Removal of Fluoride from Mine Water via Adsorption for Land-Applied Soil Amendment

The team researched, designed, and economically analyzed a full-scale adsorption column system to be applied in mining processes that leave high amounts of fluoride in their effluent. This system was designed to remove fluoride from water saturated with calcium sulfate, as calcium sulfate is present in high amounts in certain mining processes. Currently, high density sludge (HDS) is commonly employed to reduce fluoride concentrations, but due to solubility limits the sludge treatment cannot lower fluoride below 10 mg/L (ppm). The current enforceable EPA standard for discharged water is at 4 mg/L (ppm), although mining companies anticipate that this standard will soon be lowered to 2 ppm. The team was tasked with designing a process to lower 10 ppm fluoride down to 2 ppm. The team investigated various methods such as precipitation, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis to remove fluoride from the system. These methods were not cost-effective and did not produce environmentally friendly byproducts. The team ultimately presented the solution of bone char as an adsorbent, with a byproduct that can be safely applied as a soil amendment. A full-scale facility with two adsorption columns was designed to treat 1000 gpm of water

Removal of Fluoride from Mine Water via Adsorption for Land-Applied Soil Amendment

The process of mining minerals and elements from ores and rocks creates acid rock drainage (ARD). This drainage is water that contains heavy metals and minerals that can be dangerous for human consumption or damaging to the environment. The mining industry has employed various water treatment methods to prevent these metals and minerals from being discharged into water sources such as ponds, lakes, and streams. Currently, the most used treatment process in the mining industry is a cost-effective highdensity sludge (HDS) process. This method reduces the concentration of metals and elements with the use of lime/limestone. However, the concentration of fluoride is not reduced to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and so it is necessary to design a fluoride removal system. Reverse osmosis (RO) was considered as well as precipitation, ion exchange, and adsorption by media such as biochars, bone char, and activated alumina. Although RO is perhaps the most obvious solution to reducing fluoride concentrations, this method was eliminated due to expensive overhead and maintenance costs. Many metals and compounds present in the mine water will lead to severe scaling and precipitates collecting in the membrane, requiring constant upkeep and high maintenance costs. Precipitation was eliminated because it produced a byproduct only suitable for landfilling, and ion exchange was eliminated due to its high cost and complications with competitive ions. Adsorption was chosen as a viable option for fluoride removal because of its low cost and environmentally friendly byproduct generation. The adsorption media was chosen based on a ranking system designed by our team. This system provided a way for our team to compare the adsorption capacity, rate of adsorption, byproduct application, and price per ton for each adsorbent. From this ranking system, Moo Pig Sooie is presenting a solution of cow bone char as a fluoride adsorbent. This type of biochar can be bought pre-charred and can be land applied as a fertilizer once the char is spent. A full-scale facility was designed to treat 1000 gallons per minute (GPM) of mine water 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for eight months out of the year. To achieve this flowrate and timeline, two packed beds with volumes of 8,900 ft3 each were designed to run in parallel to ensure loading does not occur until the 168-hour mark, the end of the work week. Once the bone char is loaded, the spent bone char will be hauled offsite to be land applied in soil that is naturally slightly acidic. Our experimental results indicate that minimal amounts of fluoride are stripped from bone char in acidic environments. Applying spent bone char to soil presented a desirable environmentally friendly solution for our byproduct. The overall capital cost of a full-scale facility is approximately $750,894 with a yearly operating cost of$4,778,840. Although this is high, the proposed solution will reduce the concentration of fluoride to EPA standards of 2ppm and the process will generate a land-applicable byproduct. Since consuming fluoride in excessive amounts can lead to health issues, public awareness is a necessary aspect of this solution. Citizens affected by the application of fluoride to their soil and water sources should be regularly involved in and aware of the fluoride levels in their environment. From our analysis of bone char adsorption, Moo Pig Sooie believes this type of treatment is a beneficial, cost effective, and sustainable solution for mining facilities that generate high concentrations of fluoride in their water

Removal of Fluoride from Mine Water via Adsorption for Land-Applied Soil Amendment

