minerals

Review
Mining Waste and Its Sustainable Management:
Advances in Worldwide Research
José A. Aznar-Sánchez * ID , José J. García-Gómez, Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz ID

and Anselmo Carretero-Gómez ID

Department of Economics and Business, Research Centre CAESCG and CIAIMBITAL, University of Almería,
04120 Almería, Spain; josejgg@ual.es (J.J.G.-G.); jfvelasco@ual.es (J.F.V.-M.); acarrete@ual.es (A.C.-G.)
* Correspondence: jaznar@ual.es; Tel.: +34-950-015-192




Received: 23 May 2018; Accepted: 30 June 2018; Published: 2 July 2018


Abstract: Growing social awareness of the need to adequately treat mining waste in order to protect
the environment has led to an increase in the research in this field. The aim of this study was to
analyze the dynamics of the research focused on mining waste and its sustainable management on a
worldwide scale from 1988 to 2017. A systematic review and a bibliometric analysis of 3577 articles
were completed. The results show that research into mining waste has increased, with studies focusing
on waste management accounting for almost 40% of the total. The most productive journals in this
field were Applied Geochemistry and Science of the Total Environment. The five most productive
countries were the United States, Canada, Spain, Australia, and China. Works on the sustainable
management of mining waste were in the minority, but it is an area of research that has considerable
potential given the growing social awareness of the environmental repercussions of mining activities
and the demands for increasingly sustainable practices. The findings of this study could prove useful
for studies into mine waste, as they depict a global view of this line of research.

Keywords: mine waste; management; sustainability; bibliometric analysis; systematic review

1. Introduction
Mining activity has considerably increased due to notable population growth and worldwide
demand for mineral resources [1]. This increase coincides with a new awareness in which
environmental concerns have become a growing challenge for all of the agents within the sector [2,3].
The social demand has increased for the sustainable development of all of the activities related to
mining, particularly the adequate management of waste products during each phase of the mining
process, including prospection and exploration, development, extraction, transport and treatment of
product obtained, etc. [4]. The mining process generates a large quantity of residues that must be
strategically treated and managed to combine economic efficiency with demands for environmental
sustainability. Energy requirements, environmental and human health risks, demands on water
resources, and the required technology must all be taken into account [5].
The waste generated by mineral extraction may be solid, tailings, or slurry, with the most common
being tailings, waste rock, slag, and tail ends, although in certain circumstances, the vegetation and
overburden may also be considered waste [6,7]. To avoid negative effects on the environment, waste is
maintained in tailing ponds, dams, or tips, in accordance with the local legislation on waste control
treatment that is applicable to each mining area, and on recycling where technically possible [8,9].
In turn, each of these structures may be considered inert when they present no danger to human
health or the environment, or dangerous when they cause negative effects to the soil, ground and
surface water, vegetation, and even the local fauna and population [10,11]. Danger occurs due to the

Minerals 2018, 8, 284; doi:10.3390/min8070284 www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2018, 8, 284 2 of 27

toxicity of the waste (acute, chronic, or extrinsic), flammability, reactivity, corrosivity, etc. In these
cases, waste management activities that minimize or annul the dangers are required [12].
Mining activities lead to many negative environmental and socio-economic impacts.
Many changes take place in the territory and society, such as: alterations of soil use, ecosystem
variations, pollution, water shortages and disturbance of groundwater flows, modifications in the
infrastructure networks, unbalanced industrial development, forced resettlement, and changes in the
economic structure and local population, among others [13]. In the last few years, some studies have
focused on the analysis of mining impacts on soil. First, the ground must be tested for contaminants,
and the average levels of these elements must be measured in the various soil levels and sediment to
establish the margins of safety [14]. Next, studies must be undertaken to establish the concentration of
these trace elements in the mine, understand their capacity to produce acid mine drainage, identify the
primary and secondary minerals in the waste, and estimate the mobility of the dangerous elements.
Sequential extraction techniques are usually used to determine the environmental risks posed by these
trace elements. This indicates the degree of adherence of these elements to the soil, and subsequently
how easily they may contaminate the air, water, and food chain [15,16].
Analyses were undertaken of the dispersion of contaminating elements in residues and the
structural stability of the deposits of these elements. Studies of human bioaccessibility [17], estimates
of enrichment factor (EF), and geoaccumulation index (Igeo) are also common [18,19]. Sediment quality
guidelines (SQGs) [20] have been introduced, and ecotoxicological risks were evaluated. The risks of
the mobility of trace elements to surface and ground water were also evaluated through sediments [21].
Mineral deposits have traditionally been sealed off, although the traditionally used techniques
have not been environmentally optimal [22]. Mine waste management systems recommend a
geographic description of the residue and its mobility, a revision of the biogenetic and mineral
dismantling of sulfide-based residue, a study of jarosite formation and soluble iron sulfates, monitoring
the weathering of slag, an analysis of oxidation on the marine floor, the use of wetlands to immobilize
trace elements, and the use of microorganisms to reduce the reactivity of mine residues [23].
Although mineral waste management has traditionally been based on the linear economy,
the current challenge is to apply the possibilities presented by a circular economy to this problem,
so that society changes its fundamentally negative perception of the sector. Recently, concentrations of
graphite have been used to reduce tin mine foundry slag. Cement filling processes using superfine
tailings have also been used to control sink holes in underground mining. New methods of transporting
cement to fill tubes have been introduced, as has the reuse of residues in different geo-engineering
applications. The recycling of leaching residue and new tailings procedures have been aimed at deep
sea mining [24].
Mining waste management includes the characterization and remediation of residues.
The state-of-the-art proposes new methods such as the use of mapping to determine the extent
of wastes, the use of hyperspectral instruments [25], the mobility of sediments containing toxic
residues [26], the mitigation of toxic metals spread in redox areas [27], the use of biochemical and
mineral dissolution processes in sulfurous tailings [28], the dilution of tailings products, and the
geochemical and mineral elimination of submarine tailings [29]. Other remediation systems include
the use of heat to volatilize toxic components, and the use of microorganisms to reduce the reactivity
and toxicity [30].
The potential environmental threat of waste generated by mining, along with an increasing
societal awareness of the need to adequately treat mining waste, have led to the increased importance
of this line of research. Nevertheless, no analysis of the developments in this research area has been
completed as of late. This study aimed to fill that gap by analyzing the dynamics of the research
into mining waste and its sustainable management since 1988 on a worldwide scale. The results may
prove interesting for researchers of mining waste by offering a global view of the dynamics of this line
of research.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 3 of 27

2. Methodology
We analyzed two parameters to achieve our intended aim: a quantitative analysis using
bibliometry, and a systematic, qualitative revision.

