Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Performance evaluation of reverse osmosis process in the post-treatment of T

mining wastewaters: Case study of Costerfield mining operations, Victoria,
Australia
Seyed Mohsen Samaeia,*, Shirley Gato-Trinidada, Ali Altaeeb
a
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122 Australia
b
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane has been used for treatment and purification of industrial wastewaters in-
Actiflo®clarifier cluding those from the mining industry before being discharged to receiving body or reuse for applications that
Ceramic nanofiltration are fit for purpose. This study evaluates the performance of Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant as a post-treatment
Mining wastewater process in mining operations in Victoria, Australia. The data analysis shows that the RO unit significantly im-
Reverse osmosis
proves the quality of the final permeate before discharged to surface waters. Considering average rejection
Wastewater treatment
efficiency for the entire evaluated period, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), Antimony, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc
and Iron concentrations are reduced by 85 %, 96 %, 95 %, 66 %, 82 %, 48 % and 10 %, respectively in the RO
permeate compared to the feed water. Although the quality of the RO permeate was in a desirable condition in
most days of the evaluated years, TDS concentrations on the October 11 and 20,2016 and November 14, 2017
were higher than the limits specified by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria. Anomalies re-
garding antimony levels in RO permeate occurred in September and November 2016 as well as August 2017 due
to inconsistency in the RO feed quality. This resulted in fouling of RO membranes and contributed to discharge
non-compliance with EPA licence conditions on TDS and antimony. Discharge to waterways was suspended over
the period when TDS and antimony contents were above the EPA guidelines. Changes in the pre-treatment
reduced the turbidity of the feed water and improved the performance of the RO system to comply with the
discharge guidelines.

1. Introduction technologies for the treatment of mining effluents include chemical

Mining operations have the potential to cause extensive environ-
mental destruction in a variety of ways. Pollution may arise from
mining activity itself, or poor quality of underground wastewater ex-
tracted as part of the mining process [1]. Mining wastewater is char-
acterized by high acidity, high concentration of sulphate, chloride and
dissolved metal ions [2]. Untreated or poorly treated mining effluent is
toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause a reduced reproduction and
deformities. It can also contaminate groundwaters and aquifers upon
underground injection [3,4]. Consequently, improving mining the
quality of effluent is a crucial objective for industries to reduce the
environmental impacts, and to comply with the local discharge guide-
lines.
A wide range of treatment techniques has been developed to remove
toxic elements and heavy metals from mining wastewaters. Current
precipitation, ion exchange, adsorption, coagulation and flocculation,
flotation, electrochemical treatment and membrane filtration [5,6].
Chemical precipitation is one of the conventional methods of mining
wastewater treatment. This process is simple and cheap but produces a
large amount of sludge during operation. As such, precipitation is only
effective at high metal ions concentration in the mining wastewater. Ion
exchange method is not economic in large-scale applications, because
ion exchange resins must be regularly regenerated which is expensive
and can cause secondary pollution [5,7]. Adsorption works well in the
treatment of mining wastewaters containing heavy metal ions with low
concentration, but its efficiency is highly dependent on the type and
quality of adsorbents [5,7]. Activated carbon is one of the most efficient
adsorbents, but its high cost limits its use in adsorption technique
especially in large -scale applications. The produced sludge during
coagulation and flocculation methods have appropriate settling and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ssamaei@swin.edu.au (S.M. Samaei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101116
Received 12 September 2019; Received in revised form 1 December 2019; Accepted 23 December 2019
Available online 17 January 2020
2214-7144/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Fig. 1. a. Water Treatment Plant (adapted from [31,36]). b. Schematic of the Actiflo® clarifier unit (adapted from [31,32]).

good dewatering characteristics. However, this technique requires a and produce less sludge compared to other mentioned methods but
large amount of chemicals, which increases the operational cost. Flo- capital and operation costs are high [5,7]. Among all current technol-
tation and electrochemical treatment methods require fewer chemicals ogies mentioned above, membrane filtration is one of the non-

2
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Table 1
Maximum recorded values of various compounds in RO feed and RO permeate quality against EPA discharge licence [38,39].
Indicator LOR Units Limit Type Licence Limit 2015 2016 2017 2018

Feed Permeate Feed Permeate Feed Permeate Feed Permeate

Turbidity 0.1 NTU* 75th Percentile 10 79.1 7.8 160 3.4 80.9 2.6 39.4 1
TDS 10 mg/L* Maximum 450 7670 311 5660 534 5890 709 7910 218
Antimony 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.114 38.7 0.142 36.4 0.537 50.2 0.26 49.8 0.1
Arsenic 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.001 0.037 0.001 0.047 0.001 0.041 0.001 0.038 0.001
Nickel 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.002 0.022 0.001 0.022 0.001 0.03 0.001 0.052 0.001
Zinc 0.005 mg/L Maximum 0.06 0.074 0.005 0.104 0.043 0.072 0.045 0.052 0.001
Iron 0.05 mg/L Maximum 0.13 0.87 0.06 1.19 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05
Cadmium 0.0001 mg/L Maximum 0.002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Chromium 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Copper 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001
Lead 0.001 mg/L Maximum 0.008 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

*NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units.

