The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical review on remediation, reuse, and resource recovery from acid mine drainage
Abstract
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a global environmental issue. Conventionally, a number of active and passive remediation approaches are applied to treat and manage AMD. Case studies on remediation approaches applied in actual mining sites such as lime neutralization, bioremediation, wetlands and permeable reactive barriers provide an outlook on actual long-term implications of AMD remediation. Hence, in spite of available remediation approaches, AMD treatment remains a challenge. The need for sustainable AMD treatment approaches has led to much focus on water reuse and resource recovery. This review underscores (i) characteristics and implication of AMD, (ii) remediation approaches in mining sites, (iii) alternative treatment technologies for water reuse, and (iv) resource recovery. Specifically, the role of membrane processes and alternative treatment technologies to produce water for reuse from AMD is highlighted. Although membrane processes are favorable for water reuse, they cannot achieve resource recovery, specifically selective valuable metal recovery. The approach of integrated membrane and conventional treatment processes are especially promising for attaining both water reuse and recovery of resources such as sulfuric acid, metals and rare earth elements. Overall, this review provides insights in establishing reuse and resource recovery as the holistic approach towards sustainable AMD treatment. Finally, integrated technologies that deserve in depth future exploration is highlighted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A critical review on solvent extraction of rare earths from aqueous solutions
Xie, F., Zhang, T. A., Dreisinger, D., & Doyle, F. (2014) · Minerals Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.10.021 · Cited by 1,444
Acid Mine Drainage Control and Treatment
Skousen, J. G., Sexstone, A., & Ziemkiewicz, P. F. (2000) · Agronomy Monographs · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr41.c6 · Cited by 273
Cited by
Acid mine drainage from coal mining in the United States – An overview
Acharya, B. S., & Kharel, G. (2020) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125061 · Cited by 323
Removal of Copper Ions from Wastewater: A Review
Liu, Y., Wang, H., Cui, Y., & Chen, N. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20053885 · Cited by 283
Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation
Azadi, M., Northey, S. A., Ali, S. H., & Edraki, M. (2020) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0531-3 · Cited by 261
Ahmad, N. N. R., Ang, W. L., Teow, Y. H., Mohammad, A. W., & Hilal, N. (2022) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102478 · Cited by 188
Miller, K. D., Bentley, M. J., Ryan, J. N., Linden, K. G., Larison, C., Kienzle, B. A., Katz, L. E., Wilson, A. M., Cox, J. T., Kurup, P., et al. (2022) · ACS ES&T Engineering · doi:10.1021/acsestengg.1c00244 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Naidu, G., Ryu, S., Thiruvenkatachari, R., Choi, Y., Jeong, S., & Vigneswaran, S.
- Venue
- Environmental Pollution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 247
- Pages
- 1110-1124
- ISSN
- 0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2912834130
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review on remediation, reuse, and resource recovery from acid mine drainage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.085
- The paper
- Naidu, G., Ryu, S., Thiruvenkatachari, R., Choi, Y., Jeong, S., & Vigneswaran, S. (2019). A critical review on remediation, reuse, and resource recovery from acid mine drainage. Environmental Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.085
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.