Ammonia Removal from Mining Wastewater by Ion-Exchange Regenerated by Chlorine Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mining industry is a significant contributor to the Canadian economy. However, the mining activities can be detrimental to the environment due to the release of pollutants. Ammonia is one of the noxious and toxic contaminants associated with mining, ammonia contamination is created by the oxidizing agent in explosives. The explosives impacted mining wastewater (EIMWW) usually contains ammonia and other metal ions. The ammonia in EIMWW could harm the aquatic environment by the depletion of oxygen and its lethal toxicity to aquatic organisms. Before release to environment, EIMWW needs to be treated with an easy-to-operate method for ammonia removal at the remote mining sites. Ion-exchange (IE) with zeolite is an effective method for ammonia removal that is easy-to-operate, is not significantly impacted by cold temperature or toxicity effects. However, the traditional IE regeneration approach of using high concentration NaCl solutions creates a secondary polluting stream. Chlorine regeneration of ammonia-loaded zeolite appears to be a promising option, an evaluation of this option is the main topic of this thesis. This thesis includes three initiatives. The first is a set of multi-cycle batch loading-regeneration tests to assess the viability of ammonia removal with a commercial zeolite (SIR-600) for the treatment of a synthetic EIMWW (containing total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), K, and Ca) and to examine the performance of different ion-exchange regeneration solutions. The long-term TAN uptake of SIR-600 regenerated using a NaOCl (100 mg free Cl2/L) solution was 0.24 meq/g, which was approximately 20% lower than that after a NaCl regeneration. However, chlorine regeneration is promising because the selectivity of SIR-600 for TAN over Ca and K increased after the chlorine regeneration. To simulate recycling of the NaOCl regenerants, K and Ca were added to the NaOCl solution, it did not substantially affect the subsequent SIR-600’s ion uptake. This initiative represents a significant contribution since the earlier studies into chlorine regeneration did not investigate the impact of competing ions. The second initiative addressed concerns regarding the long-term integrity of SIR-600 arising from its exposure to high chlorine concentrations during the regeneration. The five-week long chlorine batch exposure tests with solutions of up to 1000 mg free Cl2/L showed that chlorine exposure did not significantly affect the SIR-600’s characteristics in terms of particle size distribution, surface area, FTIR spectra and ion uptake. Thus, SIR-600 has the potential for long-term use in field applications. The final initiative evaluated the feasibility of chlorine regeneration for continuous flow IE column systems used for ammonia removal from a synthetic EIMWW. Continuous flow column systems are important because these are the standard IE units used in full-scale applications. Multi-cycle column loading-regeneration tests were performed to compare the zeolite performance using a NaOCl (1000 ppm as free Cl2) solution with that using a 5% NaCl regeneration. The influence of loading duration was also assessed. The use of 6-hr loading cycles were shown to be preferable to 23-hr loading cycles because it had lower effluent concentrations and they could achieve higher overall TAN mass removals per unit time. After three operational cycles, the SIR-600 had similar TAN uptake performances (0.21 meq/g Vs. 0.21 meq/g) after NaOCl regeneration and after salt (NaCl) regeneration. This is in contrast to the lower TAN uptakes for the NaOCl regeneration in the batch tests, this indicates that batch tests are not always representative of full-scale applications. Compared to NaCl regenerated SIR-600, SIR-600 after NaOCl regeneration had a higher preference for TAN over Ca and K, which makes this type of regeneration very promising. Its only apparent limitation is that the NaOCl regeneration required a longer duration. During the NaOCl regeneration, the main mechanism appears to be the oxidation of ammonia to nitrogen gas and hydrogen ions, however the Na in the NaOCl solution also seems to have a role in the regeneration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".