January 2011

Preliminary Assessment of Alternative Alkalis

for Brukunga Acid Water Treatment Plant

Report of
vacation
student project
Prepared by

Mr Gerry Xu
Supported by
Mine Completion Program,
Minerals & Energy
Resources,
Primary Industries &
Resources SA

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by and for the Mine Completion Program,
Department of Primary Industries and Resources (PIRSA). No other party
should rely on this document without the prior written consent of PIRSA.
PIRSA accepts no responsibility to any third party who may rely on
information within this document.
All prices quoted in this report are estimates only, and were provided to
PIRSA for the purpose of this project only. Prices quotes in this report include
freight and other costs and may not be relied upon by any third party.

Content
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
2. Overview of Chemicals Available to Treat AMD ..................................................... 4
3. Proposed Alternative Alkalis ..................................................................................... 5
4. Neutralisation Capability ........................................................................................... 6
4.1 Lime based Reagents Results ............................................................................ 7
4.2 Limestone based Reagent Results .................................................................... 7
4.3 Fly ash Results .................................................................................................... 8

4.4 Dense Soda Ash Results ..................................................................................... 8

4.5 Neutralisation Rate .......................................................................................... 10

5. Sludge Settling Experiment ..................................................................................... 16

5.1 Settleability and Sludge Volume ..................................................................... 16
5.2 Surface Water Quality in Settling Experiment ............................................... 20

6. Slurry preparation .................................................................................................... 24

6.1 Quicklime slaking ............................................................................................. 24
6.2 Limestone Grinding.......................................................................................... 32
6.3 Slurry Experiment ............................................................................................ 32

7. Results summary and Cost evaluation ..................................................................... 39

8. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 42
9. Reference ................................................................................................................. 43

1. Introduction
Mining for pyrite and pyrrhotite commenced at Brukunga in 1955 and concluded in
1972. Mining was open-cut and has resulted in mine wastes of 8 million tonnes of
waste rock and 3.5 million tonnes of tailings. Following the completion of mining
activities, oxidation of the exposed rock and mine wastes has produced acid and
metalliferous drainage (AMD) at the site, with a leachate below pH 3. The AMD
leachate enters the main creek that travels through the site, Dawesley Creek. AMD
has made the creek water unsuitable for potable use, irrigation and stock watering, up
to 55 km downstream of the mine site.
The South Australian state government took up responsibility for remediation of the
site in the mid 1970s, and an acid water neutralisation plant was installed in 1981.
Ownership was transferred to PIRSA from SA Water in 1997. In 2003, Dawesley
Creek was diverted around the AMD generating areas of the mine site through a large
diameter pipe and an open channel. This resulted in a significant improvement in
water quality.
Water collected from the site is pumped through an acid neutralisation treatment plant
in order to raise the pH and precipitate out heavy metals. The reagent historically used
by PIRSA to neutralise the lime was carbide lime, a by-product of the acetylene
manufacturing process used by BOC Gases Australia based in Adelaide. The carbide
lime was supplied to Brukunga in 10-30 weight. % slurry form, in 20,000L tankers. In
2008, BOC gases moved production to Victoria and were no longer able to supply
PIRSA. The treatment process was subsequently converted to receive hydrated lime,
sourced from Adelaide Brighton Cement (ABC), Angaston Quarry, and transported
by Kalari to Brukunga at a total cost of $307.63 per tonne (Jan 2011 pricing). The
hydrated lime is stored on site in a mobile ISO storage facility rented from Kalari at
$44,200 per year. The cost associated with the use of hydrated lime in 2010 (assuming
800 tonnes/ year) was $246,104 (ex GST). The key risks associated with the use of
hydrated lime is that ABC is currently the only commercial South Australian supplier,
and that PIRSA is at risk of price increases or the product becoming unavailable
To explore opportunities for cost reduction and risk mitigation at the Brukunga acid
water neutralisation plant a range of lime reagents were tested to determine their

Page 3

effectiveness (i.e. pH increase, removal of heavy metals, sludge characteristics) and

financial viability.

2. Overview of Chemicals Available to Treat AMD

The trials of lime alkalis for the chemical treatment of AMD included most
commercially available neutralising agents in South Australia. It was found that few
alkalis can be applied practically and economically for AMD neutralisation at
Brukunga. Some alkalis have been successfully utilized in water treatment processes
elsewhere, and their main physical and chemical properties have been summarised in
Table 1. Commercially available alkalis usually contain additional substances (ie.
secondary alkalis and impurities) to the key active alkalis listed in table 1 (column 1).
High calcium lime may contain small amounts of magnesium oxide or magnesium
hydroxide (<5%). Dolomitic lime typically contains 35 to 46 percent of magnesium
oxide or magnesium hydroxide and also Ammonia (Anhydrous ammonia, NH3)
(Skousen et al. 1990).
Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of theoretically pure alkali component
Alkali

Formula

Calcium neutralizers
Calcium
Ca(OH)2
hydroxide
Calcium
CaO
oxide
Calcium
CaCO3
carbonate
Magnesium neutralizers
Magnesium
Mg(OH)2
hydroxide
Magnesium
MgO
oxide
Sodium neutralizers
Sodium
NaOH
hydroxide
Sodium
Na2CO3
carbonate

Molecul
ar wt, g

Solubility, g/L

Solubility
product,
Ksp

Heat of
solution at
18 deg C

Density,
g/cm3

74.10

1.73
(20 deg C)
React

4.6810- 6

2.21

100.08

0.015
(25 deg C)

4.810- 9

+2.79 kgcal
+ 18.33 kgcal
N.A.

58.30

1.510- 11

-0.0 kg-cal

2.34

40.32

0.0098
(18 deg C)
0.08

N.A.

N.A.

3.58

39.99

1110

N.A.

N.A.

2.13

105.99

220

N.A.

N.A.

2.54
(anhydrous)

56.08

N.A.

3.35
2.71

Source from US EPA (1983)

The optimal choice for a neutralising reagent depends on both technical and economic
considerations. The technical factors include the acidity concentration, flow rate,
composition and concentration of heavy metals in the untreated acid water, the speed

Page 4

of the neutralising process, the volume of reagent needed for effective neutralisation
and the final treated water quality. The economic factors include the costs of reagents,
labour and machinery, the equipment required, the number of years that treatment will
be needed, interest rates and risk factors (e.g. OHSW or supply risks).