2.1. Bibliometric Method

The bibliometric analysis was first introduced by Garfield in the mid-20th century [31]. The main
objective of this methodology is to identify, organize, and analyze the main components within a
specific research field [32,33]. Since then, the method has been applied to areas such as engineering,
biology, energy, medicine, and administration [34]. Over the last few decades, it has contributed to the
review of scientific knowledge. Bibliometry is used to study the evolution and research trends of a
topic. Through some statistical and mathematic analyzing tools, the publication relevance within a
specific field can be assessed [35]. It also enables identifying the most productive authors, institutions,
and countries so that the main researchers of a field can be stated [36].
Moreover, the use of mapping tools enables the identification of collaboration areas between
some actors [37]. Thanks to these tools, the bibliographic information of a database can be shown,
as well as main research trends [38,39]. Links between authors of different subject areas, institutions
and countries can be viewed graphically. This application has been very useful and relevant in areas
where international collaboration is essential, as is the case for the mineral sector [40].
Traditionally, co-occurrence analysis, co-quotation, and bibliographic coupling have been the
main bibliometric approaches. They have been applied to database metadata according to the
year of document publication, theme categories of classification, and obtained quotations of the
works and keywords [41]. Currently, the traditional bibliometric methods have given way to new
applications: viewing tools and information through text extraction techniques and data mining [42];
techniques of overlaying maps and variable associations [43]; the development of analysis frames
to assess innovation [44]; tool developments based on routine types of automatized software [31,41];
and methods to identify and view evolution ways of scientific topics within a time segment [45].
In order to achieve the main goals of our work, a traditional approach based on co-occurrence has
been considered best suited, since a general character is pursued. Furthermore, current processing and
mapping tools have been applied due to their reliability [43].
Durieux and Gevenois defined three types of indicators when applying bibliometric analysis [46].
These are divided up into: (i) quantity indicators referring to productivity and counting; (ii) qualitative
indicators regarding publication impact; and (iii) structural indicators that measure established links
between agents. These three types of indicators have been taken into account in this paper. In this way,
counting has been used to measure the productivity of authors, journals, institutions, and countries.
The quotation number, H-index, and Scopus Journal Ranking (SJR) impact factor, have been used to
measure impact. Network maps have been generated to view international links between different
actors and analyze hotspots trends in this study field [47].
Obtained results through this type of analysis are very useful for many users. The evolution
representation of the main research lines, identification of the most productive and relevant agents,
and recognition of future trends are very helpful for junior and senior researchers of a specific research
field [42]. Information compilations on new technologies and innovations in rapidly evolving areas
mean new investment options for analysts and business agents [44]. Moreover, data on the hottest
topics, such as material management, environmental protection, natural resources, and climate change
are of particular interest in the decision-making processes from a business and administration point
of view.

2.2. Data and Processing

The majority of bibliometric analyses use the Scopus data base, as it is considered the largest
repository of peer-reviewed literature, it is easily accessible, provides different tools for viewing and
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 4 of 27

analyzing publications, and allows data to be downloaded in different formats for processing by
software [48].
Currently, there is a debate about the comparability and stability of the gained statistical data
based on the two main databases: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus [49]. Some studies have attempted
to answer the question of which database is more adequate to be used for a bibliometric work. It has
been proven that Scopus has more indexed journals than WoS [50]. It has also been demonstrated
that only the 54% of the indexed publications in Scopus are comprised in WoS, while 84% of the
WoS titles are indexed in Scopus [51]. The Google Scholar database has not been taken into account,
since it has some limitations. Some studies compared the utility of diverse databases to Google
Scholar when reviewing literature. Borrett et al. [52] pointed out that Google Scholar includes a greater
quantity of non-relevant variables such as help files. Therefore, cleaning the data up requires more
effort. Wildgaard [53] argued that Google Scholar includes a great number of non-peer reviewed
articles, which generally implies publications with a low quality level. Ştirbu et al. [54] concluded
that result processing and classification require a higher effort when using Google Scholar due to
its total data amount and limited functioning. For these reasons, Scopus was chosen to perform the
bibliometric analysis in this study. Many recent publications have used Scopus to perform bibliometric
studies: Judd [55]; Feng, Zhu, and Lai [56]; Mugomeri et al. [57]; Mateo-Sanguino [58], and Kokol,
Blazun-Vosner, and Zeleznik [59].
To study the various topics in our research, including mining waste, mining waste management,
and the sustainable management of mining waste, we performed a descending search. This kind
of search means first selecting a sample of a wider general topic, and subsequently, more restricted
searches of the sample are conducted until a specific topic is defined. The main reason for this
procedure is to compare the relevance of a specific topic with a broader research field. Initially, a search
was performed using the parameters [TITLE-ABS-KEY (“mine waste”)], with the aim of covering all of
the works related to mining waste. The time scale of the sample was established between 1988–2017.
As non-original publications undergo a less rigorous peer-review process, are less available, and may
present duplicate information, these were excluded from our sample [60]. The resulting final sample
totaled 3577 articles and reviews. A second search using the parameters: [TITLE-ABS-KEY (“mine
waste”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“reprocessing” OR “reuse” OR “revalorization” OR “repositation” OR
“re-using” OR “recycling” OR “remediation” OR “treatment” OR “stabilization” OR “valorization”
OR “integrated management”)] was undertaken to study the research into mining waste management.
Different search terms were tested before reaching the final sample. Various parameters were included,
and some of them were finally removed, such as “management”, since they introduced a high noise
level in the article sample. We applied the same restrictions as the initial search, obtaining a sample
of 1092 articles. Finally, to analyze works on the sustainable management of mining waste, a third
search was completed that included the following parameters: [TITLE-ABS-KEY (“mine waste”) AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“reprocessing” OR “reuse” OR “revalorization” OR “repositation” OR “re-using” OR
“recycling” OR “remediation” OR “treatment” OR “stabilization” OR “valorization” OR “integrated
management”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainable” OR “sustainability”)]. The result was a sample of
59 published articles.
To study the characteristics of the research in these three areas, the selected variables were:
the year of publication, publishing journals, authors, institutions, and countries of author affiliation,
and keywords. Once data were downloaded in two formats (RIS and csv), the first task to be undertaken
was the depuration of information. Later on, data analysis and processing took place. Excel (version
2016) and SciMAT (v1.1.04) were the used software tools. VOSviewer was applied to analyze the
links between different authors and keywords, as well as create the corresponding network maps.
This software was chosen due to its suitability and frequent use in these kinds of works. Finally, the
study of keywords was used to analyze the evolution of research trends and identify future ones.
Figure 1 summarizes the followed methodology.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 5 of 27
Minerals 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 28

Figure 1. Methodology flow diagram.