*mg/L: Milligram/liter.
*LOR: Limit of Reporting.

Fig. 2. Recorded values of turbidity in RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline = 10 mg/L).

conventional ways of treating industrial wastewaters including mining
operations because of the uniform quality of the treated water and
better removal of contaminants. The membrane process has many ad-
vantages over conventional methods, such as high efficiency in hand-
ling toxic materials, variable filtration ratings from microfiltration (MF)
to reverse osmosis (RO), small footprint and steady-state operation [6].
Some studies have been conducted on mining wastewater treatment
and recovery of heavy metals by different pressure-driven ultrafiltration
(UF), nanofiltration (NF), RO systems and membrane bioreactors (MBR)
[1,3,4,8–19], and has proven that polymeric NF and RO have quite
comparable performance in terms of removal of heavy metals from
mining wastewater. However, using polymeric NF was more economic
than the RO membrane at low temperatures due to its lower energy
consumption and higher permeate flux. On the other hand, applying RO
is more suitable than polymeric NF at high feed temperature [3,17,19].
Applying ceramic NF would be an alternative solution for high feed
temperatures. In comparison with RO, ceramic membranes have higher
flux, easier to clean, and more energy-efficient process [20]. However,
the major drawbacks of ceramic membranes are high fabrication cost of
ceramic membranes, and cost related to commissioning and installation
of large- scale ceramic membrane plants in the mining sites [21].
A large number of mines in Australia are currently applying the RO
technology as a post-treatment process for the removal of heavy metals
and other toxic compounds from their wastewaters [22–27]. However,
membrane fouling is one of the biggest challenges when using RO in a
harsh environment such as mining operations [4].
In 2014, Mandalay Resources Ltd constructed a RO plant at
Costerfield region to treat the dewatered groundwater from the un-
derground gold-antimony mining operation [28,29]. The RO mem-
branes were polyamide brackish water membranes, DOW FILMTEC
BW30 – 440i [30]. The membranes have been fully replaced twice using
the same type of RO membrane. The first time was in November 2014
just after three months of commissioning due to considerable growth in
RO feed pressure. The second one was in December 2016 just after two
years of the first substitution. The failure of RO membranes was noticed
after elevated results over frequent water samples analysis.
This study provides an evaluation of the performance of the RO
process in treating wastewater from an extensive mining operation lo-
cated in Victoria, Australia. The paper addresses the mining area and
challenges encountered in the operation of the RO plant during years