3. Proposed Alternative Alkalis

Preliminary investigations on alternative alkalis were conducted in January 2011. This
involved identifying and contacting a range of product manufacturers around the
country (predominantly in South Australia) including known suppliers of lime
products as well as waste licensing and regulatory organisations such as EPA and
ZeroWaste who might be aware of companies producing alkaline waste streams.
Product information sheets and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were obtained
and reviewed for each supplied product. Further information regarding the properties
of specific reagents is provided in Appendix A. A summary of alternative alkalis
proposed for this trial is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 List of alternative alkalis
No

Supplier

Penrice

Penrice

Penrice

Penrice

ABC

6
7

ABC
ABC

Product
name
Aglime
Nutrilime
grits
Calsilt*
Dense soda
ash
Calfines*

Delivery
inclusive

94.81/1.25

Price,
$/tonne
#
39.03

Yes

N.A

CaO/CaCO3

3.5/50-60

27

YES

N.A.

CaCO3/Mg(OH)2

56-60/8-11

21

YES

N.A.

Na2CO3

99.2

378

YES

Bulk

70

YES

Bulk

Effective alkali
component

Purity %

CaCO3/MgCO3

CaO/MgO

30-65/0.22
88
5

Packing
option

Quick lime CaO/MgO

283.30
YES
Bulk
Fly ash*
CaO
150.55
YES
Bulk
Hydrated
Ca(OH)2
8
ABC
85-95
323.82
YES
Bulk
lime
/Mg(OH)2
Superfine
9
Agricola
CaCO3/MgCO3
65.1/17
32
YES
N.A.
lime
Fine Cal
10
Agricola
CaCO3/MgCO3
93/5
55
YES
N.A.
lime
* These products are considered waste or secondary products and no warrantee is made by the supplier
as to their availability or product quality and/or consistency. Price or technical enquiries should be
made with the supplier in the first instance. # at date of enquiry.

Following the desktop investigations, a laboratory study was undertaken to assess

basic performance characteristics of the reagents under the direction of the Mine
Completion Program. This study looked at neutralisation capacity, neutralisation rate,

Page 5

sludge settling rate and slurry preparation. A preliminary chemical cost and capital
cost assessment was also undertaken and is included in this report.

4. Neutralisation Capability
A laboratory neutralisation titration (without aeration) was performed using a 20L
bucket containing 5L of acid water from the Brukunga acid holding dams. To enable
precipitation of metal contaminants, alkali dosing of the acid water is aimed at
producing a target pH > 9.5. An incremental amount of reagent was added to the
water every 10-15 minutes. The buckets were agitated at 70-100 rpm. The efficiency
of the neutralizing agent and dosage is dependant on several factors including: particle
size, contact time, acid water properties (iron content, pH) and reagent reactivity
(Potgieter-Vermaak et al, 2005). All reagents were added to the acid water without
any pre-treatment (such as sieving, crushing or pre-mixing). It is possible that the
inconsistency of particle sizes between the reagents has affected the results. Results of
the neutralisation capacity testing are shown in Figure 1 and Table 3.
Table 3. Results for neutralisation titration experiment

No

Supplier

Product

Formula of
major
composition

Purity %

Calculated
reagent
demand
for acid
water
titration,
g/L#

Penrice

Aglime

CaCO3

94.81

15.8

2
3
4
5
6

Penrice
Penrice
Penrice
ABC
ABC

Nutrilime grits
Calsilt
Dense soda ash
Calfines
Quick lime

CaCO3
CaCO3
Na2CO3
CaO
CaO

35
50
99.2
40
88

31.7
30.0
14.2
20.3
9.2

ABC

Fly ash

CaO

162.0

ABC

Hydrated lime

Ca(OH)2

85

13.1

Agricola

Superfine lime

CaCO3

65.1

23.

10

Agricola

Fine cal lime

CaCO3

93

16.1

Actually
consumed
reagent in
acid water
titration
(pH=8.2)
g/L
80
(pH=6.30)
86
112
20
26
16
750
(pH=4.37)
18
128
(pH=5.98)
90
(pH=5.89)

# calculation based on acidity of AMD water: 15000 mg CaCO3/L

Page 6

pH in
water
solution
(waterto-solid
ratio
4:1)
7.50
12.20
9.49
11.57
11.65
11.05
9.50
12.2
8.20
8.10

4.1 Lime based Reagents Results

All lime (CaO or Ca(OH)2 products) (Quicklime, Hydrate lime, Cal fines) are capable
of raising the pH value over 11 with a relatively low dosage (<30 g/L).
The actual consumption of lime is higher than the theoretical calculated value,
possibly due to incomplete slaking and reaction of the reagents. The consumption of
quicklime is approximate 76% higher than the calculated value, 28 % for Calfines and
and 46% for hydrated lime by volume. All 3 lime reagents had small suspended lime
particles. . This indicates that the lime reagent reactions were kinetically limited rather
than thermodynamically limited. The optimal effectiveness of the lime appears
dependant on the slaking and feeding patterns (as these preliminary trials did not
include a pre-mixing / slurry input stage). Results show that Calfines were closest to
the theoretical calculated value which could be caused by the presence of additional
alkaline impurities (e.g. Mg(OH)2), not considered in the theoretical calculation, and
efficient mixing due to fine particle size. The accuracy of these results is limited by
the small scale of the experiment. The optimum dosage rates requires further
investigation prior to application.

4.2 Limestone based Reagent Results

Most reagents with a high content of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate
could not sufficiently increase the pH in AMD water to the required level (pH 9.5).
Aglime, Superfine lime and Fine Cal lime failed to raise the pH>6.0 in the
experiments (duration 1 hour) even with large dosages of 80-100 g/L. Only Nutrilime
achieved pH of 11.41 at the end of titration experiment with a dosage of 127 g/L.
Other components such as Mg(OH)2 in Calsilt and CaO in Nutrilime are likely to
contribute proportionately more to the pH increase. Calsilt achieved pH of 8.3 after
adding 112 g/L. The optimum dose for those reagents could be significantly impacted
by reaction time, particle size, solubility, etc. Reaction time should be measured to
identify the optimal dosage for limestone reagents, according to Potgieter-Vermaak et
al. (2005). A minimum dosage of 10g/L limestone with 120 minutes contact time was
required to reach a pH of 5.5, 100g/L with 30 minutes of contact time. These reagents
will be investigated further in the neutralisation rate part of the experiment (section
4.5).

Page 7

4.3 Fly ash Results

Due to a low concentration of CaO, fly ash was unable to raise the pH to the required
level. Even with a high dosage (over 750 g/L) fly ash was incapable of raising the pH
to 5.

4.4 Dense Soda Ash Results

Dense Soda ash was highly soluble with 20 g/L of dense soda ash raising the pH value
to 8.5 which was higher than the theoretical calculation values.