The Moo Pig Sooie’s researched, designed, and economically analyzed a full-scale adsorption column system to be applied in mining processes that leave high amounts of fluoride in their effluent. This system was designed to remove fluoride from water saturated with calcium sulfate, as calcium sulfate is present in high amounts in certain mining processes. Currently, high density sludge (HDS) is commonly employed to reduce fluoride concentrations, but due to solubility limits the sludge treatment cannot lower fluoride below 10 mg/L (ppm). The current enforceable EPA standard for discharged water is at 4 mg/L (ppm), although mining companies anticipate that this standard will soon be lowered to 2 ppm. The Moo Pig Sooie’s were tasked with designing a process to lower 10 ppm fluoride down to 2 ppm. Moo Pig Sooie investigated various methods such as precipitation, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis to remove fluoride from the system. These methods were not cost-effective and did not produce environmentally friendly byproducts. The team ultimately presented the solution of bone char as an adsorbent, with a byproduct that can be safely applied as a soil amendment. A full-scale facility with two adsorption columns was designed to treat 1000 gpm of water

Removal of Fluoride from Mine Water via Adsorption for Land-Applied Soil Amendment

The process of mining minerals and elements from ores and rocks creates acid rock drainage (ARD). This drainage is water that contains heavy metals and minerals that can be dangerous for human consumption or damaging to the environment. The mining industry has employed various water treatment methods to prevent these metals and minerals from being discharged into water sources such as ponds, lakes, and streams. Currently, the most used treatment process in the mining industry is a cost-effective highdensity sludge (HDS) process. This method reduces the concentration of metals and elements with the use of lime/limestone. However, the concentration of fluoride is not reduced to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and so it is necessary to design a fluoride removal system. Reverse osmosis (RO) was considered as well as precipitation, ion exchange, and adsorption by media such as biochars, bone char, and activated alumina. Although RO is perhaps the most obvious solution to reducing fluoride concentrations, this method was eliminated due to expensive overhead and maintenance costs. Many metals and compounds present in the mine water will lead to severe scaling and precipitates collecting in the membrane, requiring constant upkeep and high maintenance costs. Precipitation was eliminated because it produced a byproduct only suitable for landfilling, and ion exchange was eliminated due to its high cost and complications with competitive ions. Adsorption was chosen as a viable option for fluoride removal because of its low cost and environmentally friendly byproduct generation. The adsorption media was chosen based on a ranking system designed by our team. This system provided a way for our team to compare the adsorption capacity, rate of adsorption, byproduct application, and price per ton for each adsorbent. From this ranking system, Moo Pig Sooie is presenting a solution of cow bone char as a fluoride adsorbent. This type of biochar can be bought pre-charred and can be land applied as a fertilizer once the char is spent. A full-scale facility was designed to treat 1000 gallons per minute (GPM) of mine water 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for eight months out of the year. To achieve this flowrate and timeline, two packed beds with volumes of 8,900 ft3 each were designed to run in parallel to ensure loading does not occur until the 168-hour mark, the end of the work week. Once the bone char is loaded, the spent bone char will be hauled offsite to be land applied in soil that is naturally slightly acidic. Our experimental results indicate that minimal amounts of fluoride are stripped from bone char in acidic environments. Applying spent bone char to soil presented a desirable environmentally friendly solution for our byproduct. The overall capital cost of a full-scale facility is approximately $750,894 with a yearly operating cost of$4,778,840. Although this is high, the proposed solution will reduce the concentration of fluoride to EPA standards of 2ppm and the process will generate a land-applicable byproduct. Since consuming fluoride in excessive amounts can lead to health issues, public awareness is a necessary aspect of this solution. Citizens affected by the application of fluoride to their soil and water sources should be regularly involved in and aware of the fluoride levels in their environment. From our analysis of bone char adsorption, Moo Pig Sooie believes this type of treatment is a beneficial, cost effective, and sustainable solution for mining facilities that generate high concentrations of fluoride in their water

Comparing organization-focused and state-focused financing strategies on provider-level reach of a youth substance use treatment model: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption-i.e., provider-level reach-of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes. METHOD: A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach. RESULTS: The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities). DISCUSSION: As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment

Comparing organization-focused and state-focused financing strategies on provider-level reach of a youth substance use treatment model: a mixed-method study

Abstract Background Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption—i.e., provider-level reach—of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes. Method A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach. Results The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities). Discussion As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment