-Edwards, W.E. Dubbin and M.A. Alfredsson, Chem. Geol., 281, 52 (2011); doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.11.028.
  7. X.Y. Wang, J. Yang and H.X. Guo, J. China Coal Soc., 31, 808 (2006) (in Chinese).
  8. L.F.O. Silva, X. Querol, K.M. da Boit, S.F.-O. Vallejuelo and J.M. Madariaga, J. Hazard. Mater., 186, 516 (2011); doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.032.
  9. T. Genty, B. Bussière, R. Potvin, M. Benzaazoua and G. Zagury, Environ. Earth Sci., 66, 2387 (2012); doi:10.1007/s12665-011-1464-3.
  10. A. Akcil and S. Koldas, J. Clean. Prod., 14, 1139 (2006); doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.09.006.
  11. T.L. Fu, Y.G. Wu, L.S. Ou, G. Yang and T.C. Liang, Energy Procedia, 16, 327 (2012); doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.01.054.
  12. J. Schüring, M. Kōlling and H.D. Schulz, Environ. Geol., 31, 59 (1997); doi:10.1007/s002540050164.
  13. J. Szczepanska and I. Twardowska, Environ. Geol., 38, 249 (1999); doi:10.1007/s002540050422.
  14. A.P. Chandra and A.R. Gerson, Surf. Sci. Rep., 65, 293 (2010); doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2010.08.003.
  15. A. Tessier, P.G.C. Campbell and M. Bisson, Anal. Chem., 51, 844 (1979); doi:10.1021/ac50043a017.
  16. M. Anju and D.K. Banerjee, Chemosphere, 78, 1393 (2010); doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.12.064.
  17. J. Ribeiro, E. Ferreira da Silva, A.P. de Jesus and D. Flores, Int. J. Coal Geol., 87, 226 (2011); doi:10.1016/j.coal.2011.06.014.
  18. J.W.C. Wong, C.M. Ip and M.H. Wong, Environ. Geochem. Health, 20, 149 (1998); doi:10.1023/A:1006589124204.
  19. H.R. Zhao, B.C. Xia, C. Fan, P. Zhao and S.L. Shen, Sci. Total Environ., 417-418, 45 (2012); doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.047.
  20. Q.S. Li, Z.F. Wu, B. Chu, N. Zhang, S.S. Cai and J.H. Fang, Environ. Pollut., 149, 158 (2007); doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.01.006.
  21. C.K. Jain, Water Res., 38, 569 (2004); doi:10.1016/j.watres.2003.10.042.
  22. C. Gleyzes, S. Tellier and M. Astruc, Trends Analyt. Chem., 21, 451 (2002); doi:10.1016/S0165-9936(02)00603-9.
  23. J.F. Peng, Y.H. Song, P. Yuan, X. Cui and G. Qiu, J. Hazard. Mater., 161, 633 (2009); doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.04.061.
  24. W.P. Robarge and D.L. Johnson, Adv. Agron., 47, 1 (1992); doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60488-5.
  25. A. Ugurlu, Environ. Geol., 46, 890 (2004); doi:10.1007/s00254-004-1100-6.
  26. D.J. Hassett, Fuel Process. Technol., 39, 445 (1994); doi:10.1016/0378-3820(94)90198-8.
  27. S.S. Cao, G.H. Wu and R.X. Su, Environ. Sci., 32, 1831 (2011) (in Chinese).
  28. O. Sracek, M. Choquette, P. Gelinas, R. Lefebvre and R.V. Nicholson, J. Contam. Hydrol., 69, 45 (2004); doi:10.1016/S0169-7722(03)00150-5.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0