Cited by 56Mine drainage and remediation techniquesMetal Extraction and BioleachingOdor and Emission Control Technologies

Microbiology and geochemistry of mine tailings amended with organic carbon for passive treatment of pore water

Lindsay, Matthew B. J., Wakeman, Kathryn D., Rowe, Owen F., Grail, Barry M., Ptacek, Carol J., Blowes, David W., Johnson, D. Barrie·2011·Geomicrobiology Journal

Abstract

A field-scale experiment was conducted to evaluate organic carbon amendment of mine tailings as a technique for pore water and drainage treatment. Six test cells were constructed by amending sulfide- and carbonate- rich tailings with varied mixtures of peat, spent-brewing grain and municipal biosolids. Samples were collected for microbial, geochemical and mineralogical analysis approximately three years after commencing this experiment. Test cells amended with spent-brewing grain promoted sulfate reduction and effective removal of sulfate and metal(loid)s. The addition of municipal biosolids did not sustain enhanced sulfidogenesis after three years, and peat was an ineffective source of organic carbon. Terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism revealed that test cells which supported sulfidogenesis exhibited the greatest microbial diversity. Indigenous bacteria identified using molecular and cultivation analyses were found to be related to Cellulomonas, Thiobacillus, Bacteroides, Paludibacter and Desulfovibrio, which was the only sulfate-reducing bacterial (SRB) isolated. The results demonstrate that mixtures of solid organic materials which supported complex anaerobic microbial communities, including sulfate- reducing bacteria, were most effective in promoting pore-water treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01490451.2010.493570

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Use of peat, spent brewing grain, and municipal biosolids generated alkalinities of about 1000-2000 mg CaCO3/L with δ13C values below -20‰, indicating that dissolved inorganic carbon was supplied by oxidation of organics.

    “Use of peat, spent brewing grain, and municipal biosolids generated alkalinities of ~1000-2000 mg CaCO 3 /L with δ 13 C values (<-20‰) indicating that dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) was supplied by oxidation of organics [92,93].”

    From Strategizing carbon-neutral mines: A case for pilot projects (2014) · cites this paper as [93]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindsay, M. B. J., Wakeman, K. D., Rowe, O. F., Grail, B. M., Ptacek, C. J., Blowes, D. W., & Johnson, D. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Venue
Geomicrobiology Journal
Published
2011-03-21
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
229-241
ISSN
  • 0149-0451 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0529
OpenAlex
W2141799704
Cited by
56
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Geomicrobiology Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Mine drainage and remediation techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Metal Extraction and Bioleaching
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Process Chemistry and Technology › Odor and Emission Control Technologies
Keywords
mine tailings, organic carbon amendment, passive treatment, sulfate reduction, sulfidogenesis, sulfate removal, municipal biosolids, peat, sulfate-reducing bacteria, Thiobacillus, Cellulomonas, Bacteroides, microbial diversity, anaerobic microbial communities, tailings reclamation

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