Page 8

Figure 1

pH response from neutralization of Brukunga acid water with various reagents

13.00
12.50
12.00
11.50
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50

pH

7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150

reagent mass (g/L)

Quicklime(ABC)

Hydratelime (ABC)

Aglime (Penrice

Nutralime (Penrice)

Calsilt (Penrice)

Calfine (ABC)

Flyash(ABC)

Surfine lime(Agricola)

Cal lime(Agricola)

Target pH

Dense Soda Ash (ABC)

AMD acidity=
15000 mg
CaCO3/L

4.5 Neutralisation Rate

The neutralisation reaction rate was measured by determining the change in pH over
time for a fixed dosage of the reagent. A summary of the results shown in Figure 4
illustrates the dependence of pH on the reaction time. The dosage to be added was
determined by the neutralisation titration experiment described previously in Chapter
4.0. In order to examine the best neutralisation rate both a large dosage (80-100 g/L)
and a low dosage (10-30 g/L) were applied. The results are in Table 4.
Table 4 Results for Neutralisation Rate Testing
No

Supplier

Penrice

Product

Aglime

Dosage

80 g/L
20 g/L

Penrice

Nutrilime grits

100g/L
20 g/L

Penrice

Calsilt

4
5
6
7
8

Penrice
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC

Dense soda ash

Calfines
Quick lime
Fly ash
Hydrated lime

Agricola

Superfine lime

100g/L
30 g/L
30g/L
30g/L
16g/L
600 g/L
18.5g/L
100g/L
30g/L

10

Agricola

Fine cal lime

100g/L
30 g/L

Results
Achieved pH>5.5 after 30 min, achieved
best pH=6.5 after 90 min.
2 hours, approach pH 4.45
Achieved pH>5.5 after 30 min, achieved
best pH=11.26 after 50 min.
3 hours, approach pH 9.99
Achieved pH>5.5 after 48 min, achieved
best pH=7.75 after 111 min.
2 hours 12 mins, approach Ph 5.5
Achieved pH>9.5 in2 mins
Achieved pH>11.5 in2 mins
Achieved pH>11.5 in2 mins
Achieved pH>5.5 after 60 min,
Achieved pH>11.5 in2 mins.
Achieved pH>5.5 after 67 min, pH<6.2
after 2 hours
2 hours, approach pH 6.1
Achieved pH>5.5 after 60 min, pH<6.2
after 2 hours
2 hours, pH approach pH5.93

Hydrated lime, Quick lime, Calfines and Dense soda ash were capable of rapidly
neutralising the acid water and achieving a pH > 9.5. All limestone reagents required
at least 30 minutes to raise the pH to 5.5. Of these, only Nutrilime was capable of
raising the pH to 11 (after 50 min). Calsilt could reach a pH of 7.75 after about 2
hours. Other limestone reagents (Aglime, Super Fine Lime and Fine Cal Lime) were
not able to increase the pH over 6.5.
In order to examine the effects of dosage and contact time on pH, both large and small
dosage of Superfine lime, Fine cal lime, Ag lime, Nutrilime and Calsilt were tested

Page 10

(see Figures 2-1 to 2-5). These figures indicate that a larger dosage of limestone
corresponds to a reduced contact time to reach a given pH value (ie. shortens the
reaction time). It was found that 100 g/L of superfine lime with 15 minutes contact
time can increase pH >5, compared to 30 g/L with 50 minutes contact time to reach
pH >5. Both large and small dosages of limestone are capable of reaching pH 5.5 but
not over 6.5. This result was also observed for Nutrilime, Aglime and Calsilt.
Figure 2-1

Superfine Lime neutralization rate at different dosage

6.5
6
5.5

pH value

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Reation duration
Superfine lime(Agricola): 30g/L

Superfine Lime(Agricola): 100g/L

Page 11

140

Figure 2-2

Fine Cal lime neutralization rate at different dosage

6.5
6
5.5

pH value

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Reation duration
Fine Cal lime(Agricola): 30g/L

Fine Cal Lime(Agricola): 100g/L

Penrice Aglime neutralization rate at different dosage

7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50

pH value

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
0

50

100

150

Reation duration
Penrice Aglime 80g/L

Page 12

Penrice Aglime 20g/L

200

pH value

Penrice Nutrilime neutralization rate at different dosage

12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
0

50

100

150

200

Reation duration
Penrice Nutrilime 100g/L

Penrice Nutrilime 20g/L

Penrice Calsilt neutralization rate at different dosage

8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50

pH value

6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Reation duration
Penrice Calsilt 100g/L

Penrice Calsilt 30 g/L

For limestone based reagents with low neutralising capacity the dosage and
neutralisation rate required to reach pH 5.5 are summarised in Figure 3. For all tested
reagents a higher dosage corresponds to an increased neutralisation rate.

Page 13

Figure 3 Dosage and contact times required to reach a pH of 5.5 after

treatment of the acid mine water
120
Penrice
Aglime

100
Penrice
Nutrilime
grits

Dosage, g/l

80

Agricola
superfine
lime

60

Agricola
Fine Cal
lime

40

20

Penrice
Calsilt

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Reaction time, min

The results obtained for limestone reagents (Figure 4) are consistent with values
reported by Potgieter-Vermaak et al (2005). The efficiency of limestone neutralisation
is strongly influenced by the iron content of the acid water. This is a two stage process,
the first stage is associated with the neutralisation of pure sulphuric acid and the
second stage can be attributed to the increasingly thick layer of ferric hydroxide
precipitate forming on the limestone particles. The second stage is much slower than
the first. This is illustrated by the data in Figure 4, where a slight decrease in pH is
observed after the initial fast increase.

