Loading content, please wait..
loading..
Logo
Version 3.18
or
Publication Type J
Authors Grafe, M; Klauber, C
Author Full Name Graefe, M.; Klauber, C.
Title Bauxite residue issues: IV. Old obstacles and new pathways for in situ residue bioremediation
Source HYDROMETALLURGY
Language English
Document Type Article
Author Keywords Bauxite residue; Red mud; Halophytes; Alkaliphilic microbes; Bioremediation; Saline-sodic soils
Keywords Plus ALUMINA REFINERY WASTES; RED MUD TAILINGS; REFINING RESIDUE; SEWAGE-SLUDGE; PHYSICAL-PROPERTIES; INDUSTRIAL-WASTES; BAYER PROCESS; SANDY SOILS; REVEGETATION; GYPSUM
Abstract Worldwide bauxite residue disposal areas contain an estimated 2.7 billion tonnes of bauxite residue, increasing by -120 million tpa. The future management of this residue is of increasing environmental concern. Ideally it would be utilized as an industrial by-product for other applications (the zero waste situation), but realistically the drivers for zero waste are not high and there are significant cost and liability barriers to implementation. Any future utilization will most likely be based on contemporary production and residue currently consigned to long-term storage is unlikely to be recovered, thus the environmental impact risk remains. This prompts the question as to whether remediation can be conducted in situ, i.e. changing the residue chemistry without specifically re-excavating for conventional processing. In this review the key parameters of residue chemistry and its physical properties are considered in the context of what is required for a remediated residue to support a viable eco-system, i.e. what is required for rehabilitation in terms of a series of easily understandable goals. Specifically residue characteristics of stable residue solution such that; pH of 5.5-9.0, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of <= 7, exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) of <= 9.5, residual sodium carbonate (RSC) of <= 1.25, electrical conductivity (EC) of < 4 mS/cm. These goals are a long way from typical existing residue. Bauxite residue itself is the by-product of an iconic hydrometallurgical process, namely the Bayer process. While understanding the hydrometallurgical consequences is one key to the successful implementation of a remediation strategy, it is also clear that the key to in situ remediation is most likely not conventional hydrometallurgy but a systematic and targeted bioremediation approach. The most promising pathway for an in situ rehabilitated bauxite residue disposal area would appear to be bioremediation based on strategies developed for saline-sodic soils using halophyte plants and alkaliphilic microbes to effectively farm sodium from the system and mitigate pH, respectively. On bauxite residue surfaces the advantages and similarities should closely parallel saline-sodic agricultural soils. Halophytes provide great potential to accomplish some of the necessary rehabilitation goals indicated. Practical environmental rehabilitation attempts to date have been more concerned with BRDA closure in a cosmetic sense. These have had some limited success and probably reflect the aim of the work to achieve re-vegetation, relying on a limited understanding of the residue chemistry and lacking detailed information on individual plant responses and tolerances. It is proposed that research design for bioremediation should commence with a more rigorous plant, fungi and microbe selection in conjunction with a better understanding of residue chemistry. That is, tackling both the abiotic and biotic aspects of the problem systematically, especially as the sodium halophyte farming would initially be progressing into an even more extreme environment. This cannot be an unassisted process; without intervention BRDA environments would remain sterile for an extended period of time. Amendments such as applied gypsum can further displace Na+ from the residue exchange complexes and in conjunction with other divalent cation strategies control pH within halophyte tolerance. Both halophyte produced organic acids and halophyte promoted microbial populations provide H+ and increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the rooting zones to further the rehabilitation process. Suitable drainage strategies, along with other additions (organic waste, sewage sludge, macro and micro-nutrients) will promote plant and microbe survival. Whilst this approach would not be envisaged to be either capital or operating intensive, it is not a
Author Address [Graefe, M.; Klauber, C.] CSIRO Proc Sci & Engn Parker CRC, Light Met Natl Res Flagship, Karawara, WA 6152, Australia
Reprint Address Klauber, C (reprint author), CSIRO Proc Sci & Engn Parker CRC, Light Met Natl Res Flagship, POB 7229, Karawara, WA 6152, Australia.
E-mail Address craig.klauber@csiro.au
ResearcherID Number Klauber, Craig/F-8522-2013
ORCID Number Klauber, Craig/0000-0003-1684-581X
Funding Agency and Grant Number International Aluminium Institute; CSIRO Light Metals National Research Flagship; Parker CRC for Integrated Hydrometallurgy Solutions; AMIRA [P1038]
Funding Text The support of the International Aluminium Institute, CSIRO Light Metals National Research Flagship and the Parker CRC for Integrated Hydrometallurgy Solutions (established and supported under the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres Program) and AMIRA P1038 is gratefully acknowledged.