3
S.M. Samaei, et al.
Fig. 3. Recorded values of turbidity in RO feed from 2016 to 2018.
from 2015 to the end of 2018, based on available water samples quality
report. Finally, the major findings of the performance of the RO system
are presented.
2. Case description
2.1. Study area
This case study is conducted at Costerfield site owned by Mandalay
Resources Ltd, which is located within the Costerfield mining region of
Central Victoria approximately 100 km northwest of Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia [28]. These operations encompass the underground
gold-antimony mining, processing plant, water treatment plant, eva-
poration and tailing storage facilities [28,31].
2.2. Wastewater treatment plant
In 2014, the initial treatment plant, which includes the pre-treat-
ment system and the RO plant has been constructed by Mandalay at the
mine site for treating wastewater from underground operations. The
clarifier has been added on later in 2017. The RO permeate to be dis-
charged to surface waters is subjected to compliance with the
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in the State of Victoria. The
RO brine is stored in evaporation and tailing storage facilities or reused
4
Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116
in the processing plant [28]. Fig. 1a illustrates the water treatment
plant including the pre-treatment process and RO unit located at the
mine site.
2.2.1. Pre-treatment system
The purpose of pre-treatment is to condition the feed water before
the RO plant and reduce the risk of physical damage/fouling of the RO
membrane. The Initial pre-treatment system, which was commissioned
in 2014, consists of an inline coagulation, pH adjustment, polymer
dosing and multimedia filters (MMFs). Due to the poor efficiency of the
initial pre-treatment system in terms of feed quality to the RO system, it
was upgraded in October 2017. The upgraded pre-treatment system
consists of Actiflo® clarifier, pH adjustment unit (to ensure that coa-
gulation will be performed efficiently with feedwater pH range from 7
to 9), polymer dosing and MMFs. Actiflo® clarifier is a new pre-treat-
ment unit based on coagulation/ballasted flocculation and settling
which, has been commissioned in October 2017. Fig. 1b shows the
schematic diagram of Actiflo® clarifier unit. This unit is made up of
three flocculation bowl-shaped containers right before a lamella sedi-
mentation tank. It includes three low-speed agitators with an axial
mixing pattern operating in the flocculation basins. After inline coa-
gulation, raw wastewater enters Actiflo® in the coagulation tank to
produce flocs. Then, the coagulated water enters the injection tank
where ballasted floc formation starts. In this section, polymer and micro
sand are blended to bind the chemically produced flocs to the micro
sand through polymer bridges. In the maturation tank, further amount
of flocculants is added to boost the formation of micro sand ballasted
flocs. After that, the fully flocculated water goes into the lamella set-
tling tank in which the micro sand ballasted flocs settle to the bottom at
a fast speed, while the clarified water rises through the zone. Clarified
water go away from Actiflo® across a series of collection channels. The
sand sludge slurry is gathered at the bottom of the clarifier by scrapers.
The collected sand sludge slurry is then pumped by centrifugal pumps
to hydrocyclone where micro sand is recycled for reuse purpose, while
sludge is discharged for further processing including thickening and
final disposal [31,32]. The MMFs will further assist the pre-treatment
system in eliminating the flocs that are produced during Actiflo® pro-
cess. In the end, MMFs permeate is transported to the filtered water
tanks [28,30,33,34].
2.2.2. Post-treatment system -RO plant
The RO plant located at the mine site is designed for a nominal
permeate flow of two megalitres per day. It consists of two stages
containing eight and four pressure vessels, respectively. There are
ninety-six polyamide membranes (DOW™ FILMTEC™ BW30-440i) em-
bedded in twelve pressure vessels, each vessel contains eight RO ele-
ments. The maximum operating temperature and hydraulic pressure of
the polyamide RO membrane is 45 °C and 41 bar, respectively [30].
Five and one-micrometre cartridge filters are located prior to the RO
polyamide membranes to remove suspended solids. A low-pressure (LP)
pump (4−6 bar) transfers water from filtered water tanks to these
cartridge filters. The filtered water from the cartridge filters goes to the
RO membranes using a variable speed high-pressure (HP) pump. The
feed pressure is 26 bar at 75 m3/h and the permeate flow rate is 56 m3/
h at 2 bar [30]. The plant data show that the operating pressure at the
plant was approximately 68 % higher than the manufacturer’s specifi-
cation (15.3 bar) at normal conditions and 120 % higher at fouled
conditions [35].
RO brine and permeate are collected in separate tanks and are
discharged to evaporation facilities and surface waters, respectively. As
a part of normal start up/shut down procedure, the flush pump circu-
lates stored permeate through the RO membranes to displace the con-
centrated feed water. The cleaning-in-place (CIP) system uses RO
permeate, and CIP chemicals including citric acid and antiscalants for
membrane cleaning [30,31]. The CIP tank is equipped with a heater
and temperature transmitter to control the heating of the CIP solution.
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Fig. 4. Recorded values of TDS in RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline =450 mg/L).

Fig. 5. Recorded values of Antimony in RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline=0.114 mg/L).

There is also a cartridge filter for removing any particulates from the
recirculation chemical solution [30].
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Wastewater samples
Collection of water samples were undertaken by Mandalay author-
ised technicians at nominated points before and after the RO unit and
sent to an independent laboratory for testing.
3.2. Analysis
The RO feed and permeate are analysed for total dissolved solids
(TDS), turbidity and dissolved metals concentrations. The quality of
post-Actiflo effluent has not been specifically tested, but instead, that is
labelled as RO feed. The analytical procedure used by the independent
laboratory has been developed from the American Public Health
Association (APHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA), and National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM)
publications. In order to measure the TDS levels, a gravimetric tech-
nique (APHA 2540C) that distinguishes the amount of filterable residue
in an aqueous solution is applied. A well-mixed sample is filtered