Figure 1. Methodology flow diagram.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Mine Waste
3.1. Mine Waste
Table 1 shows the evolution of the main variables in research into mine waste (MW) on a global
scale from 1988 to 2017. The number of articles published on this subject (A) increased notably from
Table 1 shows the evolution of the main variables in research into mine waste (MW) on a global
14 in 1988 to 279 in 2017. This trend indicates that research into MW has increased in importance,
scale from 1988 toin2017.
culminating The number
the maximum number of of
articles
articlespublished
published in on2017.
thisThe
subject (A) increased
comparison notably
between the total from
14 in 1988 to 279 in 2017. This trend indicates that research into MW has increased
growth of articles on MW and the total growth of articles within all of the disciplines would be highly in importance,
culminating in the
interesting, butmaximum number
unfortunately, it wasofnot
articles published
possible to achieve in these
2017.dataTheunder
comparison between
the current the total
research
growth of articlesThe
framework. on remaining
MW and variables
the total ingrowth
Table 1of articles
show within
a similar all oftrend.
growing the disciplines
The numberwould be highly
of authors
in this but
interesting, fieldunfortunately,
(AU) grew fromit28 wasin 1988 to 1221 into
not possible 2017. The number
achieve of references
these data under the (NR) increased
current research
framework. The remaining variables in Table 1 show a similar growing trend. The number of 13
exponentially from 86 to 11,323. The number of journals (J) also increased during this period, from authors
in 1988 to 153 in 2017. The internationalization of the field is reflected in the number of countries (C),
in this field (AU) grew from 28 in 1988 to 1221 in 2017. The number of references (NR) increased
which increased from four in 1988 to 51 in 2017. The total number of cited articles (TC) on MW was
exponentially from 86 to 11,323. The number of journals (J) also increased during this period, from 13
three in 1989, increasing to 7413 citations in 2017. The number of citations per article increased from
in 19880.10
to in
153 in 2017.
1989 to 16.89The internationalization of the field is reflected in the number of countries (C),
in 2017.
which increased from four in 1988 to 51 in 2017. The total number of cited articles (TC) on MW was
three in 1989, increasing Table to
1. Major
7413 characteristics
citations in of the articles
2017. published of
The number on citations
mine wasteper
(MW).
article increased from
0.10 in 1989 to 16.89 in 2017. Year A AU NR J C TC CTC/CA
1988 14 28 86 13 4 0 0.00
Table 1. Major characteristics of the articles published on mine waste (MW).
1989 15 31 217 12 7 3 0.10
1990 18 40 248 13 4 10 0.28
Year1991 A 21 AU 45 NR465 J
19 7C 18 TC 0.46 CTC/CA
1988199214 8 2830 86
134 13
7 44 24 0 0.72 0.00
1989199315 26 3160 217
343 12
24 67 35 3 0.88 0.10
1990199418 22 4059 248
652 13
19 9 4 52 10 1.15 0.28
1991199521 32 4579 465
478 19
30 10 7 80 18 1.42 0.46
19921996 8 38 3099 134
1012 7 4
30 14 122 24 1.77 0.72
1993 26 60 343 24 6 35 0.88
1997 42 105 905 32 14 166 2.16
1994 22 59 652 19 9 52 1.15
1998 79 193 1752 55 26 204 2.27
1995 32 79 478 30 10 80 1.42
1999 98 293 2387 54 19 322 2.51
1996 38 99 1012 30 14 122 1.77
1997200042 108 105
307 2596
905 65 2514 370166 2.70 2.16
32
1998 79 193 1752 55 26 204 2.27
1999 98 293 2387 54 19 322 2.51
2000 108 307 2596 65 25 370 2.70
2001 107 304 2709 68 30 463 2.98
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 6 of 27

Table 1. Cont.

Year
Minerals 2018, 8, x FOR A
PEER REVIEW AU NR J C TC CTC/CA 6 of 28
2002 126 395 2983 73 33 664 3.36
2003 2001
129 107 387304 3039
2709 68
82 3035 463965 2.98 3.96
2004 2002
137 126 382395 4292
2983 73
77 3332 6641020 3.36 4.43
2005 2003
159 129 521387 4796
3039 82
91 3538 9651465 3.96 5.07
2006 2004
127 137 436382 4194
4292 77
83 3238 1020
1853 4.43 6.00
2007 165 159 559521 5147
2005 4796 97
91 3841 2197
1465 5.07 6.82
2008 161 127 513436 4835
2006 4194 101
83 3844 2678
1853 6.00 7.79
2009 172 165 572559 5633
2007 5147 97
97 4143 3162
2197 6.82 8.80
2010 168 161 578513 5901
2008 4835 99
101 4444 3536
2678 7.79 9.84
2011 205 172 714572 6944
2009 5633 105
97 4347 4249
3162 8.80 10.87
2012 177 168 648578 6166
2010 5901 103
99 4450 4467
3536 9.84 11.95
2013 233 205 797714 9007
2011 6944 127
105 4750 5183
4249 10.8712.88
2014 230 177 863648 9384
2012 6166 129
103 5048 6087
4467 11.9513.98
2015 226 233 872797 9086
2013 9007 122
127 5052 6352
5183 12.8815.03
2016 255 1007
2014 230 863
10,779
9384
126
129 48
51 7245
6087 13.98
16.07
2017 279 1221 11,323 153 51 7413 16.89
2015 226 872 9086 122 52 6352 15.03
A: annual number of articles; AU: annual
2016 number10,779
255 1007 of authors;
126NR:51total number16.07
7245 of references for all of the articles;
J: annual number of journals;2017C: annual
279number
1221 of 11,323
countries;153
TC: annual number of
51 7413 citations for all articles; CTC/CA:
16.89
annual total citations per cumulative article.
A: annual number of articles; AU: annual number of authors; NR: total number of references for all
of the articles; J: annual number of journals; C: annual number of countries; TC: annual number of
Figure citations
2 shows forthe evolution
all articles; of the
CTC/CA: principle
annual subjects
total citations under which
per cumulative article. Scopus classifies articles
on
MW. Note that one article may be simultaneously included in more than one category. During the
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the principle subjects under which Scopus classifies articles on
period studied, 58.6% of published articles were classified under the Environmental Sciences category,
MW. Note that one article may be simultaneously included in more than one category. During the
47.2% were
periodinstudied,
Earth and58.6%Planetary Sciences,
of published articles 16.4% were in under
were classified Agricultural and Biological
the Environmental Sciences,
Sciences
8% werecategory,
in Engineering, and 7% were in Chemistry. These were followed by the categories
47.2% were in Earth and Planetary Sciences, 16.4% were in Agricultural and Biological of Materials
Science,Sciences,
Medicine, Social
8% were Sciences, Pharmacology,
in Engineering, Toxicology,
and 7% were in Chemistry. Pharmaceutics,
These and
were followed by theEnergy, but none
categories
of Materials
accounted for 4% ofScience, Medicine,
the total SocialSince
of articles. Sciences, Pharmacology,
the beginning Toxicology,
of the analyzedPharmaceutics, and
period, Environmental
Science Energy, but none accounted for 4% of the total of articles. Since the beginning of the analyzed period,
and Earth and Planetary Sciences have been the principle categories. However, since 2006,
Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences have been the principle categories.
Environmental Science has become the leading discipline in this area, which indicates that MW research
However, since 2006, Environmental Science has become the leading discipline in this area, which
is beingindicates
principally studied
that MW from
research is an environmental
being perspective.
principally studied from an environmental perspective.

