Talk:Bauxite tailings

See also: DRAFT TALK: red mud

Question

Does anyone else have any more information to put on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.102.100 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction to page - bauxite is refined to produce alumina, not aluminium 131.242.132.63 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Disposal research

Dr. Mohan Rai, Farmer Head (Building Materials) Central Building Research Institute, Rourkee, India, has done research on the use of red mud and recycled red mud into concrete aggregates and paving materials. His article entitled: "Mining and Mineral Wastes for Development of Building Materials" provides information on his research work.

Virotec of Australia has done research work on their Bauxol technology for the proposed use of red mud in Australia. Please note their comments on sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate.

There is an article entitled: "Evaluation of the Manufacture of Construction Materials from Red Mud and By-Product Sulfates", Final Report to Kaiser Aluminum Company and Allied Corp., Gramercy, Lousiana, Nov. 1985.

A to Z of Materials has info at: www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2071

The National Mining Association, 1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, has more information.

The Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC has a 1994 Report on Red Mud.

A number of research studies have been performed using both acidic and alkaline fly-ash to counteract the strong alkaline pH of red mud from aluminum smelters. This is a relatively slow process. Researchers have also used Sea Water and other materials to reduce the pH of red mud and allow it to be mixed with compost, urban woody yard waste, and other similar materials to produce a useable topsoil mixture for reclaiming strip mine lands. Due to the high alkalinity of smelter produced red mud and the presence of other heavy metals and toxic materials (depending upon the bauxite source(s)), handling of red mud is hazardous and personal protective gear is strongly recommended. Red mud ash can be hazardous whenever it is inhaled, so personal protective gear is recommended.

I consider this original research and should only be considered if references are presented
--68.84.179.56 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The latter has been removed. I think the articles (if they exist) ought to be investigated and incorporated if they're legit, however. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of injecting "original research", it occurs to me that this red mud would be a great iron ore. Its iron content is generally higher than most natural ores used today. Does anyone know if anyone has considered converting this waste into such a useful ore, especially considering the ever-increasing prices for iron and steel? Hughesdavidw (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Toxicity?

I notice that this page mentions nothing about whether Red mud is a toxic substance. In all the news reports about the recent Hungarian spill it has been described as "Toxic", "Alkaline and Highly Caustic" and giving people "Chemical burns", is this correct? If so, then the article needs to provide much more information on its human health and environmental effects. --Hibernian (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a mud flood even with health mud only containing non-toxic material at a pH of 7 would drown people. So my understanding is that most of the people killed were killed by the flood and most people were harmed by the high pH value of the mud. The pH value is strongly depending on the exact method used in the deposition. There is pre neutralized mud with a pH of 8.5, the mud from a slightly different plant which has a pH of 11.2 or the highly caustic mud from an other plant with a pH of 13.8. I did not find anything on the pH value of the mud from that special pond.--Stone (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Clean Air Action Group and different media reports the PH value of the upper part of the mud which broke out of the damn was above 12, possibly reached 13. Most of the people injured were burned from the base. The river Marcal is destroyed. The Danube is most probably saved, as the PH value of the muddy water getting to it is around 9,2-9,3 ( http://hvg.hu/itthon/20101007_kipusztult_a_Marcal_teljes_elovilaga#rss ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.216.212 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How hazardous is red mud?

The article does not talk much abou how damaging (not that I would know) it is besides having a high PH. Is not terribly dangerous? 204.184.80.26 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The exact toxicitxy of the mud is depending strictly on the ore and the process. There might me red mud which is free from heavy metals and only contains silicates and iron oxide. This mud would be very nice after neutralization to pH 7 it would do no harm. If they use dirty ore which contains a lot of heavy metals the mud would be a toxic nightmare. So without an analysis of the exact mud you can only guess.--Stone (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ratio of red-mud production of "average" plants

Some of the sources are not accessible without subscriptions, but reference 3 (Waste materials used in concrete manufacturing) claims that the amount of red mud produced falls between a third of and two times the alumina production. The Wikipedia text states between one and two times the alumina production for an "average" plant, citing reference 5. This begs the question how well-defined the average presented in ref 5 really is and, if it is clearly defined, whether it would not be better to present a more precise statement. (E.g. "for 80 percent of Bayer-process plants, the ratio falls between 1 and 2". Or "for plants representing 90 percent of world production...") OttoG (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the material, but I think it would be better to use ref 3's claim. -Jesanj (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Expand the article

How can I add more details to this article? Lyngo (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Start small. Make your small edits to the part where you recommend the most urgent change. Stick to WP:SECONDARY sources - books and reviews. Make you edit, stand back and wait a few days. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lyngo (talk · contribs) created DRAFT:red mud to overwrite this article - 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a test site for doing homework. So unless the student has some cogent points (see my comments on referencing) and is willing to discuss, I dont see any compelling need to overwrite anything.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lyngo (talk · contribs) created a duplicate article at bauxite waste (Bauxite waste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) which was subsequently redirected to red mud; this seems to be a pattern (DRAFT submissions, duplication articles in articlespace) -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the deal

