Mining - Acid Coal Mine Drainage. Truth and Fallacy About a Serious Problem - Discussion

In his paper Mr. Braley makes no mention of the bacteriological aspects of the problem. It is now quite well established that certain bacteria play a major role in formation of acid mine waters, and it is a simple matter in the laboratory to show that under sterile conditions the rate of acid production from a pyrites suspension is only about one quarter of that obtained from a similar suspension inoculated with drainage from a mine producing an acidic pit water. Under sterile conditions the oxidation is due to direct chemical action and, from the evidence just given and from much other evidence, this increase under nonsterile conditions is due to certain bacteria. Experiments recently completed, and shortly to be published, have shown that this bacteriological oxidation can be prevented by the maintenance of pH conditions above 4. It was found that to raise this pH above 4 at the beginning of the experiments was not sufficient but that, due to the continuing chemical oxidation, alkali had to be added daily to maintain the pH conditions above 4. The amount of alkali added, however, over a fixed period, was only about one quarter of the alkaline equivalent of the acid produced when pH conditions were not controlled over an equal period. The opinion expressed by Mr. Braley that sodium hydroxide has little or no effect on the rate of oxidation of pyrites is not substantiated by the above experiments. The writer does not claim that these results show a practical solution to the problems, especially in abandoned workings, but feels that the application of an alkaline coating, such as lime wash, to exposed accessible workings might be well worth trying. S. A. Braley (author's reply)—In 1919 Powell and Parrl suggested that bacteria, or some catalytic agent, hastened the oxidation of pyritic or marcastic sulfur in coal. Carpenter and Herndon (1933)' attributed the action of Thiobacillus thiooxidans. Colmer and Hinkle (1947)3 observed an organism similar to T. thiooxidans and another organism that oxidized iron. Leathen and Braley 9rst discovered this organism in 1947 in a sample of water from the overflow of the Bradenville mine (Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania). They characterized the organism in 1954" and gave it the name Ferrobacillus ferrooxidans. Although Temple and Colmer (1951)' had suggested the name Thiobacillus ferrooxidans, since they claimed it oxidized both ferrous iron and thiosulfate, we have found that pure cultures of the organism do not oxidize thiosulfate, hence the name F. ferrooxidans. In 1955 Ashmead7 isolated an organism, similar to the one called Thiobacillus ferrooxidans by Temple and Hinkle, from acid mine water in Scotland. It is probable that this organism was F. ferrooxidans. In 1954 Bryner, Beck, Davis, and Wilsonh reported microorganisms in effluents from copper mine refuse. These organisms appeared to be similar but were not in pure culture. In view of this history of bacterial investigation of acid mine water and our own ten years of experience, we do not agree with Mr. Ashmead that bacteria play a major role in acid formation. We do not find that any of these bacteria will directly oxidize pyritic material. They do, however, augment the chemical formation of sulfuric acid by atmospheric oxidation. In two papers in 1953% eathen, Braley, and McIntyre discuss the role of bacteria in acid formation and postulate the mechanism through which they operate. Mr. Ashmead in his discussion of my paper has assumed that this work was carried on in the presence of acid mine water in which bacteria would be present. This was not the case. Strictly sterile conditions were not maintained, but the organisms present in mine drainages were definitely absent in these experiments. We believe that we have demonstrated that alkalis do not inhibit the chemical oxidation of pyritic material. This is also indicated by Mr. Ashmead's discussion in which he says that alkali must be added daily due to the continuing chemical oxidation. It is interesting to note that Mr. Ashmead finds that maintenance of pH above 4.00 decreases the activity of the bacteria. We have found also that a decrease in pH below 2.8 also inhibits its activity. Table XIII of published data'" illustrates the decrease in activity with increased acidity, although pH values are not given. These values are in comparison with uninoculated controls and show the marked increase in acidity up to 22 weeks but a decline at 29 weeks, at which time the experiment was terminated. It is probable that after a longer period only chemical oxidation would have continued. From our studiesv we have postulated that the iron oxidizing bacterium (Ferrobacillus ferrooxidans) oxidizes the ferrous iron, resulting from chemical oxidation, to ferric iron. The ferric iron then aids the atmospheric oxidation of the sulfuritic material and is itself reduced to ferrous iron, which in turn acts as food for the autotrophic bacteria. Study of the physiologic properties of F. ferrooxidans shows that its preferred pH is about 3.00 and its activity decreases with variation in either direction. It is extremely inactive above pH 4.00 and below 2.5. This inactivity above 4.00 is indicated by Mr. Ashmead's observations. These properties of F. ferrooxidans then correlate perfectly with our hypothesis. Ferrous iron is oxidized very slowly by atmospheric oxygen in highly acid sohtion and since the bacteria become inactive, acid is formed only by atmospheric oxidation. At a pH of 4.00 or above iron is more readily oxidized by atmospheric oxygen, but the bacterial activity is decreased. However, with a pH above 4.00 the ferric iron is removed from the field of activity since its soluble sulfate hy-drolyzes and precipitates the iron as ferric hydroxide or a basic sulfate. As we have shown in the paper under discussion, the alkali does not inhibit the chemical oxidation, and thus the acid formation continues. This