NPTEL Web Course

Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

Lecture 18
Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And
Remediation
Keywords: Industrial Processes, Uranium Pollution, Bioremediation

Industrial practice

The industrial application of the bacterial leaching of uranium ores is based on three
techniques: (a) percolation leaching; (b) mine waters; and (c) chemical – bacterial
leaching.

Of these, static leaching is the method which depends most on microbial attack for
uranium recovery. It has been estimated that with this method, bioleaching is
responsible for a large part of the solubilized uranium. The success of percolation
leaching depends, then, largely on the performance of the microorganisms taking
part in the process.
The annual production of U3O8 from mine waters is estimated at 3,000 t, an
important additional source to that produced by stirred tank and percolation leaching.
Processes which combine chemical and bacterial leaching have also been applied to
uranium recovery. These processes required less oxidant and give better extraction
results.

Although the first commercial production of uranium by bacterial leaching was in

1957 (Urgeirica mine, Portugal), the catalytic involvement of Acidithiobacillus
ferrooxidans in the solubilization of uranium from its minerals was not understood
until the 1960‟s. Since this time, bioleaching has been practiced on an industrial

1
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

scale in many places in the world and in some countries it is the main extraction
method used.

Commercial-scale bioleaching of U – has been practiced for low-grade U-ores (0.01

– 0.05 % U3O8, 0.0085 to 0.042 % U3O8) that would otherwise have been
uneconomical by conventional hydrometallurgy.

Agnew lake mine (Ontario, Canada) considered the first operation where U-
bioleaching process was applied to a virgin ore body.
- Late 1970‟s. Surface heap leaching / underground stope leaching circuits.
- Fractured ore body led to loss of leach solution and closure in 1979.
1980‟s – 1990‟s declining demand led to stagnation in bioleaching technology.

Denison mines in Eliot lake area, Ontario, practiced underground stope bioleaching
in 1980‟s and early 1990‟s – Closed late due to adverse economy.

The method used for recovering uranium at this mine has changed from the acid
percolation technique, with a consumption of 30 Kg H2SO4/ t ore to percolation
leaching with a mild acid (2 kg H2SO4/t ore). Uranium is produced in Spain through
bioleaching, 11% is from mine waters and the rest from leaching in heaps.

Recent calculations have put the production of Canadian uranium involving some
form of bioleaching at between 10% and 20%. During the last 20 years other
countries, such as USA, Brazil, South Africa, Australia and China have also
developed operations involving the participation of bioleaching microorganisms.

Spanish companies have been using the first two techniques since the 1970‟s. Spain,
after France, has the second largest proven reserves of uranium in Europe and is also

2
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

the second largest producer, with reserves of 40,000 t of U3O8 (80% of which are
commercially exploitable) and a production of 270 t/yr.

All of the Spanish production comes from the FE mine at Saelices el Chico,
Salamanca. The deposit at Salamanca is very heterogeneous, with veins (where the
uranium ores are found) flanked by large masses of country rock (mainly silicates).
However, the processes used for dissolving the uranium have not been studied so
thoroughly.

Commercial bioleaching of uranium in the world

- First commercial U-production by bioleaching in 1957 (Urgeirica Portugal).
Early 1960‟s – several U-mines in the Elliot lake area of N. Ontario
noticed acidic mine drainage containing large amounts of Fe and U.
- Periodic spraying of stope walls acidic mine drainage. In 1964 / 65, a total of
127,000 Ib of U3O8 recovered by the spraying technique from Rio Algom
mine
Agnew Lake – 1969 – 2‟ x 16‟ columns – 2 tons of U ore. Pilot leach
program 82% extraction after 2 years – Following pilot laboratory
study – experimental program to bacterially leach a stope containing
50 tons of broken ore at the 900‟ level 30 weeks – 57% U extraction
- In – situ leaching on 100 ft lifts of ore
1984 – Denison mines
- Underground Bioleach columns – 6 large columns 3m high and 0.6 m
diameter: 1.5 tonnes of use in each column.
Spray leaching – Denison Mines – Eight research stopes sprinkler
system.
- Flood leaching – Denison
Bacterial heap leaching – Rio Algom Mines.

3
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

- Annual production of U3O8 from Mine waters is 3000 t

Production in Canadian Uranium involving some form of bioleaching
at between 10 – 20 %.
- During last 20 years, USA, Brazil, South Africa and Australia developed Bio
operations.
Spain – Since 1970‟s.
China has initiated research and field studies on heap bioleaching.