5
S.M. Samaei, et al.
Fig. 6. Recorded values of Antimony in RO feed from 2016 to 2018.
through a 1.2 μm glass fibre filter. The filtrates are evaporated to dry-
ness and dried to constant weight at 180 ± 5℃. This method is com-
pliant with NEPM2013 Schedule B(3). Nephelometric Method (APHA
2130 B) is used to determine turbidity in wastewater samples which is
compliant with NEPM2013 Schedule B(3). To identify dissolved metals
concentrations, samples are filtered through a 0.45 μm filter prior to
analysis. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
technique was used to ionize selected heavy metals by using highly
efficient argon plasma. Ions are then entered a high vacuum mass
spectrometer, which isolates the analytes depending on their distinct
mass to charge ratios before their quantification by a discrete dynode
ion detector [37].
4. Results and discussions
115 analysis of water samples quality report from January 2015 to
November 2018 is studied. The objectives of the study are to assess the
overall performance of the RO plant in the treatment of mining was-
tewater and factors responsible for membrane fouling. Fouling levels
and distribution, and the nature of organic and inorganic fouling were
determined from the results of an autopsy which was conducted in
December 2016. Table 1 summarises the maximum-recorded values of
Turbidity, TDS, and various dissolved heavy metals in the feed and
6
Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116
permeate solutions during the evaluation period. These values in con-
junction with scatter graphs are applied in the following sections to give
a clear picture of the performance of the RO plant.
4.1. Turbidity
Since 2015, the RO plant as the post-treatment stage remarkably
reduced the turbidity levels of the treated waters. As shown in Fig. 2, all
recorded turbidity values in the permeate solution were below the
discharge limit of 10 NTU. Unfortunately, from 2015 to 2017, the high
values of turbidity in the feed water caused operational problems in the
RO plant including severe membrane fouling. Due to the poor perfor-
mance of the initial pre-treatment to reduce the turbidity level, Actiflo®
clarifier was commissioned in October 2017. Actiflo® clarifier tech-
nology has been proven for the removal of turbidity from waters and
wastewaters. It combines a number of coagulation and settling pro-
cesses that assist to remove turbidity, total suspended solids and colours
from wastewaters [40]. Fig. 3 shows that significant improvement is
observed in 2018 after installation Actiflo® clarifier. Although there was
some fluctuation in the turbidity levels of RO feed in the first few
months of installing Actiflo® due to the unfamiliarity with the opera-
tion, the upgraded pre-treatment system worked very well afterwards in
terms of turbidity reduction. According to Table1, the maximum tur-
bidity concentration in 2018 was 39.4 NTU in the feed water compared
to 79.1 NTU, 160 NTU and 80.9 NTU in 2015, 2016 and 2017 re-
spectively. Apparently, 2018 has the best feed and permeate qualities
compared to other years. Actiflo ® reduced the turbidity of the feed
water and maintained a steady RO filtration process. It should be
mentioned that low feed quality resulted in the fouling of the cartridge
filter and hence interrupted the performance of the RO plant before
installing Actiflo®.
4.2. TDS
RO plant had excellent ability in reducing the TDS concentration in
the final permeate before discharge to surface waters. Analysis of the
feed and permeate TDS levels between 2015 and 2018 indicates that
TDS concentration decreased by approximately 96 % in the RO
permeate compared to feed water. As shown in Fig. 4, the TDS values in
2015 and 2018 for the permeate were below the discharge limit and
complies with EPA Victoria discharge licence. In 2016 and 2017, al-
though the permeate quality was acceptable in most of the time, there
were a few days where the permeate TDS were over the discharge
standard. According to available laboratory reports, TDS concentrations
on the October 11th and 20th 2016 as well as November 14th 2017
were 534 mg/L, 462 mg/L and 709 mg/L, respectively, which are
higher than the recommended EPA discharge limits. Due to this EPA
non-compliance, the discharge to the waterway had been discontinued
on the October 11th and 20th 2016. Discharge to waterway resumed
when the water quality results had returned to permitted levels by
continuous monitoring of quality [41]. The reason for the escalated
levels of TDS concentrations were deterioration in the feed water
quality to the RO plant that caused severe fouling of the RO mem-
branes. Ignoring the incompliance periods, the maximum TDS values in
2016 and 2017 were 432 mg/L and 258 mg/L respectively compared to
450 mg/L maximum discharge limit.
4.3. Dissolved metals
The performance of the wastewater treatment plant including the
pre-treatment and the RO process in removing various dissolved metals
including Antimony, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Iron, Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead is discussed.
4.3.1. Antimony
As shown in Fig. 5, Antimony concentrations of the permeate
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Fig. 7. Recorded values of Arsenic in RO feed (○) and RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline: 0.001 mg/L).

