IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i20p3957-d277546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Copper Analysis by Two Different Procedures of Sequential Extraction after Electrodialytic Remediation of Mine Tailings

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Lazo

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile)

  • Pamela Lazo

    (Instituto de Química y Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Valparaíso, Avenida Gran Bretaña 1111, Playa Ancha, Valparaíso 2360102, Chile)

  • Alejandra Urtubia

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile
    Centro Científico Tecnológico de Valparaíso, CCTVaL, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile
    Centro de Biotecnología Daniel Alkalay, CBDAL, General Bari 699, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile)

  • María Gabriela Lobos

    (Instituto de Química y Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Valparaíso, Avenida Gran Bretaña 1111, Playa Ancha, Valparaíso 2360102, Chile)

  • Claudia Gutiérrez

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile)

  • Henrik K. Hansen

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile)

Abstract

The analysis of Cu distribution in pre-treated mine tailings after electrodialytic remediation was carried out by using two methods of sequential extraction. The initial content of copper in the tailings was 1109 mg Cu/kg of dry tailing, where close to 40% of the sample in weight corresponded to a soluble fraction. The tailing was treated with a leaching solution for 24 h. Three different solutions were tested: H 2 SO 4 + HNO 3 with pH = 1.9; H 2 SO 4 + HNO 3 with pH = 4.2; and NH 4 Cl 0.8 mol/L with pH = 5.5. After that, electrodialytic remediation experiments were carried out using an electric field of 2.7 V/cm for 15 days. The best performance for the complete cell was obtained with H 2 SO 4 + HNO 3 solutions, with a copper removal efficiency in the range of 62% to 67% and a current efficiency between 6% and 9%. The results of the remaining copper concentration between anode and cathode, from both procedures of sequential extraction, showed similar trends. The differences were mainly attributed to the use of different extractant solutions and extraction times. Soluble and exchangeable fractions were easily removed, with efficiencies higher than 80%. The lowest copper removal efficiency was obtained with NH 4 Cl 0.8 mol/L.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Lazo & Pamela Lazo & Alejandra Urtubia & María Gabriela Lobos & Claudia Gutiérrez & Henrik K. Hansen, 2019. "Copper Analysis by Two Different Procedures of Sequential Extraction after Electrodialytic Remediation of Mine Tailings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3957-:d:277546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3957/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3957/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Lazo & Henrik K. Hansen & Pamela Lazo & Claudia Gutiérrez, 2019. "Application of a Sequential Extraction Method for Analyzing Cu Distribution in Pre-Treated Mine Tailings after Electrodialytic Remediation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-9, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yun He & Linlin Yang & Chiquan He & Feifei Wang, 2022. "Burkholderia cepacia Enhanced Electrokinetic-Permeable Reaction Barrier for the Remediation of Lead Contaminated Soils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3957-:d:277546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.