Page 14

Figure 4

Neutralization Rate for 10 reagents

13.00
12.50
Quicklime(ABC): 16g/L

12.00
11.50

Hydratelime(ABC):18.5g/L

11.00
10.50

Aglime(Penrice): 80g/L

10.00
9.50

Nutrilime(Penrice): 100g/L

9.00
8.50

Calsiilt (Penrice): 100g/L

8.00

pH value

7.50
Dense Soda As(Penrice):
30g/L

7.00
6.50

Calfine(ABC):30g/L

6.00
5.50

FlyAsh (ABC): 600g/L

5.00
4.50
4.00

Superfinelime (Agricola)
100g/L

3.50
3.00

Fine Cal lime(Agricola)

100g/L

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Reaction duration (min)

Page 15

AMD
acidity=
7000 mg
CaCO3/L

5. Sludge Settling Experiment

Precipitation by-products of AMD treatment commonly involve the formation of
gypsum sludge and hydroxide precipitates with heavy metals. The residence time of
the treated water, which is dictated by treatment volume and flow, is important for
adequate metal precipitation. The amount of sludge generated by AMD neutralisation
depends primarily on the quantity of water being treated, which in turn determines
how often the sludge must be transported from the treatment plant to the mine site for
storage. The chemical composition of the reagent used in the treatment process will
determine the sludge properties and should provide an estimate of the stability of the
various metal compounds in the sludge.
Ackman (1982) investigated the chemical and physical characteristics of treated AMD
derived sludge and concluded that the physical and chemical properties of the sludge
varied depending on the properties of acid water, the neutralising reagent and the
mechanical mixing or aeration device used during treatment. The most important
factor is the reagents settleability, which includes the settling rate and final sludge
volume. Ackman found that calcium hydroxide and sodium carbonate produced a
granular, dense sludge compared to a more gelatinous, loose sludge generated by
sodium hydroxide and ammonia. The chemical compositions of sludge were generally
composed of hydrated ferrous or ferric oxyhydroxides, gypsum, hydrated aluminium
oxides, calcium carbonate and bicarbonate, with trace amounts of silica, phosphate,
manganese, copper, and zinc.

5.1 Settleability and Sludge Volume

In this experiment, suspended solids were generated from the addition of lime
reagents to 2L of acid water and allowed sufficient time to complete the reaction
without addition of flocculants (polymer). The suspended solids were then poured into
a 1000 mL volumetric cylinder for determination of the settling rate and final sludge
volume (see Figures 5 and 6).
Quicklime, Hydrated lime and Nutrilime produced relatively large volumes of sludge.
The final sludge volume (>95% settled) was observed after 5 hours. Nutrilime and
hydrated lime generated a slower settling sludge than Quicklime, a final sludge

Page 16

volume of 98%-99% was observed after 24 hours of settling. Currently, the treatment
plant uses polymer as a flocculent to assist in sludge settlement.
Most limestone grit was insoluble in acid water. The residual grits were found in the
bottom of buckets for all three reagents. The settling of these reagents was fast as they
largely consisted of insoluble residuals. Aglime achieved a sludge settling volume of
27% (ie. 270mL sludge settled out from 1000mL of reaction mixture) after 5 hours.
Super fine lime achieved a sludge settling volume of 22% after 2 hours.
Fly ash recorded a high final sludge volume of 66% after 3 hours. This high sludge
volume can be attributed to the large dosage (750 g/L) that was added to the acid
water during the neutralisation experiment (which was still incapable of raising pH >
5.5).
Calfines was the only reagent capable of both (i) raising the pH to 11 and (ii)
generating a small volume of sludge without the addition of flocculants (as shown in
Figure 5). The final sludge settling volume of 32% was produced after approximately
5 hours.
Key findings in the experiment:
1. More sludge was produced over time as the pH of the acid water was increased by
reagent addition.
2. The amount of sludge produced as a percentage of the chemical added (termed as
its efficiency) remained the same across all pH ranges for calcium hydroxide, sodium
hydroxide, and sodium carbonate. For some reagents the amount of chemical dosage
changed both settling rate and sludge volume. High and low dosage of Nutrilime
generated significantly different sludge volume and settling rates. Low dosage sludge
had less volume and settled very quickly, while high dosage sludge settled slower
with a larger volume.

Page 17

Sludge volume percetage in treated water

v/v %

Comparison settling rate of low and high dosage

Nutrilime reagent (30 mins)
100
80
Nutrili
me
128g/L

60
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

Reaction time

Dosage: 126 g/L, 24

hour settling

25

30

Dosage: 20 g/L, 0.5

hour settling

3. Sludge volumes were lowest with sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate and
highest with calcium hydroxide after 5 hours of settling.
4. Longer settling time corresponded to greater sludge consolidation.
5. Limestone grits have the fastest settling rate, followed by dense soda ash. Lime has
a very slow settling rate without the addition of polymer.

Page 18

Figure 5 Photos of selected reagents after 24 hour settling experiment

Nutrilime

Quicklime

Figure 6

Dense soda
ash

Aglime

Calfines

Sludge settling curve (fully neutralised acid water)

110

Volume of sludge as % of total volume of treated water

105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Time (min.)
Aglime (Penrice)

Nutrilime(Penrice)

Calsilt

Dense Soda Ash

Calfine

Quicklime

Flyash

Hydratelime

Superfine lime

Page 19

260

280

300

5.2 Surface Water Quality in Settling Experiment

Treated water was kept in a bucket for 10 days, with the pH, EC and TDS analysed
after 3 and 10 days. Results are illustrated in Figures 7-1 to 7-3.

Figure 7-1

Treated water pH value change

13.00
12.50
12.00
11.50
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00

ABC Quicklime

8.50

ABC hydrate lime

8.00

Penrice Aglime

pH value

7.50

Penrice Nutrilime

7.00
6.50

Penrice Calsilt
Penrice Dense Soda Ash

6.00

ABC Calfine

5.50

ABC flyash

5.00
4.50

Agricola Superfine lime

4.00
3.50

Agricola cal fine lime

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
14/02/11

17/02/11

20/02/11

23/02/11

Date

Fly ash experienced a pH value drop from 6 to 3.9. Calsilt pH dropped to 6.8 after 10
days. Agricola cal fine lime increased water pH up to 7 after 10 days. The remaining
reagents experienced a slight increase in pH.

Page 20

Figure 7-2

Treated water EC value change

40000
38000
36000
34000
32000
30000

EC , um

28000

ABC Quicklime

26000

ABC hydrate lime

24000

Penrice Aglime

22000

Penrice Nutrilime
Penrice Calsilt

20000

Penrice Dense Soda Ash

18000

ABC Calfine

16000

ABC flyash

14000

Agricola Superfine lime

Agricola cal fine lime

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
14/02/11

17/02/11

20/02/11

23/02/11

Date

Penrice soda ash recorded the highest EC value due to its solubility. Calsilt was the
second highest, and an increasing trend was observed that might indicate that Calsilt
grit continued to release minerals into the solution over a longer timeframe. A small
change in EC was observed for Quicklime, hydrated lime and Calfines. Agricola
super fine lime and Agricola cal fine lime had the lowest EC values which appeared to
drop slightly over time.

