XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 635
UF
SF
Type 1
Sludge
7 m3/h
Acid mine drainage
1,000 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO
4
Permeate
600 m3/h
69 mg/L SO4
Sludge +Concentrate
Filtrated
900 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO
4
900 m3/h
1,000 mg/L SO4
Treated Water
RO HDS
SF
Type 2
400 m3/h
5,897 mg/L SO4
93 m3/h
500 mg/L SO
4
393 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO4
Figure 6. Innovative technological arrangement for the treatment of acidic mine water
HDS
SF
Tipo 1
Sludge
7 m3/h
Permeate
603 m3/h
69 mg/L SO
4
Sludge +Concentrate
1,005 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
900 m3/h
1,000 mg/L SO
4
Treated Water
UF RO
SF
Tipo 2
1,402 m3/h
3,333 mg/L SO
4
93 m3/h
500 mg/L SO4
Pond for
gypsum
estabilization
402 m3/h
5,653 mg/L SO4
905 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
390 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
Acid mine drainage
1,000 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO4
Figure 7. Conventional technological arrangement for the treatment of acidic mine water
Table 2. Main comparative advantages
Innovative Arrangement Conventional Arrangement
Capex:
• Gypsum stabilization system is not required
• 30% lower HDS processing capacity
Capex:
• Able to withstand higher levels of turbidity in the feed solution.
• Lower concentrations of metals to be treated in the RO, which
represents a lower concentration of metals in the permeate.
• Able to process higher concentrations of sulfates and calcium in
the feed solution.
• Less variability in feed solution to UF
Opex:
• Low saturation of RO membranes, requiring less washing
and fewer membrane replacements
• Increased recovery in the RO process
• Antiscalant reagents are not required
Opex:
• No advantage found
UF
SF
Type 1
Sludge
7 m3/h
Acid mine drainage
1,000 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO
4
Permeate
600 m3/h
69 mg/L SO4
Sludge +Concentrate
Filtrated
900 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO
4
900 m3/h
1,000 mg/L SO4
Treated Water
RO HDS
SF
Type 2
400 m3/h
5,897 mg/L SO4
93 m3/h
500 mg/L SO
4
393 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO4
Figure 6. Innovative technological arrangement for the treatment of acidic mine water
HDS
SF
Tipo 1
Sludge
7 m3/h
Permeate
603 m3/h
69 mg/L SO
4
Sludge +Concentrate
1,005 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
900 m3/h
1,000 mg/L SO
4
Treated Water
UF RO
SF
Tipo 2
1,402 m3/h
3,333 mg/L SO
4
93 m3/h
500 mg/L SO4
Pond for
gypsum
estabilization
402 m3/h
5,653 mg/L SO4
905 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
390 m3/h
2,300 mg/L SO
4
Acid mine drainage
1,000 m3/h
2,400 mg/L SO4
Figure 7. Conventional technological arrangement for the treatment of acidic mine water
Table 2. Main comparative advantages
Innovative Arrangement Conventional Arrangement
Capex:
• Gypsum stabilization system is not required
• 30% lower HDS processing capacity
Capex:
• Able to withstand higher levels of turbidity in the feed solution.
• Lower concentrations of metals to be treated in the RO, which
represents a lower concentration of metals in the permeate.
• Able to process higher concentrations of sulfates and calcium in
the feed solution.
• Less variability in feed solution to UF
Opex:
• Low saturation of RO membranes, requiring less washing
and fewer membrane replacements
• Increased recovery in the RO process
• Antiscalant reagents are not required
Opex:
• No advantage found