Cited References *AUSTR NZ ENV CONS, 1999, GUID ASS ON SIT CONT; Australian and New Zealand Environmentent and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, 2000, AUSTR NZ GUID FRESH; Bardossy G., 1990, LATERITIC BAUXITES; Castaldi P, 2008, CLAY CLAY MINER, V56, P461, DOI 10.1346/CCMN.2008.0560407; COOPER MB, 1995, J RADIOAN NUCL CH AR, V194, P379, DOI 10.1007/BF02038437; Courtney RG, 2009, LAND DEGRAD DEV, V20, P572, DOI 10.1002/ldr.926; Courtney RG, 2005, WATER AIR SOIL POLL, V164, P91, DOI 10.1007/s11270-005-2251-0; Courtney RG, 2004, PLANT SOIL, V266, P187; Doran J.W., 1994, DEFINING SOIL QUALIT; FLOWERS TJ, 1977, ANNU REV PLANT PHYS, V28, P89, DOI 10.1146/annurev.pp.28.060177.000513; Fredlund D. G., 1993, SOIL MECH UNSATURATE; FULLER RD, 1982, J ENVIRON QUAL, V11, P533; FULLER RD, 1986, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V5, P905, DOI 10.1897/1552-8618(1986)5[905:ATAAFC]2.0.CO;2; Garau G, 2007, GEODERMA, V142, P47, DOI 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.07.011; Gee G. W., 1986, METHODS SOIL ANAL 1; GOLDSTEIN GL, 1999, LIGHT METALS; GRAFE M, 2009, BRADD BAUXITE RESIDU; GRIFFIN RA, 1973, SOIL SCI, V116, P26; GUO LQ, 1913, J AGRON CROP SCI, V196, P123; GUSTAFSSON JP, 2006, VISUAL MINTEQ2 53; Hamdy MK, 2001, J IND MICROBIOL BIOT, V27, P228, DOI 10.1038/sj.jim.7000181; Hanawa T, 1998, J MATER SCI-MATER M, V9, P89, DOI 10.1023/A:1008847014938; Harris MA, 2009, ENVIRON GEOL, V56, P1517, DOI 10.1007/s00254-008-1249-5; HELALIA AM, 1992, SOIL TILL RES, V22, P109, DOI 10.1016/0167-1987(92)90025-7; Helfferich F., 1962, ION EXCHANGE; Hu Y, 2003, MINER ENG, V16, P219, DOI 10.1016/S0892-6875(02)00368-0; Ippolito JA, 2005, SOIL SCI, V170, P832, DOI 10.1097/01.ss.0000190510.56545.8d; Jackson M.L., 1956, SOIL CHEM ANAL ADV C; JENNINGS DH, 1968, NEW PHYTOL, V67, P899, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1968.tb06402.x; Keiffer CH, 2002, J APPL ECOL, V39, P402, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00720.x; Klauber C, 2011, HYDROMETALLURGY, V108, P11, DOI 10.1016/j.hydromet.2011.02.007; KLAUBER C, 2008, LIGHT METALS; Kutle A, 2004, X-RAY SPECTROM, V33, P39, DOI 10.1002/xrs.701; Li LY, 1996, INT J MINER PROCESS, V48, P169, DOI 10.1016/S0301-7516(96)00024-5; Li LY, 1998, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, V124, P254, DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:3(254); Li R, 2010, ENVIRON EXP BOT, V68, P66, DOI 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.10.004; Liu Y, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V146, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.12.015; McBride K.B., 1994, ENV CHEM SOILS; MCPHARLIN IR, 1994, COMMUN SOIL SCI PLAN, V25, P2925, DOI 10.1080/00103629409369235; MEECHAM JR, 1977, AUST J EXP AGR, V17, P679, DOI 10.1071/EA9770679; MEECHAM JR, 1977, AUST J EXP AGR, V17, P689, DOI 10.1071/EA9770689; Menzies NW, 2004, J ENVIRON QUAL, V33, P1877; *NAT ENV PROT COUN, 1999, GUID INV LEV SOIL GR; Newson T, 2006, J GEOTECH GEOENVIRON, V132, P143, DOI 10.1061/)ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:2(143); Nikraz HR, 2007, J MATER CIVIL ENG, V19, P2, DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:1(2); PINNOCK WR, 1991, HEALTH PHYS, V61, P647, DOI 10.1097/00004032-199111000-00009; Polcaro AM, 2000, ANN CHIM-ROME, V90, P103; Qadir M, 2007, ADV AGRON, V96, P197, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2113(07)96006-X; Qadir