Detoxifying Pit Lakes by Controlled Algal Blooms: Laboratory Study and Pilot Field Trial at little Creek Pond at Vangoda Pit near Faro, Yukon, Canada
When a mine closes, the open pit left behind often fills with water that washes metals from the pit walls. This water may be toxic and cannot be disharged without further treatment. This study evaluated the possibility of using algal blooms to remove toxic metals from pit lakes. The study had two components: laboratory tests and pit lake fertilization trials. The site for the field trial was Little Creek Pond, a small collection pond located at Vangorda Pit, near Faro, Yukon. The pond receives zinc-contaminated leachate from a waste rock dump and seepage from Vangorda Pit.Leachate is water that has percolated through soil or rock containing soluble substances such as zinc and that contains certain amounts of these substances in solution. The laboratory study, using Little Creek Pond water, demonstrated that zinc could be removed by promoting an algal bloom. Its concentrations were decreased dramatically during the 56-day study (from starting concentrations of 55 mg/L down to 3 mg/L). An interesting finding was that zinc was removed if pond sediments were present, but not if they were absent. The high initial zinc concentrations may have been too toxic to allow the development of a strong algal bloom in the absence of sediments. This idea is supported by other recent studies, which reported that zinc could be removed from the water column at lower initial concentrations. During the short field season at Little Creek Pond, good algal growth was promoted on pond sediments by addition of fertilizer. This is remarkable, considering that pond water contained over 200 mg/L, a highly toxic level. Nevertheless, zinc removal was not shown in the field trial. This may be partially explained by the short time abailable to produce the algal blooms and the fact that metal laden waters were continuously seeping into Little Creek Pond during the study. Our attempt to determine if zinc removal still occurred was frustrated by our inability to calculate an accurate water balance. This was due to a lack of reliable data on seepage flows and zinc concentrations, on water volumes in the pond, and on other possible inputs into the pond from groundwater. A single measurement of zinc content in harvested algae (over 12g per kg wet weight) indicates that zinc was successfully absorbed by algae growing on sediments. However, this provides insufficient information to conclude that significant zinc removal occurred. Despite these qualified results, aquatic phytoremediation appears to be a promising, low cost alternative to conventional lime treatment which has been used at mine sites in the past. We recommend that further studies be undertaken in pit lakes that contain lower zinc concentrations, such as the Grum pit, near Faro, Yukon.
Datasets available for download
Additional Info
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Last Updated | October 20, 2025, 02:24 (UTC) |
| Created | October 20, 2025, 02:24 (UTC) |
|
Domain / Topic
Domain or topic of the dataset being cataloged.
|
|
|
Title
Title for the Dataset.
|
Detoxifying Pit Lakes by Controlled Algal Blooms: Laboratory Study and Pilot Field Trial at little Creek Pond at Vangoda Pit near Faro, Yukon, Canada |
|
Description
A description of the dataset.
|
When a mine closes, the open pit left behind often fills with water that washes metals from the pit walls. This water may be toxic and cannot be disharged without further treatment. This study evaluated the possibility of using algal blooms to remove toxic metals from pit lakes. The study had two components: laboratory tests and pit lake fertilization trials. The site for the field trial was Little Creek Pond, a small collection pond located at Vangorda Pit, near Faro, Yukon. The pond receives zinc-contaminated leachate from a waste rock dump and seepage from Vangorda Pit.Leachate is water that has percolated through soil or rock containing soluble substances such as zinc and that contains certain amounts of these substances in solution. The laboratory study, using Little Creek Pond water, demonstrated that zinc could be removed by promoting an algal bloom. Its concentrations were decreased dramatically during the 56-day study (from starting concentrations of 55 mg/L down to 3 mg/L). An interesting finding was that zinc was removed if pond sediments were present, but not if they were absent. The high initial zinc concentrations may have been too toxic to allow the development of a strong algal bloom in the absence of sediments. This idea is supported by other recent studies, which reported that zinc could be removed from the water column at lower initial concentrations. During the short field season at Little Creek Pond, good algal growth was promoted on pond sediments by addition of fertilizer. This is remarkable, considering that pond water contained over 200 mg/L, a highly toxic level. Nevertheless, zinc removal was not shown in the field trial. This may be partially explained by the short time abailable to produce the algal blooms and the fact that metal laden waters were continuously seeping into Little Creek Pond during the study. Our attempt to determine if zinc removal still occurred was frustrated by our inability to calculate an accurate water balance. This was due to a lack of reliable data on seepage flows and zinc concentrations, on water volumes in the pond, and on other possible inputs into the pond from groundwater. A single measurement of zinc content in harvested algae (over 12g per kg wet weight) indicates that zinc was successfully absorbed by algae growing on sediments. However, this provides insufficient information to conclude that significant zinc removal occurred. Despite these qualified results, aquatic phytoremediation appears to be a promising, low cost alternative to conventional lime treatment which has been used at mine sites in the past. We recommend that further studies be undertaken in pit lakes that contain lower zinc concentrations, such as the Grum pit, near Faro, Yukon. |
|
Tags / Keywords
Keywords/tags categorizing the dataset.