Fig. 8. Recorded values of Nickel in RO feed (○) and RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline: 0.002 mg/L).

solution were below the discharge limit for the whole year of 2018.
Fig. 6 illustrates the recorded values of antimony in RO feed (○) from
2016 to 2018. Improving the quality of feed water decreased the fouling
propensity of the RO membranes after adding Actiflo ® clarifier to the
pre-treatment system, which contributed to better removal of Antimony
by the RO membrane. There was some fluctuation in the antimony le-
vels of feed water at first months post-installation of new pre-treatment
system due to the unfamiliarity with the operation of Actiflo®. How-
ever, the operation of the pre-treatment Actiflo® system stabilised in
February 2018.
From 2015 to the end of 2017, concentration of Antimony reduced
by 95 %,98 % and 96 % in the permeate; however, there are some
particular dates when non-compliance with discharge limit happened
[41–43].
On October 2015, elevated antimony concentration is identified in
the RO permeate. High turbidity level in the feed water to the RO plant
and poor pre-treatment performance resulted in the fouling of the RO
membranes. This contributed to a lower rejection of Antimony by the
RO membrane and hence noncompliance with the EPA license condi-
tions for Antimony discharge level. The permeate continued to be dis-
charged ensuring adequate dilution of non-compliant water [42].
Major anomalies occurred in September and November 2016 due to
the failures of the RO membranes, which had a substantial effect on the
Antimony level in the permeate solution. On September 2016, elevated

7
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Fig. 9. Recorded values of Zinc in RO feed (○) and RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline: 0.06 mg/L).

Fig. 10. Recorded values of Iron in RO feed (○) and RO permeate (▪) against EPA discharge licence (Redline: 0.13 mg/L).

Antimony concentrations were detected and identified due to bypassing
of the last membranes. As such, the RO membrane was replaced to
resolve the problem. It should be mentioned that the permeate dis-
charge to waterways was suspended from September 24th 2016 until
October 21st 2016.
On November 2016, elevated levels of Antimony, as high as 0.537
mg/L, were recorded and failures of the recently replaced RO mem-
brane was identified. The permeate discharge was immediately stopped
from November 23rd 2016 until December 22nd 2016. The permeate
quality returned to the allowed limits after replacement of the RO
membranes in December 2016 [41].
On August 2017, an elevated Antimony level was discovered due to
the dewatering activities in the wastewater pit, which caused incon-
sistency in the feed quality. Severe fouling and failure of the RO
membranes occurred. Discharge was suspended from September 4th
2017 to 3rd November 2017. During this period Actiflo®, clarifier was
added to the pre-treatment system for the proper conditioning of the
feed water.
4.3.2. Arsenic and Nickel
According to Fig. 7, the concentration of Arsenic in 2018 was lower
than that in the years 2015–2017. Actiflo ® was able to improve the
quality of RO feed water, which resulted in a better rejection rate of
Arsenic in 2018. In addition to the ability to remove turbidity and total

8
S.M. Samaei, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116

Table 2 Furthermore, All recorded values of Nickel in the feed and permeate
Outline of methods and analysis (adapted from [35]). from 2015 to 2018 shows that the concentration levels reduced by 94
Parameter Methods %, 90 %, 91 % and 94 % respectively in the permeate solution. As
shown in Fig. 8, the concentration of Nickel in permeate was below the
Physical integrity and efficiency Vacuum test discharge limit during the period from 2015–2018.
Single element test
Visual inspection
Fujiwara Test 4.3.3. Zinc and Iron
In the years 2015–2018, the amount of Zinc in the permeate is lower
than the discharge limit. In addition, the best quality of the feed and
Fouling levels and distribution Visual inspection
permeate was in 2018 where the maximum amount of Zinc in the RO
Loss on ignition
Scanning Electron Microscopy – Energy
feed and permeate is 0.052 mg/L and 0.001 mg/L respectively (Fig. 9).
Dispersive X-ray The quality of the feed solution was suitable for discharge without RO
Spectroscopy(SEM-EDS) treatment. This confirms the effectiveness of the new Actiflo® clarifier
in reducing the amount of Zinc in the RO feed.
The same conditions apply to the Iron concentrations in the feed and
Type and nature of inorganic Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic
fouling Emission Spectroscopy permeate. Fig. 10 shows that concentration of Iron in the permeate is
(ICP-OES) below the discharge limit for the entire period and complies with State
Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) Victoria EPA discharge licence. Noting that in 2018, after using Acti-
flo®clarifier, the lowest concentrations of Iron were recorded in the feed
Type and nature of organic Astra Blue staining
and permeate.
fouling Protein Levels
Polysaccharide 4.3.4. Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, and Lead
All recorded values of Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, and lead from
2015 to 2018 presented in Table 1, shows stable concentrations of
organic carbon (TOC), previous studies demonstrated the ab 0.0001 mg/L for Cadmium and 0.001 mg/L for Chromium in both RO
ility of Actiflo ® clarifier for the removal of a wide range of heavy feed and permeate over these years. Copper and lead were also stable at
metals such as Zinc, Arsenic, Manganese, Nickle, copper and lead 0.002 and 0.001 respectively from 2016 to 2018. This is attributed to
[40,44]. The installation of Actiflo ® in 2018 assisted in the removal of the low concentration of these heavy metals in the mining wastewater
Arsenic ions from feed water as shown in Fig. 7. The highest values of before treatment. During the period, 2015–2018, 97 % of wastewater
Arsenic in the feed solution in 2018 (0.038 mg/L and 0.018 mg/L) were samples complied with EPA discharge guidelines for both pre and post
recorded in January, which was at the beginning of Actiflo® operation. treatment. After RO treatment, the concentration of cadmium, chro-
From February 2018 to the end of the year, when the operation of mium, copper, and lead in treated wastewater was much lower than the
Actiflo® completely stabilised, concentration of Arsenic in the feed was threshold concentration suggested by the EPA. Based on Table 1, it can
between 0.001 mg/L to 0.003 mg/L. For the entire evaluated period be inferred that the RO unit has a negligible effect on reducing their
from 2015–2018, post-treatment by the RO membrane was able to keep levels in final RO permeate as compared with RO feed. Both RO feed
the levels of Arsenic below the discharge limit. water and RO permeate complies with State Victoria EPA discharge

Fig. 11. a External Inspection of RO modules. b. Stereomicroscope inspection of RO modules (reprinted from [31,35]).

9
S.M. Samaei, et al.
licence regarding Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, and lead concentra-
tions.
5. Reverse osmosis membrane autopsy
In December 2016, two RO elements (lead and tail modules) were
autopsied. The aims of the autopsy were to assess the membrane’s
health after 2 years of operation and identify possible foulants that
caused a significant increase of the feed pressure. Table 2 includes the
outline of methods and analysis used for autopsy.
Based on the autopsy results both modules were severely fouled,
and the flux was below the manufacturer’s specification. The results
from single element test after normalisation to the manufacturer’s
standard conditions (2000 mg/L NaCl solution and 15.3 bar) showed
heavy fouling for both elements with recovery 1.2 % and 0.6 % re-
spectively. For the lead module, the amounts of solids at the lead and
tail elements were 6853 mg/m2 and 8993 mg/m2 respectively. The
ratio of volatile-fixed solids was 20 % to 19 % and 80%–81% for the
lead and tail spot respectively. This was comparable to a medium level
of organic fouling and a very high level of inorganic scaling on both
lead and tail side [35]. For the tail module, the amounts of solids were
31,812 mg/m2 at the lead and 34,855 mg/m2 at the tail. The ratio of
volatile-fixed solids was 21 % to 21 % and 79 % to 79 % for the lead and
tail spot respectively. This corresponded to a medium-substantial level
of organic fouling and a very high level of inorganic scaling on both
lead and tail side. Results from Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-
EDS) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) showed that the main
inorganic fouling were antimony, aluminium, silicon and sodium on
both lead and tail modules. Antimony dominated the fouling both lead
and tail element [35]. These investigations revealed that improper feed
pre-treatment caused irreversible fouling which led to the failure of RO
membranes. Fig. 11a and b illustrate external and stereomicroscope
inspection of RO modules. Initial pre-treatment process without Actiflo
® was not capable of efficient removal of organic and inorganic particles
which can contribute to the suspended solids concentration in RO feed
water. Hence, Actiflo® clarifier is commissioned in October 2017 to
treat feed water to a more stable quality [35].
6. Conclusion
The performance of post-treatment RO process in treating waste-
water from an extensive mining operation located in Victoria, Australia
is assessed. The water quality analysis shows that the RO unit as the
post-treatment stage has been very effective in improving the quality of
the final permeate before discharge to surface waters. Turbidity, total
dissolved solids (TDS), Antimony, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc and Iron con-
centrations are reduced by 85 %, 96 %, 95 %, 66 %, 82 %, 48 % and 10
% respectively in final RO permeate compared to RO feed water.
However, the occasional inefficiency of the pre-treatment system,
especially before Actiflo ®clarifier commissioning, led up to serious
failures in RO plant, and consequently non-compliance with local dis-
charge licence in some dates. RO membranes are very sensitive to
fouling, and in harsh operating conditions including mining operations,
it may result in membrane degradation and physical damage. Hence,
having a reliable and extensive pre-treatment system is the most crucial
factor to guarantee acceptable performance and high durability of the
RO membranes in mining wastewater treatment processes. Better
quality of RO feed water contributes to better efficiency in the RO
system.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Australian Government’s
support through the “Australian Government Research Training
Program Stipend (RTPS) Scholarship”. We would also like to thank the
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering at Swinburne
10
Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116
University of Technology and Mandalay Resources Costerfield
Operations Pty Ltd for their assistance in completing this Study.
References
[1] V. Bonnelye, Acid Mine Drainage: Case Study of One of the Largest Copper Mine
Sites in the World, (2020).
[2] H. Hatar, S.A. Rahim, W.M. Razi, F.K. Sahrani, Heavy metals content in acid mine
drainage at abandoned and active mining area, AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP,
2013, pp. 641–646.
[3] H. Al-Zoubi, A. Rieger, P. Steinberger, W. Pelz, R. Haseneder, G. Härtel,
Optimization study for treatment of acid mine drainage using membrane tech-
nology, Sep. Sci. Technol. 45 (2010) 2004–2016.
[4] S.M. Samaei, S. Gato-Trinidad, A. Altaee, The application of pressure-driven
ceramic membrane technology for the treatment of industrial wastewaters – a re-
view, Sep. Purif. Technol. 200 (2018) 198–220.
[5] F. Fu, Q. Wang, Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: a review, J.
Environ. Manage. 92 (2011) 407–418.
[6] T.T. More, S. Yan, R.D. Tyagi, R.Y. Surampalli, Applications of membrane processes
for concentrated industrial wastewater treatment, Membr. Technol. Environ. Appl.
(2012) 217–238.
[7] G. Hilson, Pollution prevention and cleaner production in the mining industry: an
analysis of current issues, J. Clean. Prod. 8 (2000) 119–126.
[8] C.-M. Zhong, Z.-L. Xu, X.-H. Fang, L. Cheng, Treatment of acid mine drainage
(AMD) by ultra-low-pressure reverse osmosis and nanofiltration, Environ. Eng. Sci.
24 (2007) 1297–1306.
[9] K. Häyrynen, E. Pongrácz, V. Väisänen, N. Pap, M. Mänttäri, J. Langwaldt,
R.L. Keiski, Concentration of ammonium and nitrate from mine water by reverse
osmosis and nanofiltration, Desalination 240 (2009) 280–289.
[10] M. Mullett, R. Fornarelli, D. Ralph, Nanofiltration of mine water: impact of feed pH
and membrane charge on resource recovery and water discharge, Membranes 4
(2014).
[11] C. Sierra, J.R.A. Saiz, J.L.R. Gallego, Nanofiltration of acid mine drainage in an
abandoned mercury mining area, Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (2013) 12.
[12] R. Thiruvenkatachari, M. Francis, M. Cunnington, S. Su, Application of integrated
forward and reverse osmosis for coal mine wastewater desalination, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 163 (2016) 181–188.
[13] L.H. Andrade, A.O. Aguiar, W.L. Pires, L.B. Grossi, M.C.S. Amaral, Comprehensive
bench- and pilot-scale investigation of NF for gold mining effluent treatment:
membrane performance and fouling control strategies, Sep. Purif. Technol. 174
(2017) 44–56.
[14] H.S. Al-Zoubi, S.S. Al-Thyabat, Treatment of a jordanian phosphate mine waste-
water by hybrid dissolved air flotation and nanofiltration, Mine Water Environ. 31
(2012) 214–224.
[15] M.O. Daramola, B. Silinda, S. Masondo, O.O. Oluwasina, Polyethersulphone-soda-
lite (PES-SOD) mixed-matrix membranes: prospects for acid mine drainage (AMD)
treatment, J. S, Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 115 (2015) 1221–1228.
[16] H. Koseoglu, M. Kitis, The recovery of silver from mining wastewaters using hybrid
cyanidation and high-pressure membrane process, Miner. Eng. 22 (2009) 440–444.
[17] A.L. Carvalho, F. Maugeri, P. Prádanos, V. Silva, A. Hernández, Separation of po-
tassium clavulanate and potassium chloride by nanofiltration, Sep. Purif. Technol.
83 (2011) 23–30.
[18] A.O. Aguiar, L.H. Andrade, B.C. Ricci, W.L. Pires, G.A. Miranda, M.C.S. Amaral,
Gold acid mine drainage treatment by membrane separation processes: an evalua-
tion of the main operational conditions, Sep. Purif. Technol. 170 (2016) 360–369.
[19] R. Fornarelli, M. Mullett, D. Ralph, Factors Influencing Nanofiltration of Acid Mine
Drainage, (2013).
[20] Z. Yang, Y. Zhou, Z. Feng, X. Rui, T. Zhang, Z. Zhang, A review on reverse osmosis