M, 2006, LAND DEGRAD DEV, V17, P661, DOI 10.1002/ldr.751; QADIR M, 2006, BIOSALINE AGR SALINI; Rabhi M, 2009, AFR J ECOL, V47, P463, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00989.x; RYLE G, 2002, SYDNEY MORNING HERAL; SHEKHAWAT VPS, 2006, BIOSALINE AGR SALINI; Snars K, 2009, APPL CLAY SCI, V46, P13, DOI 10.1016/j.clay.2009.06.014; Snars KE, 2004, AUST J SOIL RES, V42, P321, DOI 10.1071/SR03021; Somlai J, 2008, J HAZARD MATER, V150, P541, DOI 10.1010/j.jhazmat.2007.05.004; Sparks D., 2003, ENV SOIL CHEM, V2nd; Stumm W., 1992, CHEM SOLID WATER INT; Summers RN, 1996, AUST J SOIL RES, V34, P569, DOI 10.1071/SR9960569; Thiyagarajan C, 2009, AUST J SOIL RES, V47, P518, DOI 10.1071/SR08201; Thornber M.R., 1999, 5 INT AL QUAL WORKSH, P498; Tisdale S.L., 1993, SOIL FERTILITY FERTI; Ungar I. A, 1991, ECOPHYSIOLOGY VASCUL; VIEILLARD P, 1992, APPL GEOCHEM, P125; VONPHILIPSBORN H, 1992, RADIAT PROT DOSIM, V45, P741; Wehr JB, 2006, ENVIRON MANAGE, V37, P297, DOI 10.1007/s00267-004-0385-2; Whittington BI, 1998, HYDROMETALLURGY, V49, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0304-386X(98)00021-8; Whittington BI, 1996, HYDROMETALLURGY, V43, P13, DOI 10.1016/0304-386X(96)00009-6; WILLIAMS FS, 1982, LIGHT METALS; Wong J.W.C., 1992, INT BAUX TAIL WORKSH; WONG JWC, 1991, SOIL SCI, V152, P326, DOI 10.1097/00010694-199111000-00003; WONG JWC, 1993, WASTE MANAGE RES, V11, P249, DOI 10.1177/0734242X9301100306; WONG JWC, 1994, RESOUR CONSERV RECY, V11, P297, DOI 10.1016/0921-3449(94)90097-3; WONG JWC, 1994, SOIL SCI, V158, P115; Woodard HJ, 2008, J ENVIRON SCI HEAL A, V43, P1157, DOI 10.1080/10934520802171659; Xenidis A, 2005, JOM-US, V57, P42, DOI 10.1007/s11837-005-0214-y; Yang CW, 2009, PHOTOSYNTHETICA, V47, P55, DOI 10.1007/s11099-009-0010-y; Zhang JT, 2009, SOIL SCI PLANT NUTR, V55, P685, DOI 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00411.x; ZHAO KF, 1991, PLANT SOIL, V135, P303
Cited Reference Count 79
Times Cited 33
Total Times Cited Count (WoS, BCI, and CSCD) 33
Publisher ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Publisher City AMSTERDAM
Publisher Address PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
ISSN 0304-386X
29-Character Source Abbreviation HYDROMETALLURGY
ISO Source Abbreviation Hydrometallurgy
Publication Date JUN
Year Published 2011
Volume 108
Issue 1-2
Beginning Page 46
Ending Page 59
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1016/j.hydromet.2011.02.005
Page Count 14
Web of Science Category Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering
Subject Category Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering
Document Delivery Number 779FA
Unique Article Identifier WOS:000291762300004
Plants associated with this reference

LEGAL NOTICES — This website is protected by Copyright © The University of Sussex, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. The eHALOPH database is protected by Database Right and Copyright © The University of Sussex and other contributors, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. This database is based on an earlier work by James Aronson.
THIS WEBSITE AND THIS DATABASE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND YOU USE THEM AND RELY ON THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Contact email: halophytes@sussex.ac.uk
Credits – Tim Flowers, Joaquim Santos, Moritz Jahns, Brian Warburton, Peter Reed