Page 21

Figure 7-3

Treated water TDS value change

42000
40000
38000
36000
34000
32000
30000

ABC Quicklime

28000

ABC hydrate lime

Penrice Aglime

TDS, ppm

26000

Penrice Nutrilime

24000

Penrice Calsilt

22000

Penrice Dense Soda Ash

20000

ABC Calfine

18000

ABC flyash

16000

Agricola Superfine lime

14000

Agricola cal fine lime

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
14/02/11

17/02/11

20/02/11

23/02/11

Date

Addition of contaminants
The next table shows that impurities in the reagents could potentially introduce
contamination to the final treated water quality.
No
1

Supplier
ABC

2
3
4
5
6

ABC
ABC
ABC
Penrice
Penrice

7
8

Penrice
Penrice
Lilydale
(Uninim)

Name
Hydrated lime
Calfines
Quiklime
Fly ash
Calsilt
Aglime
Dense soda
ash
Nutrilime grits

Formula for main component

Ca(OH)2
CaO, MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,
Na2O, K2O
CaO, MgO, SiO2
CaO, SiO2, Al2O3
CaCO3, Mg(OH)2, SiO2, NaCl
Ca(OH)2, MgCO3, SiO2
NaCO3
CaCO3, Ca(OH)2, SiO2
CaO, MgO, SiO2

Quicklime

Page 22

Concern
Na, K, Al

SiO2 , Hg
Na, K, Cl, B
Na
Na

10
11
12

Traralgon
(Uninim)
Lilydale
(Uninim)
Agricola

CaO, MgO, SiO2

Quicklime
CaO, MgO, SiO2
Hydratelime
Superfine lime

CaCO3, MgCO3

Advantages and disadvantages of contamination risk of reagents

Name

Quick
lime

Formula for
main
component
CaO

Hydrated
lime

Ca(OH)2

Calfines

CaO

Nutrilime

CaCO3/CaO

Ag lime
CaCO3
Calsilt
Superfine
lime,
fine
cal
lime

Advantages

Disadvantages

Quick lime neutralisation is a

simple, effective and proven
technique used to treated acid
mine drainage. It normally can
achieve a pH value >9. Most of
metal concentrations (As, Cd,
Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn and Zn) were
removed below expected levels.
Similar treatment results to
Quicklime.
Easier and safer than Quicklime
to operate.
This is the same active
ingredient as Quicklime (see
above)

Aluminium might begin to redissolve if pH is raised > 7.0.

That could account for
relatively high Al
concentrations existing in
treated water when using
quicklime or hydrated lime.
Less effective than quicklime.

See Quicklime.
Lower purity than Quicklime
and may include other
contaminants.
Similar treatment results as Less effective than quicklime
quicklime.
and hydrated lime
Easier and safer than Quicklime
to operate.
Generally, limestone can reach Low pH levels, poor
pH value about 6-6.5, which is performance in removal of all
good for Al(OH)3 and Arsenic other metals ( e.g. pH>10
precipitation. The material is required for Mn removal,
much cheaper than lime pH>7 required for Zinc
products.
removal.

Page 23

6. Slurry preparation
The Brukunga neutralisation process involves the input of dry hydrated lime which is
pre-mixed with water to form a slurry, before adding it to the acid water. AWQCs
report (1995) showed that lime was more efficient when dosed as slurry. In the report,
lime slurry achieved the target pH 8.5 within 40 minutes while solid raw lime took
nearly 3 hours. The addition of lime grit slurry was not successful in raising pH due to
its low solubility and its lack of alkalinity. For lime and limestone, the larger available
surface area of a finer particle size results in a more efficient reaction. Therefore, the
lime and limestone used in AMD neutralisation typically requires particle sizes for
lime or limestone 95% less than 44 microns (or 325 meshes) and fed as a slurry. For
limestone, the particle size reduction is typically undertaken by a grinding process,
which includes a feeder, a ball mill and a hydro cyclone. For lime, particles of CaO
are premixed with water, which results in a chemical reaction called hydration or
lime slaking. Both lime slaking and limestone grinding processes were reviewed as
a part of this report, and a simple experiment was conducted for proposed reagents to
examine if pre-preparation was required for each reagent.

6.1 Quicklime slaking

Quicklime is manufactured by kilning high quality limestone at high temperatures
causing volatilisation of nearly half of the limestones weigh as carbon dioxide. The
reaction is as follows:
CaCO3 (limestone) + Heat CaO (calcium oxide) + CO2 (carbon dioxide)
In most acid water neutralisation applications, lime is used as calcium hydroxide
therefore calcium oxide must be converted to calcium hydroxide. The chemical
formula is:
CaO (calcium oxide) + H2O (water) Ca(OH)2 (calcium hydroxide) + Heat
1 kg of CaO and 0.32 kg of water will produce 1.32 Kg of Ca(OH)2, this is the
minimum water required for chemical reaction, so calcium hydroxide contains 75.7%
CaO and 24.3% H2O. The process of adding water to calcium oxide to produce
calcium hydroxide is referred to as the hydration process or lime slaking.

Page 24

Generally, excess water is used for hydration (/ slaking) ranging from 2 parts
water to 1 part CaO to 6 parts water to 1 part CaO (Hassibi M, 1999). The resultant
hydrate is in a slurry form. The slaking process of quick lime is an exothermic process
releasing a great quantity of heat
EQUIPMENT USED FOR THE SLAKING PROCESS
Based on the review by Hassibi M (1999), there are four types of lime slakers
available:
1. Slurry detention slakers
This is comprised of two chambers, the first chamber is a slaking chamber and the
second chamber is used as a grit removal chamber. The lime slurry flows by gravity
from the first chamber to the second chamber. Cold water is added to the grit chamber
to reduce viscosity allowing the heavier grit to settle to the bottom of the chamber.
The grit is elevated and discharged by a screw.

Figure 8-1. Typical slaker flow pattern (detention type slaker) (Hassibi M, 1999).

Page 25

2. Paste Slakers
In a paste slaker, the hydroxide paste is too heavy to flow by gravity so a pair of
horizontal rotating paddles pushes the paste forward toward the discharge point.
Dilution allows grits to separate by gravity.

Figure 8-2. Typical Paste Slakers (Hassibi M, 1999).

3. Ball mill slakers

Ball mill slakers are generally used where the capacity required is too large for other
types of slakers, zero discharge is allowed at the site or the water available is too high
in sulphates for regular slakers. Ball mill slakers are also used for wet and dry
grinding of limestone grit.

Page 26

Figure 8-3. Typical ball mill Slakers (Hassibi M, 1999).