200
Environmental Science
180
Earth and Planetary Sciences
160
Agricultural and Biological Sciences

140
Engineering

120 Chemistry

100

80

60

40

20

0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Figure 2. Trend in the subject categories of MW articles published from 1988 to 2017.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 7 of 27

Table 2 shows the 10 journals with the most publications on MW. This group is entirely made
up of European journals, specifically British, Dutch, and German journals, with the exception of
one Iranian publication. These journals publish 28% of all of the articles in the field, indicating no
great concentration of publication in this area. In the first column, we can see the total number of
articles published by each journal along the whole period. Moreover, the evolution of the article
number per journal is shown during the three 10-year periods, into which the studied time was
divided up. Applied Geochemistry was the most productive journal on this subject from 1988 to
2017, with 155 articles, followed by Science of the Total Environment with 130 articles, the Journal
of Geochemical Exploration with 109 articles, and Environmental Earth Sciences with 88 articles.
Environmental Earth Sciences was established in 2009 under that name; however, it was previously
published under the name of Environmental Geology. This journal occupied the first position in
terms of the number of articles published from 1997 to 2009, the year in which it changed its name.
From this date, Applied Geochemistry took the first position. During the sub-period of 2008–2017,
Environmental Earth Sciences established itself once again in first position. Both appear separately
in the fourth and fifth position of the most productive journals, but if the publications were totaled,
this journal would take first position with 172 articles and a total of 2875 citations.
Journals with a greater SJR index were: Environmental Pollution with 1.786, the Journal
of Hazardous Materials with 1.727, and Science of the Total Environment with 1.621. Applied
Geochemistry was the most cited journal, followed by Science of the Total Environment, Environmental
Science and Technology, and Chemosphere. However, considering the average number of citations
per article, Environmental Science and Technology was the journal with the greatest impact, with a
total of 48.8 citations per article. Chemosphere took second position with 44.2 citations per article,
and Environmental Pollution was in third place with 37.1 citations per article. This journal had the
greatest record within the top 10, since it first published an article on this subject in 1989. Notably,
the journals in the top 10 are of the highest quality; they all appear in the first two quartiles of the
Scopus classification.
Table 3 shows the 10 most productive countries in the publication of articles on MW. The United
States led the group, followed by Canada, Spain, Australia, and China. The number of articles
published per million inhabitants (APC) is also shown in this table. This variable is led by Canada
with 13.75 articles per capita, followed by Australia with 12.47, Portugal with 10.07, and Spain with
7.29. The United States placed first in the total number of citations, followed by Canada, Spain,
and the United Kingdom. However, considering the average number of citations per article, the United
Kingdom placed first with 29 citations per article, followed by the United States with 22.3, Spain with
21.4, Portugal with 19.2, and Canada with 18.1. Figure 3 shows the elevated correlation existing
between the H index and number of articles published by each country.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 8 of 27

Table 2. Top 10 most productive journals for MW research.

R (A)
Journal A SJR H Index C TC TC/A 1st A
1988–1997 1998–2007 2008–2017
Applied Geochemistry 155 1.019 (Q1) 41 UK 4840 31.2 1991 12 (3) 2 (62) 1 (90)
Science of the Total Environment 130 1.621 (Q1) 37 Netherlands 4289 33.0 1997 3 (6) 3 (44) 3 (84)
Journal of Geochemical Exploration 109 1.047 (Q1) 28 Netherlands 2635 24.2 1995 5 (5) 5 (31) 4 (73)
Environmental Earth Sciences 88 0.574 (Q2) 14 Germany 544 6.2 2009 0 0 2 (88)
Environmental Geology 84 ND 31 Germany 2331 27.8 1993 1 (7) 1 (67) 33 (10)
Water Air and Soil Pollution 69 0.578 (Q2) 20 Netherlands 1120 16.2 1991 12 (3) 9 (27) 9 (39)
Journal of Hazardous Materials 68 1.727 (Q1) 25 Netherlands 1717 25.3 1995 37 (1) 16 (12) 5 (55)
Chemosphere 67 1.417 (Q1) 29 UK 2962 44.2 2000 0 11 (20) 7 (47)
Environmental Science and Technology 67 0.575 (Q2) 31 Iran 3270 48.8 1992 3 (6) 4 (32) 12 (29)
Environmental Pollution 57 1.786 (Q1) 27 UK 2111 37.0 1989 1 (7) 7 (28) 17 (22)
Environmental Earth Sciences* 172 0.574 (Q2) 31 Germany 2875 16.7 1993 1 (7) 1 (67) 1 (98)
A: annual number of total articles; SJR: Scopus Journal Ranking; C: country; TC: annual number of citations for all articles; TC/A: number of citations by article; 1stA: first article of MW
research by journal; R: ranking position; UK: United Kingdom.
Minerals 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 28
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 9 of 27

Table 3. Most productive countries in MW research.

Table 3. Most productive countries in MW research.R (A)
Country A APC TC TC/A
1988–1997 1998–2007 2008–2017
R (A)
United
Country States 613
A 1.897
APC 13,646
TC 22.3
TC/A 1 (62) 1 (248) 1 (303)
Canada 499 13.752 9050 18.1 1988–1997
3 (21) 1998–2007
2 (205) 22008–2017
(273)
United States
Spain 613
339 1.897
7.299 13,646
7247 22.3
21.4 1 (62)
8 (3) 1 (248)
5 (99) 1 (303)
3 (237)
Canada
Australia 499
301 13.752
12.476 9050
4113 18.1
13.7 3 (21)
4 (17) 2 (205)
5 (99) 2 (273)
5 (185)
Spain 339 7.299 7247 21.4 8 (3) 5 (99) 3 (237)
China
Australia
280
301
0.203
12.476
4364
4113
15.6
13.7
14 4(1)
(17)
7 (62)
5 (99)
4 (217)
5 (185)
United
ChinaKingdom 241
280 3.672
0.203 6977
4364 29.0
15.6 2 (32)
14 (1) 3 (113)
7 (62) 7 4(96)
(217)
Germany
United Kingdom 187
241 2.262
3.672 3191
6977 17.1
29.0 6 (9)
2 (32) 4 (105)
3 (113) 10 7(73)
(96)
Germany
India 187
170 2.262
0.128 3191
1492 17.1
8.8 6 (9)
8 (3) 4 (105)
8 (61) 10 (73)
6 (106)
India 170 0.128 1492 8.8 8 (3) 8 (61) 6 (106)
Portugal 104 10.073 1996 19.2 0 21 (16) 8 (88)
Portugal 104 10.073 1996 19.2 0 21 (16) 8 (88)
Poland
Poland 103
103 2.714
2.714 935
935 9.1
9.1 8 (3)
8 (3) 1313(22)
(22) 9 (78)
9 (78)
A: annualnumber
A: annual number ofof total
total articles;
articles; APC:APC: number
number of articles
of articles per inhabitants;
per 1 mill. 1 mill. inhabitants; TC:
TC: annual annual
number ofnumber
citations
of
forcitations for
all articles; all articles;
TC/A: numberTC/A: number
of citations of citations
by article; by article;
R: ranking position.R: ranking position.

