MWH Global

Enviroscan Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology

Community news

Speleology in Kazakhstan

Shakalov on 04 Jul, 2018
Hello everyone!   I pleased to invite you to the official site of Central Asian Karstic-Speleological commission ("Kaspeko")   There, we regularly publish reports about our expeditions, articles and reports on speleotopics, lecture course for instructors, photos etc. ...

New publications on hypogene speleogenesis

Klimchouk on 26 Mar, 2012
Dear Colleagues, This is to draw your attention to several recent publications added to KarstBase, relevant to hypogenic karst/speleogenesis: Corrosion of limestone tablets in sulfidic ground-water: measurements and speleogenetic implications Galdenzi,

The deepest terrestrial animal

Klimchouk on 23 Feb, 2012
A recent publication of Spanish researchers describes the biology of Krubera Cave, including the deepest terrestrial animal ever found: Jordana, Rafael; Baquero, Enrique; Reboleira, Sofía and Sendra, Alberto. ...

Caves - landscapes without light

akop on 05 Feb, 2012
Exhibition dedicated to caves is taking place in the Vienna Natural History Museum   The exhibition at the Natural History Museum presents the surprising variety of caves and cave formations such as stalactites and various crystals. ...

Did you know?

That seepage rate is the rate of seepage flow [16].?

Checkout all 2699 terms in the KarstBase Glossary of Karst and Cave Terms

What is Karstbase?

Search KARSTBASE:

keyword
author

Browse Speleogenesis Issues:

KarstBase a bibliography database in karst and cave science.

Featured articles from Cave & Karst Science Journals
Chemistry and Karst, White, William B.
See all featured articles
Featured articles from other Geoscience Journals
Karst environment, Culver D.C.
Mushroom Speleothems: Stromatolites That Formed in the Absence of Phototrophs, Bontognali, Tomaso R.R.; D’Angeli Ilenia M.; Tisato, Nicola; Vasconcelos, Crisogono; Bernasconi, Stefano M.; Gonzales, Esteban R. G.; De Waele, Jo
Calculating flux to predict future cave radon concentrations, Rowberry, Matt; Marti, Xavi; Frontera, Carlos; Van De Wiel, Marco; Briestensky, Milos
Microbial mediation of complex subterranean mineral structures, Tirato, Nicola; Torriano, Stefano F.F;, Monteux, Sylvain; Sauro, Francesco; De Waele, Jo; Lavagna, Maria Luisa; D’Angeli, Ilenia Maria; Chailloux, Daniel; Renda, Michel; Eglinton, Timothy I.; Bontognali, Tomaso Renzo Rezio
Evidence of a plate-wide tectonic pressure pulse provided by extensometric monitoring in the Balkan Mountains (Bulgaria), Briestensky, Milos; Rowberry, Matt; Stemberk, Josef; Stefanov, Petar; Vozar, Jozef; Sebela, Stanka; Petro, Lubomir; Bella, Pavel; Gaal, Ludovit; Ormukov, Cholponbek;
See all featured articles from other geoscience journals

79 RUSTHALL AVENUE, LONDON, ENGLAND W4 1BN
Environmental Technology, 1997, Vol 18, Issue 15, p. 1019-1028
The effect of metal cations on the kinetics of limestone neutralisation of acid waters
Abstract:
Limestone (CaCO3), is a lower cost alternative to lime (CaO) for the neutralisation of acid water, but the limestone neutralisation reaction is impaired by iron(II), iron(III) and aluminium in solution. This paper describes the kinetics of limestone neutralisation in the presence of these metals. The reaction rate is affected by the type of metal cation, by the concentration of the cation and by pH. At pH levels below 2.0 the limestone dissolution reaction rate decreases sharply with increasing pH. In the pH range 4.0 to 5.5 the reaction rate decreases linearly with increasing pH. The pH range 2.0 to 4.0 is a transition range, from the non-linear to linear dissolution rate characteristics. Metal concentrations below 80 mg l(-1): At pH levels less than 4, iron(II) had the strongest suppressing effect followed by aluminium, while the presence of iron(III) increased the reaction rate. In the pH range 4.0 to 5.5 aluminium had the strongest suppressing effect followed by iron(III) and iron(II). Metal concentrations above 80 mg l(-1): Iron(II) and aluminium suppress the reaction rate at all pH levels. At pH levels less than 4 iron(II) had the strongest suppressing effect, followed by aluminium. In the pH range 4.0 to 5.5 aluminium had the strongest suppressing effect followed by iron(II). With iron(III) the rate is suppressed at pH levels below 2, however the rate is speeded up in the pH range 25 to 3.5. At higher pH levels, the iron(III) concentration is limited to less than 80 mg l(-1) because of precipitation of iron(III) at pH levels higher than 2.5. The extent to which the overall neutralisation reaction proceeds was modelled to assist in reactor design. The overall reaction is impaired most by aluminium, followed by iron(II) and iron(III)