and nanofiltration membranes for water purification, Polymers (Basel) 11 (2019)
1252.
[21] S. Luque, D. Gómez, J.R. Álvarez, Industrial Applications of Porous Ceramic
Membranes (Pressure‐Driven Processes), Membrane Science and Technology,
Elsevier, 2008, pp. 177–216.
[22] My Recycled Water, Case Studies: Bendigo Mining Water Treatment Plant, VIC 7
(ML/day), (2020) (Accessed 6 May 2019), http://www.myrecycledwater.com.au/
about-us/case-studies/bendigo-mining-water-treatment-plant/.
[23] Mak water, Case Studies, (2020) (Accessed 6 May 2019), https://www.makwater.
com.au/case-studies/.
[24] Citor Desalinators, Mine Site Archives, (2020) (Accessed 6 May 2019), http://www.
citor.com.au/product-category/mine-sites/.
[25] Tara Tyrell, Queensland Mining & Energy Bulletin, Veolia to Deliver Reverse
Osmosis Plant for Kirkland Lake Gold in Victoria, australia, (2020) https://www.
qmeb.com.au/veolia-to-deliver-reverse-osmosis-plant-for-kirkland-lake-gold-in-
victoria-australia/.
[26] APT Aqua Pure Water Filters & Water Treatment Systems, Water Treatment
Products-Mining Sites, (2020) http://www.aptaquapure.com.au/new/water-treat-
ment-systems-mining-sites/ (Accessed 6 May 2019).
[27] Water desalination +reuse, Veolia Water Tech to deliver RO reuse plant for gold
mine. https://www.desalination.biz/news/0/Veolia-Water-Tech-to-deliver-RO-
reuse-plant-for-gold-mine/9009/ (Accessed 6 May 2019).
[28] SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Costerfiled Operation, Victoria, Australia NI
43-101 Technical Report, (2017).
[29] SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Costerfiled Operation, Victoria, Australia NI
43-101 Technical Report, (2019).
S.M. Samaei, et al.
[30] Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, Operation and Maintenance Manual
Mandalay WTP, (2014).
[31] S.M. Samaei, S. Gato-Trinidad, Evaluation of the performance of ACTIFLO® clarifier
in the treatment of mining wastewaters: case study of Costerfield mining opera-
tions, Victoria, Australia, Int. J. Chem. Mol. Nucl. Mater. Metall. Eng. 12 (2018)
542–550.
[32] Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, ACTIFLO® Process For Wet Weather and
Wastewater Treatment, (2018).
[33] P. Cooper, Historical Aspects of Wastewater Treatment, (2000).
[34] J. Werner, B. Besser, C. Brandes, S. Kroll, K. Rezwan, Production of ceramic
membranes with different pore sizes for virus retention, J. Water Process. Eng. 4
(2014) 201–211.
[35] Victorian Mine RO Plant -Veolia: Autopsy Report for RO Membranes, (2016).
[36] S. Hajbabania, Mandalay Water Treatment Plant, Veolia Water Solutions &
Technologies, (2020).
[37] ALS Environmental, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to Assist With Quality Review,
11
Journal of Water Process Engineering 34 (2020) 101116
(2019).
[38] Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Licence Number: 109992, Mandalay
Resources Costerfiel Operations Pty Ltd, 2014.
[39] A.L.S. Environmental, Certificate of Analysis, Environmental Division Melbourne,
2015–2018, (2020).
[40] V. Plum, C.P. Dahl, L. Bentsen, C.R. Petersen, L. Napstjert, N.B. Thomsen, The ac-
tiflo method, Water Sci. Technol. 37 (1998) 269–275.
[41] Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Annual Performance Statement,
Mandalay Resources Costerfield Operations Pty Ltd., 2017 1 July 2016 to 30 June.
[42] Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Annual Performance Statement,
Mandalay Resources Costerfield Operations Pty Ltd., 2016 01 July 2015 to 30 June.
[43] Environmental Protection Authority Victoria, Annual Performance Statement,
Mandalay Resources Costerfield Operations Pty Ltd., 2018 1 July 2017 to 30 June.
[44] Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, ACTIFLO® The Ultimate Clarification
Process, (2020) (Accessed 25 July 2019), http://www.veoliawatertech.com/vwst-
northamerica/ressources/files/1/28586,Actiflo_Industrial2014_LR-1.pdf.