4. Batch slakers
The batch slaking process uses the desired batch to calculate how much water and
lime is needed to make one batch. Cold water of a predetermined quantity
(volumetrically or gravimetrically) is added to the batch tank. The quicklime is added
in a predetermined quantity (volumetrically or gravimetrically) to the batch tank. The
lime and water are mixed and agitated until the mixtures temperature reaches a
temperature between 77C to 82 C. Once the desired temperature is reached, the
resultant slurry is dumped into a second tank for use or grit removal

Page 27

Figure 8-4. Typical batch Slakers (Hassibi M, 1999).

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SLAKING PROCESS
The most important single factor that affects the process efficiency of a slaking
system is the specific surface area of calcium hydroxide particles. The larger the
specific surface area of the lime particles, the more surface is available for reaction.
The following factors affect slaking efficiency by affecting the specific surface of the
calcium hydroxide, directly or indirectly (Hassibi M, 1999):
A. Type of limestone used in calcination
B. Calcination process to manufacture CaO
C. Slaking temperature
D. Lime to water ratio
E. Degree of agitation during slaking
F. Viscosity of slurry
G. Slaking time
H. Water chemistry
I. Air slaking

Page 28

COMPARISON OF FOUR TYPES OF SLAKING PROCESS

Table 5. Comparison of 4 types of slakers (Hassibi M, 1999, Hassibi, 2003).

Slakers
(1)
Detention
slakers

Capacity
150 lb/hr-15
tons/hr
Top
limitation: 25
tons/hr

Waterlime
ratio
3.3: 1
to 5:1

Available
lime in slurry

Particle size
of lime

Most
impurities are
removed by
the grit
removal
system, but top
size limited to
25 tons per
hour

very fine
particles
ranging in
size 90% less
than 20
microns,
100% less
than 42
microns.

Page 29

Reactivity
Very high
due to fine
particle
size
achieved
by
chemical
reaction of
lime and
water.

Grit Separation
method and
disposal
This method is
very simple,
trouble-free and
requires very
little
maintenance.

Preventative
maintenance

Safety

Daily
Only -hour per day to
inspect the slaker inlet
and inside, and hose
down of build-up with
high-pressure water.
Also cleaning dust and
steam removal system.
Weekly
None if daily routine is
done properly.
Monthly
None if daily routine is
done properly.
Six Month
Drain slaking and grit
removal chamber and
check for any abnormal
wear

Three
independent
control loops
monitor the
operation of the
slaker and act as
back-up if one
loop fails. A
safety door latch
and proximity
switches prevent
opening access
doors while the
slaker is running.

Initial
investment and
equipment life
Initial investment
is relatively low
compared to the
Ball Mill slakers.
Its price is about
one quarter of the
cost of a mill
system of the
same capacity.
With proper
maintenance, the
life expectancy is
20 years.

Slakers
(2)
Paste Slakers

Capacity
1000lb/hr 8000lb/hr
Top
limitation:
10000 lb/hr

Waterlime
ratio
2.5:1

Available
lime in slurry

Particle size
of lime

Similar to
Detention
slakers. Most
grit and
impurities are
removed by
the grit
removal
system.

Due to small
physical size,
it would be
suitable for
some retrofits where space is
very limited
and final slurry
quality is not
critical. Due to
the lack of
temperature
control, the
slaker
temperature
varies. Also,
hot spots
develop
causing
agglomeration
of fine
particles. Final
product is not
uniform.

Page 30

Reactivity
Medium to
high reactivity.

Grit
Separation
method
and
disposal
This
method of
grit removal
is a simple
and
compact
design,
maximum
slurry
concentrati
on is 15%.

Preventative
maintenance
Daily:
When the unit is operated
in Batch mode, at the end
of each batch the paste
must be thinned to slurry
by adding water. This
thinning will result in
larger grit to settle at the
bottom and, during the
next batch
run, rub against the paddle
shaft and cause erratic
operation of the torque
valve.
Weekly:
Must empty large grit
accumulated at the bottom
of
the slaker by draining and
flushing.
Six Month
Torque water valve needs
adjustment every six
months or so to keep the
paste consistency correct

Safety
No major
safety issues
other than the
fact that the
slaker access
doors do not
have any
provision for
locking.

Initial
investment and
equipment life
Initial investment
is relatively low
similar to
detention slakers.
With proper
maintenance, 20
years.

Slakers
(3)
Ball mill
slakers

Capacity
1000lb/hr -50
tons/hr

Waterlime
ratio
N.A.

Sizes less
than1000
lb/hr per hour
not available.

(40
Batch slakers

<2000lb per
batch.
Limited
capacities are
available.
Higher cost
than
continuous
slakers.
Generally
used with
pulverized
quicklime.
Grit removal
not readily
available.

< 2.5:1

Available
lime in slurry

Particle size
of lime

Final product
contains 5% to
10% inert grit.
Generally no
temperature
control used
for process,
therefore,
slurry particle
surfaces are
not uniform.

Water with
high sulphate
or sulphite
content can be
used for
slaking.

The quality of
hydrate is high
with fine
particles. No
grit removal is
required.

N.A.

Approximately
5% to 10% of
total produced
slurry is inert
grit. Higher
raw material
cost for
pulverized
quicklime in
some areas.

Page 31

Reactivity
100%

Particle size of
hydrate is
coarse
compared to
Detention,
Paste or Batch
slaker.

Very high with

particles of
high surface
areas.

Grit
Separation
method and
disposal
Generally
none. In some
cases, a
hydrocyclone
is
used for
separation of
coarse grit. In
this case, the
final particle
size of grit
carried in the
slurry will be
finer than
other types of
slakers.
Typically not
used. If
required, it can
be added by
the addition of
a tank and a
vibratory
screen
separator. In
this case, the
slaker must be
elevated
approximately
10 to allow
gravity feed.

Preventative
maintenance

Safety

The mill lining wear

must be checked once a
year and replaced as
need.

Generally,
mills are safe.
Sudden steam
release is
minimal.

Very little required.

Monthly Inspection of
slaker inside for buildup and cleaning
by high pressure water.

Safest of all
slakers with
minimal
attention.

Initial
investment and
equipment life
Initial investment
for this type of
slaker is very
high:
Mill cost three
to four times of a
Detention slaker.
Space
requirements five
to six times of a
Detention slaker.
Foundation cost
is extremely
expensive.
With proper
maintenance and
upkeep, 25 30
years
Very low, and
long life cycle

6.2 Limestone Grinding

Figure 9 shows a typical process flow diagram of a limestone grinding system. The
limestone is grinded by a ball mill or other special grinding machine. Other grinding
methods are similar (i.e. a ball mill slaking system) which means relatively high initial
investment.
Figure 9. Sketch for typical grinding system

6.3 Slurry Experiment

This experiment was designed to examine the slurry forming process and examine if
pre-preparation was required for each reagent. To aid the investigation, all proposed
reagents were mixed with mains water (pH=8) at different water-to-solid ratios (9:1 to
1:1) in 20 L buckets and mechanically stirred (rpm 70-100) for 2 minutes. The
characteristics of slurry was examined and recorded.

