Cited by 9Environmental Impact and SustainabilityWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesMine drainage and remediation techniques

Water footprint for mining process: A proposed method to improve water management in mining operations

Open access
Rodríguez, Jorge E., Razo, Israel, Lázaro, Isabel·2023·Cleaner and Responsible Consumption

Abstract

The water footprint assessment for many products or processes has gained relevance; however, there are only a few aimed at the mining and metallurgy sector. The present study seeks to contribute a methodology to improve water footprint (WF) assessment in mining. The water footprint for the mining process (WFMP) method incorporates aspects that strengthen the Green WF (GreenWF), Blue WF (BWF) and Gray WF (GWF) quantification. The WFMP was applied in two study cases: 1) silver-gold heap leaching (SGHL) and 2) copper sulfide froth flotation (CSFF). The method proposed separating the main infrastructure and activities of the mine sites into modules, which can be assessed individually to obtain the water inventory by water type (green, blue or gray). The adaptation of this water classification in conjunction with a full flow set up module definition helps identifying the critical spots of the mining processes which enables taking actions aimed at minimizing water consumption and hence a better water management. A feature of mining processes is the vulnerability to the effect of the climate factors and the potential water gain/loss to process that can be monitored more precisely using daily data aimed to improve the use of water. The total WF for the SGHL process was 0.18 m3/t, where 0.13 m3/t corresponds to GreenWF and 0.04 m3/t to BWF. For the CSFF process, the WF was 0.26 m3/t, the GreenWF was 0.14 m3/t, and the BWF was 0.12 m3/t. Calculations of the GWF were not included as the processes studied were designed as zero liquid discharge. It was found that enabling changes in parameters that are dynamic contributes to obtain a more precise WF indicator.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100094

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodríguez, J. E., Razo, I., & Lázaro, I.
Affiliations
Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (MX)
Corresponding author
Rodríguez, Jorge E.
Venue
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
8
Pages
100094
ISSN
2666-7843 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311460162
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cleaner and Responsible Consumption (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (297690)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Mine drainage and remediation techniques
Keywords
water footprint, mining, water management, green water footprint, blue water footprint, grey water footprint, heap leaching, froth flotation, copper sulfide, water classification, water inventory, zero liquid discharge, climate change vulnerability, water consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review