70

60 USA

50 Spain
Canada
UK
40 China
H index

France Germany
30 Portugal Australia
Sweden
20 Italy India
Brazil
Poland
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of articles

Figure 3. Correlation between H index and the number of articles by country in MW research.
Figure 3. Correlation between H index and the number of articles by country in MW research.

Table 44 indicates
Table indicates the
the different
different variables
variables related
related to
to the
the international
international collaboration between the
collaboration between the
group of
group ofthe
the1010most
most productive
productive countries
countries on subject
on the the subject
of MW.of MW. The United
The United KingdomKingdom
had thehad the
largest
largest percentage of articles produced in collaboration with other countries, with
percentage of articles produced in collaboration with other countries, with 46.9% of the total. The 46.9% of the total.
The United
United States,
States, Australia,
Australia, Spain,
Spain, Canada,
Canada, andand Germany
Germany wereitsitsmain
were maincollaborators.
collaborators. These
These were
were
followed by
followed by Germany
Germanywith with42.8%,
42.8%,Portugal
Portugal with
with 40.4%,
40.4%, andand Australia
Australia withwith
38.9%38.9% of total.
of the the total.
The
The United Kingdom was also the country with the greatest number of collaborators,
United Kingdom was also the country with the greatest number of collaborators, with 46 associates, with 46 associates,
followed by
followed by the
the United
United States
States with
with 45,
45, and
and Australia
Australia with
with 38. The United
38. The United States
States stands
stands outout as
as the
the
principle collaborator
principle collaboratoramong
amongthe theremaining
remaining toptop 10 countries,
10 countries, beingbeing the foremost
the foremost collaborator
collaborator of
of these
these five countries: Canada, China, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and India.
five countries: Canada, China, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and India. This table also shows This table also
shows
the the average
average number number of citations
of citations (TC/A)(TC/A) per article
per article produced
produced in international
in international collaboration
collaboration (IC), (IC),
and
and those produced without collaboration (NIC), for each country. The number
those produced without collaboration (NIC), for each country. The number of average citations of average citations
per
per article,
article, in every
in every country,
country, was greater
was greater with international
with international collaboration,
collaboration, exceptexcept in the
in the case of case of the
the United
UnitedSpain,
States, States,and
Spain, and Portugal.
Portugal.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 10 of 27

Table 4. International collaboration between the most productive countries in MW research.

TC/A
Country IC (%) NC Main Collaborators
IC NIC
United States 31.81 45 Canada, United Kingdom, China, Spain, Australia 21.4 22.7
United States, Australia, Morocco,
Canada 24.05 34 19.8 17.6
United Kingdom, Germany
Portugal, United States, United Kingdom,
Spain 37.46 30 20.3 22.0
Germany, Netherlands
Canada, United Kingdom, China,
Australia 38.87 38 18.7 10.5
United States, Germany
United States, Australia, Canada,
China 26.07 29 25.4 12.1
United Kingdom, Norway
United
46.89 46 United States, Australia, Spain, Canada, Germany 31.3 26.9
Kingdom
Germany 42.78 37 United States, Spain, Australia, Canada, France 18.7 15.8
United States, Australia, United Kingdom, China,
India 18.82 22 11.2 8.2
Russian Federation
Portugal 40.38 19 Spain, Australia, Brazil, Tunisia, United States 17.3 20.5
Czech Republic, Netherlands, United States,
Poland 16.50 24 13.1 8.3
China, Germany
IC: international collaborations; NC: total number of international collaborators; TC/A: total citations per article;
NIC: no international collaborations.

The principle characteristics of the institutions with the largest number of publications on MW
are displayed in Table 5. Half of these were found in Canada, with the remainder in Spain, China,
Australia, and the United States. Canada’s University of British Columbia was the institution with the
greatest number of articles published, followed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the University of
Queensland, the United States Geological Survey, and Western University in Canada. The University of
Waterloo (Canada) had the largest number of cited publications, followed by the University of British
Columbia, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the United States Geological Survey. The University
of Waterloo also took first position in terms of the average number of citations per article with 37.7,
followed by Spain’s National Research Council with 27.2, the United States Geological Survey with
24.5, and Western University with 19.3. Spanish institutions were those with the largest percentage of
research completed with international collaboration.

Table 5. Most productive institutions in MW research.

TC/A
Institution C A TC TC/A H Index * IC (%)
IC NIC
The University of British Columbia Canada 79 1417 17.9 23 25.32 11.1 20.3
Chinese Academy of Sciences China 75 1412 18.8 20 29.33 22.2 17.4
University of Queensland Australia 55 495 9.0 12 25.45 14.1 7.2
United States Geological Survey USA 54 1325 24.5 20 22.22 21.1 25.5
Western University Canada 51 985 19.3 17 11.76 19.8 19.2
Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena Spain 47 867 18.4 17 42.55 24.6 13.9
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Spain 46 1250 27.2 19 41.30 19.3 32.7
University of Saskatchewan Canada 45 731 16.2 15 22.22 16.5 16.2
Universite du Quebec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue Canada 43 455 10.6 12 34.88 11.7 10.0
University of Waterloo Canada 41 1546 37.7 21 26.83 28.8 41.0
* Only sample items. C: country; A: annual number of total articles; TC: annual number of citations in total articles;
TC/A: number of citations by article; IC: international collaborations; NIC: no international collaborations.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 11 of 27

Table 6 shows the authors with the largest number of MW articles. The four most prolific
authors were affiliated with Canadian institutions. David Blowes of the University of Waterloo was
the most seasoned of the ranking with a paper from 1994. He was the most cited, with a total of
1394 citations and the highest H index (20). Ernest K. Yanful of Western University had 481 citations
and an H index of 14. Following this were Mostafa Benzaazoua and Bruno Bussière of the Université
du Quebec. The most recent author to join the ranks was R. Hakkou of the University Cadi Ayyad
Marrakech of Morocco, with the first paper published in 2008. Even so, Hakkou managed to place
ninth. Karen A. Hudson-Edwards of the University of Exeter was the author with the largest average
number of citations per article with a total of 48.7. Figure 4 shows a network map illustrating the
collaborative relationships of co-authorship between the different authors of MW articles. The size of
the circle indicates the number of articles, whereas the thickness of the line indicates the number of
collaborations between authors. The formation of different clusters can be observed through the colored
representation. The group made up by Blowes, Smith, Ptacek, and Jambor stands out. Yanful leads
a cluster that includes Simms, Hendry, Morris, and Song, among others. In the Benzaazoua group,
we also find Bussière and Hakkou, whereas Craw, Lottermoser, and Schippers create another cluster.
Next to Öhlander we can find Nason, Mäkitalo, Alakangas, and Maurice. Conesa shares the group
with Jiménez-Cárceles, Robinson, Schulin, Álvarez-Rogel, and Elbaz-Poulichet. Hudson-Edwards
builds a group together with Macklin, Bird, and Kossoff, among others.