Page 32

SPECIFIC GRAVITY (SG)

The density (and specific gravity, SG) of the slurry is determined by measuring the
mass of slurry within a 100 mL measuring cylinder. Specific gravity measurements of
lime slurries have been used as a proxy measurement of alkali concentration (e.g. in
terms of wt% CaCO3). This type of theoretical relationship (which could be developed
for each specific alkali) allows alkali concentration to be identified from a table, or
chart, relating lime slurry specific gravity to alkali concentration. For Hydrated lime,
the lime SG vs. solid Ca(OH)2 concentration table (Appendix B Table B, US EPA
1983) can be used to determine an approximate solid lime (as Ca(OH)2) concentration
in slurry form for lime reagents. Figure 10 compares estimated wt% Ca(OH)2
concentrations for Hydrated lime (ABC) and Quicklime (ABC) at different water-tosolid ratios.

Approx.% solids lime (Ca(OH)2 ,%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

Quicklime
(ABC)

20.0%

Hydrateli
me
(ABC)

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

Water-to-solid ratio
0.0%

9:1

4:1

2.3:1

Quicklime(ABC)

3.3%

11.5%

30.8%

Hydratelime (ABC)

8.6%

15.3%

24.2%

Figure
10 1 Approx. solid concentration in Hydrate lime and Quicklime slurry
Figure

Page 33

TEMPERATURE
During slurry preparation for three reagents (Quicklime, Calfines and Dense Soda
Ash), significant temperature increases where experienced. Reaction temperature
versus time for these reagents is shown in Figure 11. Quicklime and Calfines both
contain CaO, which reacts with water to release heat. The reactivity of Quicklime is
characterized by the time required for the reaction temperature to reach a specific
value. Both Quicklime and Calfines are capable of lifting temperature above 50oC.
Quicklime increased temperature much more quickly with a higher reactivity than
Calfines. In addition, hot steam generation should be considered carefully when
designing a feeding system or choosing an appropriate slaker.
Figure 11

Page 34

DENSITY
For ease of operation, 100 mL volumetric cylinders were used to determine the mass
and volume of slurry mixtures. The density was calculated by the following formula:
Slurry density= Slurry mass / Slurry volume (g/mL).
A comparison of slurry densities for 10 reagents at different water-to-solid ratio is
shown in Figure 12. This reflects the ability of the various reagents to be suspended in
a slurry mix (with progressive addition of solids to an initial volume of water),
however this does not reflect the respective neutralisation capacity of each mixture.
As reagents vary in their effectiveness and purity, a particular slurry density value will
not equate to the same neutralisation capacity across different reagents. A target slurry
density of around 35wt% (as CaCO3) is seen as desirable for the practical operation
of the Brukunga acid neutralisation plant (P Grindley, pers. comm. Nov 2010).
Dense soda ash and fly ash were capable of achieving the highest slurry densities,
followed by the lime products: Hydrated lime, Quicklime and Calfines. Fine cal
limestone and Superfine lime achieved a medium slurry density. The other limestone
grits (Aglime, Nutrilime, Calsilt and Fine Cal lime) all have relatively low density
slurry and leave large residuals in the bucket. Higher density slurries provide greater
alkali content, but may require more energy consumption for pumping.
RESIDUALS
Large quantities of residual solids (not able to be suspended in the slurry mixture)
were found for most limestone products. Over 75% of Aglime, Nutrilime, Calsilt and
Fine cal lime remained as insoluble residuals after mixing with water at a 1:1 water
solid ratio (50wt%). These quantities of residual solids typically built up progressively
with reagent addition but were only measured following the final addition. Compared
toother limestone products, Superfine lime performed well, with only approximately
25% remaining as an insoluble residual, indicating that the finer particle size was a
benefit to the slurry forming process.
Fewer additions (and density measurements) were conducted for Quicklime, Hydrated
lime and Calfines as these were able to produce denser (and greater neutralisation

Page 35

capacity) mixtures with less addition of solids, compared to many of the other
reagents. Residuals were rarely found in limes - only Cafines with 5% residual after
mixing with water at ration 2.3:1.

Page 36

Density of slurry, g/mL

Figure 12

Slurry de nsity for 10 re age nts at diffe re nt wate r-to-soild we ight ratio

1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9

9:1

4:1

2.3:1

1.5:1

1:1

Wate r-to-solid we ight ratio

Penrice Aglime
Quicklime(ABC)

Penrice nutrilime
Flyash(ABC)

Page 37

Penrice Calsilt
Hydrate lime(ABC)

Penrice Dense Soda Ash

Superf ine lime (Agricola)

Calf ine(ABC)
Fine Cal lime

Residuals in slurry preparation

Figure 13

wt% non-slurried reagent

Ag Lime

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Nutrilime
Calsilt
Dense Soda Ash
Calfines
Quicklime
Fly Ash
Hydrated Lime
Surperfine lime
Fine Cal lime

10

20

30

40

50

water-to-solid ratio (wt% reagent added)

Page 38

60

7. Results summary and Cost evaluation

Table 6 Summary for neutralisation capacity and chemical cost

No

Supplier

Penrice

Penrice

Penrice

Reagent name

Aglime

nutrilime grits

CALSILT*

Reagent dosage

Final treatment

(g/L AMD treated

pH (max. 2 hours)

Sludge volume

Chemical cost,

percentage in

per tonne acid

water after settling

suspensions after

water acidity=

(48 hours)

treatment ( 5 hour

7000

settling)

mgCaCO3/L

pH of superatant
Reaction time

80

5.38

1 hour 28 mins

5.95

27% (v/v)

20

4.45

2 hour

N.A.

N.A.

86

12.05

49 mins

11.98

100% (v/v)

20

9.99

2 hour 28 mins

N.A.

N.A.

112

7.67

1 hour

6.60

31% (v/v)

30

5.5

2 hour 12 mins

N.A.

N.A.

<2 mins

9.63

47% (v/v)

Penrice

ABC

Dense soda
ash
CALFINES*

ABC

Quiklime

16

11.80

<2 mins

11.91

94 % (v/v)

ABC

Fly ash*

750

6.70

1 hour 49 mins

5.40

66% (v/v)

ABC

Hydrated lime

18

11.84

<2 mins

11.80

100% (v/v)

128

6.15

1 hour 56 mins

6.50

22 % (v/v)

30

6.10

2 hours

N.A.