Some examples of commercial uranium bioleaching operations [101 – 108]

Canada
Rio Algom Heap
Agnew Lake Stope
Denison Stope

Brazil

Figueria Heap

Australia

Olympic dam In-situ

Ranger Heap
Beverley In-situ

Kazakhstan

Stepnogorsk Heap
Southern ISL In-situ

France

St.Pierre Heap

4
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

Uranium contamination and bioremediation [112-113]

Mobilisation and transport of uranium due to the activity of iron – sulfur oxidizing
bacteria such as Acidithiobacillus is a prominent mechanism leading to uranium
contamination of groundwater. Acidophilic autotrophs inhabit uranium containing
environment, especially in areas where reduced minerals are exposed to atmospheric
oxygen. Uranium – contaminated groundwater is of concern in regions where prior
uranium milling operations have resulted in large tailings ponds. Leaching of
uranium from such tailing ponds provides continued source of U (VI) to the local
aquifer, and groundwater and uranium contamination at many of these sites present a
threat to down-gradient water resources. Remediation of uranium contaminated
aquifers involved „pump and treat‟ systems, which could not efficiently lower
groundwater U(VI) concentrations.

Microbial reduction of soluble U (VI) to insoluble U(IV) could prove to be a

promising strategy for immobilizing uranium from contaminated groundwater. The
bioremediation approach may also be coupled with subsequent soil washing for
concentrating uranium from contaminated soils. The U(VI)-reducing capacity of the
Geobacter species that are naturally present in subsurface environments can be easily
and effectively enhanced by addition of an acetate solution to the groundwater.
Uranium from the groundwater will be precipitated preventing its further mobility
and subsequently dispersed in a large volume of groundwater into a contained region
for subsequent removal.

For example, at Rifle Mill in Western Colorado (mine closed in 1972) unrecovered
uranium remaining underground contaminate groundwater that eventually flows into
the Colorado River. Some microbes present in the contaminated soil convert soil
soluble form of uranium to an insoluble form to remove from the groundwater. The
microbes can be stimulated to grow naturally be adding vinegar to the soil. One such

5
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

microbe is Geobacter sulfurreducens that reduce dissolved uranium in the water by

90 percent. Another organism, Geobacter metallireducens can interact with uranium
and plutonium and detoxify them.

Dissimilatory bacterial reduction to achieve reductive precipitation of uranium has

been shown to successfully remove uranium from aquifer sediments. Organisms in
the family Geobacteraceae have been found to be associated with such uranium
reduction. Studies with a highly saline uranium-contaminated aquifer sediment
demonstrated that addition of acetate could stimulate the bioremoval of U (VI) from
groundwater. Microorganisms related to Pseudomonas and Desulfosporosinus
species were found to be responsible for U(VI) reduction.

Anaerobic interactions with uranium

Anaerobic microbial processes have the potential to remove U (VI) effectively from
contaminated groundwater. A novel process for the remediation of uranium-
contaminated aquifers is the stimulation of anaerobic processes to precipitate
uranium as U (IV) within narrow zones across groundwater flow paths. The process
is similar to permeable reactive barriers; but the indigenous anaerobic bacteria are
activated within the subsurface by the addition of desirable nutrients. Since
groundwater at many uranium-contaminated sites is aerobic, uranium is mobile.
Anaerobic conditions can be created by the addition of organics, promoting
conditions favorable for reduction and precipitation of uranium in situ. A variety of
anaerobic organisms can reduce U(VI). Generation of anaerobic conditions within
aquifers results in a succession of microbially catalyzed redox processes influencing
uranium immobilization.

Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are most notable for their anaerobic growth and
generation of hydrogen sulfide, resulting in reducing conditions. SRB are
characterized by their oxygen sensitivity and their ability to use sulfate as a terminal
6
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

electron acceptor. Members of the genus Desulfovibrio are the most readily
cultured.
Recent studies have established the ability of a number of Desulfovibrio strains to
reduce toxic metals such as uranium and chromium, resulting in the production of
less water-soluble species.

Uranium content is solution was reduced from 20 to 0.3ppm by the enhanced

activities of indigenous anaerobic microorganisms. Mine groundwater contaminated
with uranium and sulfate is treated with adequate nutrients to stimulate anaerobic
sporeforming Gram-positive bacteria, and the activities of these microorganisms may
result in removal of uranium from solution. As dormant, sporeforming
Desulfosporosinus and Clostridium spp. are ubiquitous even in oxygen - containing
sediments these bacteria can be stimulated by addition of sulfate and nutrients to
facilitate uranium removal from ground water at contaminated sites.
Characterization of uranium mill tailings need be undertaken to establish
geochemical and microbiological factors governing in-situ uranium-redox reactions.
Groundwater and aqueous extracts of sediment samples need be analyzed for sulfate,
nitrate, and U(VI) concentrations. Bacterial diversity in the tailing and mining sites
would reveal the predominant geochemistry. Sulfate-and nitrate-reducing
microorganisms, as well as acetogenic, methanogenic, nitrate-dependent Fe(II)-
oxidizing, Fe(III)-reducing, and sulfide-oxidizing bacteria can be explored. Sulfate-
reduction rates decreased sharply in the presence of clay, while Fe(III)- reduction
increased with no clear impact on U reduction. In the absence of clay, iron and
sulfate reduction correlated with concentrations of Fe(III) and sulfate.