Table 6. Most productive authors in MW research.

Author A TC TC/A H Index * C Affiliation 1st A Last A

Blowes, David W. 33 1394 42.2 20 Canada University of Waterloo 1994 2017
Yanful, Ernest Kwesi 33 481 14.6 14 Canada Western University 1997 2013
Universite du Quebec en
Benzaazoua, Mostafa 28 378 13.5 11 Canada 2004 2017
Abitibi-Temiscamingue
Universite du Quebec en
Bussière, Bruno 28 404 14.4 11 Canada 2004 2017
Abitibi-Temiscamingue
New
Craw, David 24 501 20.9 14 University of Otago 1999 2017
Zealand
Öhlander, Björn 23 311 13.5 10 Sweden Lulea tekniska Universitet 1999 2016
Universidad Politecnica de
Conesa, Héctor Miguel 21 573 27.3 11 Spain 2006 2017
Cartagena
Rheinisch-Westfalische
Lottermoser, Bernd G. 18 419 23.3 12 Germany Technische Hochschule 1999 2016
Aachen
University Cadi Ayyad
Hakkou, R. 17 223 13.1 8 Morocco 2008 2017
Marrakech
Hudson-Edwards,
17 828 48.7 11 UK University of Exeter 1996 2017
Karen A.
Bundesanstalt fur
Schippers, Axel 17 489 28.8 13 Germany Geowissenschaften und 1995 2014
Rohstoffe
* Only sample items. A: annual number of total articles; TC: annual number of citations in total articles; TC/A:
number of citations by article; C: country.
Minerals
Minerals 2018,
2018, 8,
8, x284
FOR PEER REVIEW 12
12 of
of 28
27

Figure 4. Cooperation based on co-authorship between authors.

Figure 4. Cooperation based on co-authorship between authors.

We analyzed
We analyzed keywords
keywords to to identify
identify trends
trends in in MW
MW research,
research, which
which was
was necessary
necessary in in order
order toto
previously remove duplicities. This pre-treatment of keywords has been
previously remove duplicities. This pre-treatment of keywords has been undertaken with the undertaken with the SciMAT
software.software.
SciMAT Words suchWords as such
“article” and “priority
as “article” journal”
and “priority were excluded
journal” from from
were excluded this process, as they
this process, as
were irrelevant for our purposes. Table 7 shows the 20 most frequently used keywords
they were irrelevant for our purposes. Table 7 shows the 20 most frequently used keywords in articles in articles
during the
during the period
period of of1988
1988toto2017.
2017.This
Thistable also
table shows
also showsthethe
evolution of these
evolution words
of these through
words the three
through the
different 10-year sub-periods, into which the complete period may be divided. The
three different 10-year sub-periods, into which the complete period may be divided. The values refer values refer to the
number of articles in which each keyword appears (A), the position the word
to the number of articles in which each keyword appears (A), the position the word occupies in occupies in relation to
the others
relation to in
theterms
othersof in
theterms
number of repetitions
of the number of (R), and the (R),
repetitions percentage
and theof appearances
percentage with respect
of appearances
to the total number of articles analyzed in the period (%). Among the most
with respect to the total number of articles analyzed in the period (%). Among the most often-usedoften-used keywords
were mining products (zinc, lead, copper, metals, heavy metal, iron, and arsenic),
keywords were mining products (zinc, lead, copper, metals, heavy metal, iron, and arsenic), different different terms
relating
terms to the processes
relating and elements
to the processes of mining
and elements of (tailings, acid mineacid
mining (tailings, drainage, concentration,
mine drainage, industrial
concentration,
waste, oxidation, and environmental monitoring), and soil contamination (soils,
industrial waste, oxidation, and environmental monitoring), and soil contamination (soils, soil soil pollutants, pH,
and soil pollution).
pollutants, pH, and soil pollution).

Table 7.
Table Most frequently
7. Most frequently used
used keywords
keywords in
in MW
MW research.
research.

1988–2017
1988–2017 1988–1997 1998–2007
1988–1997 1998–20072008–2017
2008–2017
KeywordsKeywords
A %A %R (A)R (A) %% RR(A) (A) % %R (A) R % (A) %
Mining Mining 1315 1315
36.8 36.8 1
1 (49) (49) 20.8
20.8 1 (435)
1 (435) 35.2 1
35.2(831) 39.5
1 (831) 39.5
Tailings Tailings 895 895
25.0 25.0 30 (8) 3.4
30 (8) 3.4 22(319)
(319) 25.825.8
2 (568)2 27.0
(568) 27.0
Heavy MetalHeavy Metal 686 19.2
686 3 (30)
19.2 3 (30)12.7
12.7 33(247)
(247) 20.020.0
3 (409)3 19.4
(409) 19.4
Lead 571 16.0 6 (20) 8.5 8 (145) 11.7 4 (406) 19.3
Lead 571 16.0 6 (20) 8.5 8 (145) 11.7 4 (406) 19.3
Zinc 561 15.7 8 (19) 8.1 6 (165) 13.4 7 (377) 17.9
Soil Pollution Zinc 547 561
15.3 15.7 8 (19) 8.1
8 (19) 8.1 69(165)
(137) 13.411.1
7 (377)5 17.9
(391) 18.6
Soils Soil Pollution 537 547
15.0 15.3 8 (19) 9.3
5 (22) 8.1 910(137)
(131) 11.110.6
5 (391)6 18.6
(384) 18.2
Copper Soils 527 14.7
537 4 (23)
15.0 5 (22) 9.7
9.3 105 (131)
(172) 10.613.9
6 (384)9 18.2
(332) 15.8
Acid Mine Drainage 490 13.7 19 (13) 5.9 4 (185) 15.0 13 (291) 13.8
Arsenic
Copper 460
527
12.9
14.7 4 (23) 4.7
23 (11)
9.7 57(172)
(153)
13.912.4
9 (332)1115.8
(296) 14.1
Acid Mine Drainage
Metals 420 490
11.7 13.7 19 (13)4.7
23 (11) 5.9 424(185)
(92) 15.07.4
13 (291)
1013.8
(317) 15.1
Mine TailingsArsenic 407 11.4
460 15 (14) 5.9 24 (92) 7.4 11
12.9 23 (11) 4.7 7 (153) 12.4 11 (296) 14.1 (296) 14.1
pH Metals 385 10.8
420 20 (12) 5.1 20 (108) 8.7
11.7 23 (11) 4.7 24 (92) 7.4 10 (317) 15.114 (265) 12.6

Mine Tailings 407 11.4 15 (14) 5.9 24 (92) 7.4 11 (296) 14.1
pH 385 10.8 20 (12) 5.1 20 (108) 8.7 14 (265) 12.6
Concentration (Composition) 366 10.2 0 0.0 291 (13) 1.1 8 (353) 16.8
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 13 of 27

Table 7. Cont.