• 7053 reports, journal articles, patents, etc discuss "red mud" according to Chemical Abstracts
• of these many sources, 206 are classified as "reviews", which are the kind of sources recommended by Wikipedia and definitely the kind of sources a newbie should go for
• 110 of these reviews have appeared in the past decade.
• Five most cited reviews from the previous decade:
  • 1. Ahmaruzzaman, M., "Industrial wastes as low-cost potential adsorbents for the treatment of wastewater laden with heavy metals", Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 166, 36-59.
  • 2. Rawlings, R. D.; Wu, J. P.; Boccaccini, A. R., "Glass-ceramics: Their production from wastes - A Review", J. Mater. Sci. 2006, 41, 733-761.
  • 3. Ali, I.; Asim, M.; Khan, T. A., "Low cost adsorbents for the removal of organic pollutants from wastewater", J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 113, 170-183.
  • 4. Wang, S.; Ang, H. M.; Tade, M. O., "Novel applications of red mud as coagulant, adsorbent and catalyst for environmentally benign processes", Chemosphere 2008, 72, 1621-1635.
  • 5. Lin, S.-H.; Juang, R.-S., "Adsorption of phenol and its derivatives from water using synthetic resins and low-cost natural adsorbents: a review", J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90, 1336-1349.

Please explain this situation to your teacher. Thank you,--Smokefoot (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutralization of Red mud

In the article, it said that red mud is highly alkaline, how red mud is neutralized? Using acid. or something else? 130.39.160.188 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you go to the LSU library, the website or the physical library itself, you can search CAS and read about that very topic.

The following is my understanding of the situation: I am fairly sure that absolutely nothing is done in the real world. The highly alkaline material stays in the pond. It is not going anywhere and it does not release any fumes. Neutralizing the material costs money, generates even more waste (salt), and produces nothing of value except freeing up some cheap real estate. One will find many articles claiming to uses for red mud. Most such articles probably not reliable but are simply mechanisms for low-level academics to pad their publication list. If there was any hot action, it would show up in the patent literature and one would see factories built next to these ponds.

In the case of red mud, highly alkaline sludge will slowly form carbonates and bicarbonates by reaction with CO2. So the pH will come down but the slightly less alkine crud is still useless. Around the globe, there are many piles, ponds, quarries, etc of wastes from mining, power plants, and various industrial operations. Slag, old tires, fly ash, on and on. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. I have another question, and this might be dumb and off topic. You said that red mud was not going anywhere and it did not release any fume, then how does red mud affect the environment? The Bayer process produce red mud during the industrial production of aluminum, have researchers found an alternative method to refine bauxite more eco-friendly and more effectively??130.39.160.188 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am no super expert but here goes

• Why would red mud doesnt hurt the environment? It doesnt unless these ponds leak. And presumably in countries with decent environmental regulations, the ponds are inspected etc. One would have to keep kids and critters away, but otherwise these are just big dead spaces. The fact that these ponds are inoffensive is the reason folks tolerate them.
• About why one does not develop cleaner routes to aluminum, well that it a great question. Answer: economics. Probably the highest quality aluminum ore (bauxite) has been exhausted, so we are stuck with the Fe-containing crud. Low grade ores generate lots of waste. But industry increasingly turns toward lower grade ores. Now maybe there are more benign reagents than KOH/NaOH to process the low grade ore so that the waste is not so corrosive. I would guess that a lot of work has focused on such greener processes (we could search for that in some articles). The problem might be economics - it is difficult to find reagents cheaper than KOH/NaOH. That is my 2 cents.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

red mud vs bauxite tailings? Suggestion

Is there a difference between red mud and Bauxite tailings? Could the two articles maybe be merged together? Llightex (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes these two articles should be merged, in my opinon. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

-Merge them!Rosvel92 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

• Support but no opinion on which name should survive. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging the article Bauxite tailings into Red mud, and renaming the article into the new proposed title: Red mud (bauxite tailings)

Since no one opposes to merging the article Bauxite tailings into the article Red mud, and everyone on this dicussions agreed on the merging; I'm sure its completely legal to proceed with merging both articles. I already moved all the significant info from the bauxite tailings article into this Red mud article, so it's already ready to be merged. About how to rename the merged article, my suggestion is that it would work the best to feature in the title both of the names the material is most commonly refered as: red mud & baxite tailings , as that would ensure there's no confussions. Since I do not know how to merge articles, I encourage anyone who knows how to do it, to please do it. So to speed up the proccess, I suggest renaming the article into the new title: Red mud (bauxite tailings) .

Also whoever does the merge, don't forget the titles: red mud and bauxite tailings should redirect to this article. --Rosvel92 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)User:Rosvel92Rosvel92 (talk)

I suggest instead renaming the article to Bauxite tailings, the more technical name for this topic. Ellenor2000 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Bauxite tailings should be the name of the new article. Lede would be "Bauxite tailings, or red mud ..." and would show up in a search for red mud. Captainllama (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)