|
|
|
Format (CSV, XLS, TXT, PDF, etc)
File format of the dataset.
|
|
|
Dataset Size
Dataset size in megabytes.
|
|
|
Metadata Identifier
Metadata identifier – can be used as the unique identifier for catalogue entry
|
|
|
Published Date
Published date of the dataset.
|
2011-04-04 |
|
Time Period Data Span (start date)
Start date of the data in the dataset.
|
|
|
Time Period Data Span (end date)
End date of time data in the dataset.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial Area Data Span
A spatial region or named place the dataset covers.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Access category
Type of access granted for the dataset (open, closed, service, etc).
|
|
|
License
License used to access the dataset.
|
Open Government Licence - Yukon |
|
Limits on use
Limits on use of data.
|
|
|
Location
Location of the dataset.
|
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/17a26fcb-cb0d-43f1-86b7-c146dc16d484 |
|
Data Service
Data service for accessing a dataset.
|
|
|
Owner
Owner of the dataset.
|
Government of Yukon | Gouvernement du Yukon |
|
Contact Point
Who to contact regarding access?
|
Yukon Geological Survey |
|
Contact Point Email
The email to contact regarding access?
|
|
|
Publisher
Publisher of the dataset.
|
|
|
Publisher Email
Email of the publisher.
|
[email protected] |
|
Author
Author of the dataset.
|
|
|
Author Email
Email of the author.
|
|
|
Accessed At
Date the data and metadata was accessed.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Identifier
Unique identifier for the dataset.
|
|
|
Language
Language(s) of the dataset
|
|
|
Link to dataset description
A URL to an external document describing the dataset.
|
|
|
Persistent Identifier
Data is identified by a persistent identifier.
|
|
|
Globally Unique Identifier
Data is identified by a persistent and globally unique identifier.
|
|
|
Contains data about individuals
Does the data hold data about individuals?
|
|
|
Contains data about identifiable individuals
Does the data hold identifiable data about individual?
|
|
|
Contains Indigenous Data
Does the data hold data about Indigenous communities?
|
|
|
Portal Type
Platform type of the source portal.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Version
Version of the datatset
|
None |
|
Source
Source of the dataset.
|
None |
|
Version notes
Version notes about the dataset.
|
|
|
Is version of another dataset
Link to dataset that it is a version of.
|
|
|
Other versions
Link to datasets that are versions of it.
|
|
|
Provenance Text
Provenance Text of the data.
|
|
|
Provenance URL
Provenance URL of the data.
|
|
|
Temporal resolution
Describes how granular the date/time data in the dataset is.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial resolution in meters
Describes how granular (in meters) geospatial data is in the dataset.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial resolution (in regions)
Describes how granular (in regions) geospatial data is in the dataset.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Indigenous Community Permission
Who holds the Indigenous Community Permission. Who to contact regarding access to a dataset that has data about Indigenous communities.
|
|
|
Community Permission
Community permission (who gave permission).
|
|
|
The Indigenous communities the dataset is about
Indigenous communities from which data is derived.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Number of data rows
If tabular dataset, total number of rows.
|
|
|
Number of data columns
If tabular dataset, total number of unique columns.
|
|
|
Number of data cells
If tabular dataset, total number of cells with data.
|
|
|
Number of data relations
If RDF dataset, total number of triples.
|
|
|
Number of entities
If RDF dataset, total number of entities.
|
|
|
Number of data properties
If RDF dataset, total number of unique properties used by the triples.
|
|
|
Data quality
Describes the quality of the data in the dataset.
|
|
|
Metric for data quality
A metric used to measure the quality of the data, such as missing values or invalid formats.
|
0 Comments