<![CDATA[Acid mine drainage (AMD) and coal mine wastewater differed in acidity, metal loading, sulfate concentrations, suspended solids, and flow characteristics, requiring treatment approaches to be matched to site-specific water quality and operational constraints. This structured desk-based technical review synthesized 64 retained full-text studies using predefined screening criteria, study-level data extraction, and categorical evidence appraisal. Neutralization was found to be most defensible for acidity correction and Fe/Al precipitation but transferred contaminants to sludge and could leave Mn and sulfate unresolved. Passive systems provided potential for long-term treatment where sufficient land and retention time were available, although field evidence demonstrated sensitivity to hydraulic loading, seasonality, substrate condition, and maintenance. Adsorption was better supported as a capacity-limited polishing process than as a universal primary treatment, while electrocoagulation required reliable power, electrode management, and sludge handling and remained weakly represented by full-scale standalone coal-mine applications. The resulting matrix linked wastewater chemistry and mass loading with evidence maturity, land availability, energy and reagent requirements, maintenance needs, and residual-management constraints to screen single-stage or combined treatment trains. Membrane processes, biological sulfate reduction, and resource-recovery options were considered complementary treatment stages where their operational requirements matched the treatment objectives. Site characterization, pilot-scale verification, residual assessment, life-cycle cost analysis, and confirmation of applicable discharge requirements remained necessary before final treatment design.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