1988–2017 1988–1997 1998–2007 2008–2017

Keywords
A % R (A) % R (A) % R (A) %
Concentration (Composition) 366 10.2 0 0.0 291 (13) 1.1 8 (353) 16.8
Environmental Monitoring 356 10.0 72 (4) 1.7 17 (114) 9.2 15 (238) 11.3
Industrial Waste 349 9.8 13 (15) 6.4 12 (122) 9.9 19 (212) 10.1
Non-human 347 9.7 15 (14) 5.9 13 (119) 9.6 18 (214) 10.2
Iron 327 9.1 30 (8) 3.4 18 (109) 8.8 20 (210) 10.0
Oxidation 318 8.9 15 (14) 5.9 11 (128) 10.4 27 (176) 8.4
Soil Pollutants 306 8.6 100 (3) 1.3 33 (72) 5.8 16 (231) 11.0
R: ranking position; A: annual number of total articles.

As expected, the term most used during the entire study period was mining. The rest of the
keywords varied their positions in accordance with the research preferences of each period. Although
the words in the table were the most used, their importance oscillated over time. From 1988 to
1997, the most common keywords were mining, contamination, heavy metal, copper, soil, lead,
water pollution, soil pollution, zinc, and environmental impact. During this time, the materials that
were most studied were heavy metals, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, and uranium. Attention was
focused on both soil and water contamination (contamination, environmental impact, industrial wastes,
waste disposal, sediment). The most frequently named countries in keywords were Canada, the United
States, and Australia.
The most relevant keywords during the 1998–2007 sub-period, apart from mining, were: “tailings”,
“heavy metal”, “acid mine drainage”, “copper”, “zinc”, “arsenic”, “lead”, “soil pollution”, and “soils”.
The principle elements that were analyzed were copper, zinc, lead, and arsenic, with the latter attracting
more attention in this period compared with the previous. Acid drainage received particular attention,
moving from position 19 in the previous period to fourth. Notably, the amount of attention paid to
tailings in this period rose from 30th position to second place. However, the use of monitoring to study
the environment experienced the greatest boost in this period, entering the list of 20 principle themes,
from position number 72 during the 1988–1997 period. Conversely, studies on water contamination
were no longer among the most numerous. In terms of geographic location, the regions with most
studies on MW were Eurasia and Europe, and the countries were the United States, Spain, and Canada.
The term “world” appears for the first time, indicating the gaining global significance of the research
in this field.
The largest number of articles was published from 2008 to 2017; therefore, the greatest number
of keyword repetitions were concentrated in this period. This conditioned the current framework
of keywords. The principle keywords during this time were “mining”, “tailings”, “heavy metal”,
“lead”, “soil pollution”, “soils”, “zinc”, “concentration”, “copper”, and “metals”. The two things of
note during this period were the consolidation of a preference for studies of the ground rather than
water, and the emergence of the term “concentration” in MW articles. From no presence at all in the
previous periods, “concentration” became the eighth most common keyword. Studies of abandoned
mines began to appear more frequently. Geographical reference takes 52nd place among keywords,
with the United States closely followed by Spain and China.
Figure 5 shows a network map of the co-occurrence of the main keywords. The size of the
circle represents the number of repetitions, and the color shows the different clusters in which
the words are grouped according to the number of ties between the different words. Three main
groups were found. The first (green) is titled “Contamination and public health”. In this cluster,
elements such as potassium, arsenic, aluminum, antimony, cobalt, copper, zinc, and lead are
analyzed. The cluster includes terminology related to health, both human and animal, such as
“health risk”, “health hazard”, “public health”, “drinking water”, “animals”, “fish”, “human”,
“pollution exposure”, etc. The principle methodology terms gathered here are: “multivariate analysis”,
“principal component analysis”, and “risk assessment”. The main countries in this line were the
 Minerals 2018, 8, 284 14 of 27

United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal. The second group (red) is called “Waste
management”, and includes the terms: “metal recovery”, “heavy metal removal”, “neutralization”,
“waste
Minerals management”,
2018, and “waste treatment”. This group presents a perspective from the 14
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW fields
of 28 of
Hydrology and Hydrogeology. The most significant methodology terms were “analytic method”,
Canada, Germany,
“analytical South Africa,
geochemistry”, and Sweden
“chemical appear
analysis”, in this simulation”,
“computer group. The lastandcluster (blue), called
“experimental study”.
“Ecological restoration”,
Brazil, Canada, Germany,includes
South China,
Africa, Australia,
and Sweden andappear
India in
as this
the group.
foremostThe countries with(blue),
last cluster an
environmental
called “Ecologicalorientation. Terminology
restoration”, includesrelating
China,toAustralia,
the ground andappears
India in
as this cluster, including:
the foremost countriessoil
with
composition, microbiological activity, and revegetation (ecology, plant restoration,
an environmental orientation. Terminology relating to the ground appears in this cluster, including: revegetation,
ecosystem restoration,
soil composition, soils, soil microbiology,
microbiological soil conservation,
activity, and revegetation soilplant
(ecology, analysis, soil remediation,
restoration, revegetation,
microbiology, microbial activity,
ecosystem restoration, etc.).microbiology,
soils, soil The outstanding
soilmethodology
conservation,terms
soil are: “microbial
analysis, analysis”,
soil remediation,
“controlled study”, and “comparative study”.
microbiology, microbial activity, etc.). The outstanding methodology terms are: “microbial analysis”,
“controlled study”, and “comparative study”.

Figure 5. Main keywords’ co-occurrence network in MW research.

