The objective of this study was to investigate the use of the acid production potential (AP) calculation factor and seven different S analysis methods in the preliminary mine waste characterization by analyzing and comparing 48 Finnish mine waste samples. Special attention was paid on mineralogical aspects and data produced in the exploration phase of a mining project.According to our results, the abundance of sulfide species other than pyrite in Finnish mine waste suggests that the factor to calculate the AP should be considered based on mineralogy and would often be below 31.25. Therefore, the mineralogy-based determination of S should be preferred. However, the determination of S based on scanning electron microscope (SEM) mineralogy includes some uncertainties. Underestimation of S content may appear if not all S-bearing mineral particles have been detected, or if the amount of S is low in general. This uncertainty appears to be especially related to the samples containing elevated (> 9 wt%) amounts of serpentine, diopside, augite, and/or hornblende. Risk of overestimating AP is related to samples containing high amounts (> 4.13 wt%) of S-bearing minerals. These uncertainties can be reduced by inspecting that the SEM mineralogy-based S concentrations are in line with the energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer data. The aqua regia extractable S concentrations, which are often available in the exploration phase, appeared to be usable in the preliminary waste rock AP assessment and often comparable with the analytical total S values in the Finnish waste rock samples, especially when the samples did not contain any sulfate minerals. In contrast, the analytical sulfide S and the X-ray fluorescence methods may lead to an underestimation of AP.
Keywords: Acid mine drainage; Aqua regia; EDS spectra; Mineralogy; SEM; Sulfide minerals; Sulfur analysis.
© 2022. The Author(s).