HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lamminen, M. Articles by Traina, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lamminen, M. Articles by Traina, S. J. Agricola Articles by Lamminen, M. Articles by Traina, S. J. Related Collections Water Quality Heavy Metals Water Pollution Industrial Waste

Effect of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) By-Product on Water Quality at an Underground Coal Mine

^a Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
^b Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
^c Environmental Science Graduate Program, The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
^d Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210

View larger version (42K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (A) Site location of the Roberts–Dawson mine. (B) Each ground water sampling site contains a cluster of three wells; one in the upper Freeport Sandstone, one in the middle coal layer, and one in the lower Clarion Sandstone. (C) Surface water and ground water sampling locations relative to known mine voids at the Roberts–Dawson mine site. Shaded regions represent areas in the mine voids where high-strength stabilized flue gas desulfurization (FGD) was placed. Low-strength stabilized FGD was injected into the unshaded regions of the mine voids. The direction of flow in the receiving stream is indicated by a Q.

View larger version (53K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Water quality at Site 5 before and after grouting with stabilized flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material. The line in each figure represents the average pre-grout concentration for the element or parameter. The shaded region represents the period of grouting.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Water quality in Well 9705 before and after grouting with stabilized flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material. The line in each figure represents the average pre-grout concentration for the element or parameter. The shaded region represents the period of grouting.

View larger version (51K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Water quality in Well 9719 before and after grouting with stabilized flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material. The line in each figure represents the average pre-grout concentration for the element or parameter. The shaded region represents the period of grouting.

View larger version (49K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Water quality in Well 9728 before and after grouting with stabilized flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material. The line in each figure represents the average pre-grout concentration for the element or parameter. The shaded region represents the period of grouting.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Saturation indices for CaSO4, gypsum [CaSO4·2H2O], ferrihydrite [Fe(OH)3], jarosite [KFe3(OH)6(SO4)2], and Al(OH)SO4 as a function of sampling date for Well 9719. All calculations were performed using MinteqA2 Version 4.0.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. X-ray diffraction pattern of flue gas desulfurization (FGD)-grout core recovered from the Roberts–Dawson mine 2 yr after injection. The formula of ettringite is Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26(H2O) and the formula of hannebachite is 2CaSO3·(H2O).

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Conceptualization of processes controlling water chemistry at the Roberts–Dawson mine site following injection of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) grout.