7
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

References (Lectures 16-18):

93. D.S.Mashbir, “Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ore, Min. Cong. J. 50,
(1964), 50-54.
94. J.R. Fisher, “Bacterial leaching of Elliot Lake uranium ore, Canada”, Min.
Metall. Bull, 59, (1966), 588-592.
95. L.F. Mars, “Underground leaching of uranium at the Pitch mine, Min. Cong. J.
(1970), 36-41.
96. K.C.Ivarson, “Enhancement of uranous-ion oxidation by Acidithiobacillus
ferrooxidans, Curr. Microbio., 3, (1980), 253-254.
97. R.J. Ring, “Ferric sulphate leaching of some Australian uranium ores.
Hydrometallurgy, 6(1-2), (1980), 89-101.
98. A.A.DiSpirito and O.H. Tuovinen, “Uranous Ion oxidation and carbon dioxide
fixation by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans”, Archives of Microbiol., 133(1),
(1982), 28-32.
99. O.H. Tuovinen, “Effect of pH, iron concentration and pulp densities on the
solubilisation of uranium from ore materials, chemicals and microbiological
acid solutions: regression equation and confidence band analysis,
Hydrometallurgy, 12, (1984), 141 – 149.
100. R.G.L. McCready, D. Wadden and A. Marchbank, “Nutrient requirements for
the in-place leaching of uranium by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans,
Hydrometallurgy, 17, (1986), 61-71.
101. R.G.L.McCready, and W.D. Gould, “Bioleaching of uranium, In: Microbial
Mineral Recovery H. L. Ehrlich and C.L. Brierley, Eds., McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1990), 107-126.
102. J.Cerda, S.Gonzalez, J.M. Rios and T. Quintana, “Uranium concentrates bio-
production in Spain: a case study”, FEMS Microbial. Rev., 11, (1993), 253-
259.
103. O. Garcia Junior, “Bacterial leaching of uranium ore from Figueira-PR, Brazil,
at laboratory and pilot scale, FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 11, (1993), 237-242.
104. K.K. Dwivedy and A.K. Mathur, “Bioleaching-our experience”,
Hydrometallurgy, 38(1), (1995), 99-109.
105. J.A. Munoz, F.Gonzalez, M.L. Blizquez and A.Ballester, “A study of the
bioleaching of a Spanish uranium ore. Part I: A review of the bacterial
leaching in the treatment of uranium ores, Hydrometallurgy, 38, (1995a), 39-
57.

8
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore
 NPTEL Web Course
Lecture 18: Biohydrometallurgy Of Uranium – Industrial Aspects And Remediation

106. J.A. Munoz, A.Ballester, F.Gonzalez and M.L. Blazquez, “A study of the
bioleaching of a Spanish uranium ore. Part II: Orbital shaker experiments,
Hydrometallurgy, 38(1), (1995b), 59-78.
107. J.A. Munoz, A.Ballester, F.Gonzalez and M.L. Blazquez, “A study of the
bioleaching of a Spanish uranium ore. Part III. Colum experiments,
Hydrometallurgy, 38(1), (1995c), 79-97.
108. J.Chadwick, “McArthur River uranium”, Mining Mag., (1997), 1-191.
109. T. M. Bhatti, A. Vuorinen, M. Lehtinen, O. H. Tuovinen, “Dissolution of
uraninite in acid solutions”, J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol., 73(3), (1998), 259-
263.
110. Abhilash, K.D Mehta, V. Kumar and B.D.Pandey, “Bio-hydrometallurgical
approach in processing of low grade Indian uranium ore in Colum Reactor”, In
Proc. Biohydromet. Falmouth, UK, (2007), pp. 531 – 536.
111. R.Calmoi and A. Cecal, “Bioleaching of uranyl ions from uranium ores by
some algae”, Environ. Engg. J. Mgmt., 6(1), (2007), 27-30.
112. M.Charbonneau, Current problems and recent advances of insitu
bioremediation of uranium contaminated sites, MMG 445. Basic
Biotechnology (2009) 5:13-18 (from web).
113. S. Groudev, I. Spasova, M. Nicolova, and P. Georgiev, Insitu bioremediation of
contaminated soils in uranium deposits, Hydrometallurgy, 104 (2010) 518-523.
114. Abhilash and B. D. Pandey, Microbially assisted leaching of uranium – A
review, Mineral Processing and Ext. Met. Rev., 34 (2013), 81 – 113.

9
Course Title: Metals Biotechnology
Course Co-ordinator: Prof. K. A. Natarajan, IISc Bangalore