N.A.

90

5.82

2 hours

6.05

N.A.

Agricola

Superfine lime

20

9.65

26

11.85

<2 mins

11.84

40% (v/v)

$3.12
$0.78
$2.70
$0.54
$2.10
$0.63
$11.34
$2.31
$4.99
$124.21
$5.99
$4.95
$1.49

$5.50
6.15
1 hour 56 mins
N.A.
N.A.
30
$1.65
* These products are considered waste or secondary products and no warrantee is made by the supplier as to their availability or product quality and/or consistency. Price or
technical enquiries should be made with the supplier in the first instance. Note: Chemical cost is based on simply bucket experiment in section 4. For limestone reagents, chemcial
cost are calculated both low dosage and high dosage, which could also depend on reaction time and wanted pH
10

Agricola

Fine cal lime

Page 39

Alkali (limestone) cost and time for approaching pH=5.5 with high dosage
(per tonne acid water; acidity= 7000 mg CaCO3/L)

120

$12.00

100

$10.00

Alkali cost

Retention time for approaching pH=5.5

90
80

$8.00

70
60

$6.00

50
40

$4.00

30

Retention time for pH=5.5

Alkali cost per tonne acid water ($/t)

110

20

$2.00

10
0

$0.00
Penrice Aglime,
80g/L

Penrice nutrilime
grits, 100g/L

Penrice CALSILT, Agricola-Superfine Agricola-Fine cal

100g/L
lime, 100g/L
lime, 100g/L

Alkali (limestone) cost and time for approaching pH=5.5 with low dosage
(per tonne acid water; acidity= 7000 mg CaCO3/L)
$12.00

150

Retention time for approaching pH=5.5

140
130

$10.00

120
110
100

$8.00

90
80

$6.00

70
60
50

$4.00

40
30

$2.00

20
10
0

$0.00
Penrice Aglime, 80g/L Penrice nutrilime grits, Penrice CALSILT, 100g/L Agricola-Superfine lime,
100g/L
100g/L

Page 40

Retention time for pH=5.5

Alkali cost per tonne acid water ($/t)

Alkali cost

Alkali cost per tonne acid water

(acidity= 7000 mg CaCO3/L)
$12.00

13.00
11.00

$10.00

Fi

10.00
9.00

$8.00

Alkali cost

l H

Final pH value

8.00

l
7.00

$6.00

(f ll

6.00
5.00

$4.00

4.00
3.00

li d

Alkali cost per tonne acid water ($/t)

12.00

$2.00

2.00
1.00

$0.00

0.00
Penrice Dense soda
ash

ABC-CALFINES

ABC-Quiklime

ABC-Hydrated lime

Table 7 Summary for slurry preparation and initial investment evaluation

Slarking or

Initial Investment for slaking

grinding process

or grinding equipment

Aglime

Yes

High

Penrice

nutrilime grits

Yes

High

Penrice

Yes

High

Penrice

CALSILT
Dense soda
ash

No

Not sure

ABC

CALFINES

Yes

ABC

Quiklime

Yes

ABC

Fly ash

No

ABC

Hydrated lime

No

Agricola

Superfine lime

No

10

Agricola

Fine cal lime

Yes

High

No

Supplier

Reagent name

Penrice

If choose batch slaker, Low

If choose other slaker, High
If choose batch slaker, Low

Page 41

If choose other slaker, High

8. Recommendations
1. Quicklime is cheaper than hydrated lime and a batch mode operation (section 6.3)
of lime slaking might be suitable for the current treatment plant. Treated water quality
may be similar to hydrated lime, owing to the high purity of CaO in Quicklime.
2. Based on these preliminary tests, Calfines is the most cost-efficient of all reagents
(at a third the chemical cost of Hydrated lime and half the cost of quicklime). Calfines
can be used by the current treatment plant by a batch slaking process. The treated
water quality may be of some concern. Low sludge volumes and a short settling time
show that Calfines derived sludge is different to hydrated lime and quicklime derived
sludge. Further investigations are recommended.
3. Limestone can be used in pre-treatment processes such as anoxic limestone drains,
open limestone channels or a two-stage neutralisation. Nutrilime is the most costefficient limestone reagent; it can raise pH value up to 11. After Calsilt (pH 6.6-7), the
other limestone reagents are not capable to raise pH above 6.5. A grinding system is
required for most limestone (except superfine lime).
The concept of the two-step neutralisation process is to remove AMD constituents
that form hydroxides in low solubility (constituents like, Fe3+, Al, Si, As, etc.).
Raising the pH to approximately 5 is the first neutralisation step, precipitating
remaining heavy metals is the second neutralisation step. Limestone is usually used as
the first step reagent and lime as the second step reagent. In addition, reagents could
generate industrially useful material. Herrera et al. utilized two-step neutralisation:
limestone for first step neutralisation and sodium hydroxide for second neutralisation
to generate ferrite compounds (Herrera S, Uchiyama et al. 2007).

Page 42

9. Reference
ASTM C25 - 06 Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Limestone,
Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime.

Ackman, T. 1982. Sludge disposal from acid mine drainage treatment. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Report of Invest. 8672, Pittsburgh, PA.

E.F. Hively, Practical Lime Slaking, Alis Mineral System Grinding Division.

Hassibi M, 1999 An overview of lime slaking and Factors that affect the process,
Chemco Systems, L.P. http://www.agtgroup.cl/mining/

Hassibi M, 2003 A Review Of Lime Slakers And Their Advantages And

Disadvantages, Chemco Systems, L.P. http://www.agtgroup.cl/mining/

Hassibi M, 2005 A New Approach for Particle Size Reduction in Lime Slaking and
Wet Limestone Grinding, Chemco Systems, L.P. http://www.agtgroup.cl/mining/

Herrera S, P., H. Uchiyama, et al. (2007). "Acid mine drainage treatment through a
two-step neutralisation ferrite-formation process in northern Japan: Physical and
chemical characterization of the sludge." Minerals Engineering 20(14): 1309-1314.
Skousen, J., K. Politan, T. Hilton, and A. Meek. 1990. Acid mine drainage treatment
systems: chemicals and costs. Green Lands 20(4): 31-37.

US EPA, 1983. Design Manual: Neutralisation of Acid Mine Drainage, US EPA

Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Report EPA-600/2-83-001, Cincinnati
OH

Page 43