Figure 5. Main keywords’ co-occurrence network in MW research.
3.2. Management of Mining Waste
3.2. Management of Mining
In this section, we Waste
present the main analysis results of the evolution of worldwide research
into
In the
thismanagement of mining
section, we present wasteanalysis
the main (MMW) during
results of the evolution
period of of 1988 to 2017. research
worldwide Table 8 shows
into
thethe evolution ofofthe
management principle
mining wasteindicators
(MMW)ofduringresearch theinperiod
this field.
of 1988Thetonumber of articles
2017. Table on MMW
8 shows the
evolution of the principle indicators of research in this field. The number of articles on MMW (A) of
(A) increased from one in 1988 to 100 in 2017. To contextualize the increase in articles in this line
research,from
increased Figureone6 displays
in 1988 the growing
to 100 trend
in 2017. Toincontextualize
the number ofthe research articles
increase on mining,
in articles mine
in this linewaste
of
(MW), and the management of mine waste (MMW). To facilitate the
research, Figure 6 displays the growing trend in the number of research articles on mining, minecomparison and homogenize
variables,
waste (MW),logarithms
and the were applied to
management of them,
mine andwastethe (MMW).
annual average accumulated
To facilitate growth rate
the comparison andwas
calculated. variables,
homogenize As a result,logarithms
although articles on mining
were applied to increased
them, and bythe 7.54% on average
annual average peraccumulated
year, those on
MW increased
growth rate was by 10.87%, and
calculated. As athose
result,onalthough
MMW increased
articles onby mining
17.52%. increased
Figure 6 shows a great
by 7.54% variability
on average
perregarding
year, those theongrowth trends ofbythe
MW increased published
10.87%, articles
and those on on
MMW these three fields
increased of research
by 17.52%. Figureuntil the last
6 shows
decadevariability
a great of the 20thregarding
century. As thefargrowth
as the growth
trends oftrendtheofpublished
mining articles (inon
articles green)
theseis three
concerned,
fieldsitofdid
not start
research to be
until thepositive untilof
last decade 1998.
the 20Therefore,
th century.inAsthefar
field
as of
themining
growthresearch,
trend of MWminingandarticles
particularly
(in
MMW
green) have become
is concerned, increasingly
it did not start toimportant.
be positive until 1998. Therefore, in the field of mining research,
MW and particularly MMW have become increasingly important.
To analyze the contribution of research into MMW to MW, Table 8 shows a variable indicating
the percentage of MW articles corresponding to research on MMW (AMW). Research into MMW
gained importance within the field of MW in terms of the number of articles. In 1988, articles on
management represented only 7.1% of the total; in 2017, they represented 38.7%.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 15 of 27

To analyze the contribution of research into MMW to MW, Table 8 shows a variable indicating the
percentage of MW articles corresponding to research on MMW (AMW). Research into MMW gained
importance within the field of MW in terms of the number of articles. In 1988, articles on management
represented only 7.1% of the total; in 2017, they represented 38.7%.

Table 8. Major characteristics of the articles published on MMW.

Year A AU NR J C TC CTC/CA AMW TCMW

1988 1 1 ND 1 1 0 0.0 7.1 0.0
1989 2 5 7 2 2 0 0.0 13.3 0.0
1990 6 9 42 5 3 0 0.0 33.3 0.0
1991 3 11 82 3 2 1 0.1 14.3 5.6
1992 1 5 ND 1 3 1 0.2 12.5 4.2
1993 7 13 106 7 4 2 0.2 26.9 5.7
1994 3 8 58 3 2 2 0.3 13.6 3.8
1995 2 6 44 2 2 12 0.7 6.3 15.0
1996 13 27 426 11 6 13 0.8 34.2 10.7
1997 6 13 53 6 3 25 1.3 14.3 15.1
1998 20 58 416 18 14 26 1.3 25.3 12.7
1999 27 86 712 21 9 64 1.6 27.6 19.9
2000 34 100 877 25 12 76 1.8 31.5 20.5
2001 30 95 709 24 13 102 2.1 28.0 22.0
2002 30 101 744 25 18 168 2.7 23.8 25.3
2003 36 136 805 28 17 258 3.4 27.9 26.7
2004 53 152 1707 39 24 264 3.7 38.7 25.9
2005 42 142 1434 31 21 349 4.3 26.4 23.8
2006 39 129 1314 23 21 472 5.2 30.7 25.5
2007 41 137 1144 32 24 613 6.2 24.8 27.9
2008 41 135 1304 31 20 810 7.5 25.5 30.2
2009 57 194 1864 42 26 914 8.4 33.1 28.9
2010 54 205 2204 33 30 1062 9.6 32.1 30.0
2011 59 194 2305 34 25 1304 10.8 28.8 30.7
2012 61 224 2219 36 24 1393 11.9 34.5 31.2
2013 73 234 3091 51 28 1589 12.8 31.3 30.7
2014 72 320 2995 48 33 1995 14.2 31.3 32.8
2015 72 280 2784 52 31 2061 15.3 31.9 32.4
2016 100 418 4562 60 37 2457 16.3 39.2 33.9
2017 108 504 4791 71 36 2677 17.1 38.7 36.1
A: annual number of articles; AU: annual number of authors; NR: total number of references for all articles; J: annual
number of journals; C: annual number of countries; TC: annual number of citations for all articles; CTC/CA: annual
total citations per cumulative article; AMW: percentage of annual contribution of MMW to MW (annual number of
articles of MMW/annual number of articles of MW); TCMW: percentage of annual contribution of MMW citation to
MW citation (annual number of citations of MMW/annual number of citations of MW).
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 16 of 27
Minerals 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 28

Annual growth rate in the number of articles (base 1998) 5.0

4.5 MMW

4.0 MW

3.5 Mining

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 6. Comparative
Comparativetrends
trendsinin
thethe number
number of articles
of articles of mining,
of mining, MW, MW, and
and the the management
management of
of mining
mining waste (MMW)
waste (MMW) research.research.

Table
Table 99 shows
showsthe themain
mainvariables
variablesofof
thethe
most productive
most journals
productive on MMW.
journals on MMW. If weIf compare
we comparethis
group of journals to Table 2, we find a group of journals that published both on MW
this group of journals to Table 2, we find a group of journals that published both on MW and MMW, and MMW, their
position in theinranking
their position of most
the ranking productive
of most productive journals changed.
journals InIn
changed. both
bothcases,
cases,Applied
AppliedGeochemistry
Geochemistry
was the most productive journal. The articles on MMW make up 29%
was the most productive journal. The articles on MMW make up 29% of the total numberof the total number of articles
of articles on
on MW. The Journal of Hazardous Materials and Chemosphere occupied the
MW. The Journal of Hazardous Materials and Chemosphere occupied the first and fourth positions, first and fourth
positions, respectively, and are the only publications that improved their positions with respect to
respectively, and are the only publications that improved their positions with respect to research on
research on MW. For the former, articles on MMW accounted for 66.2% of the total number of articles
MW. For the former, articles on MMW accounted for 66.2% of the total number of articles on MW,
on MW, whereas the latter accounted for 55.2% of the total articles. The Journal of Environmental
whereas the latter accounted for 55.2% of the total articles. The Journal of Environmental Management,
Management, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, and Ecological Engineering were
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, and Ecological Engineering were placed seventh,
placed seventh, eighth, and 10th, respectively. These three publications did not appear in the most
eighth, and 10th , respectively. These three publications did not appear in the most productive group on
productive group on MW. Similarly, Environmental Geology, Environmental Science and
MW. Similarly, Environmental Geology, Environmental Science and Technology, and Environmental
Technology, and Environmental Pollution were not among the most productive journals on MMW
Pollution were not among the most productive journals on MMW research.
research.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 17 of 27

Table 9. Top 10 most productive journals for MMW research.

R (A)
Journal A SJR H Index C TC TC/A 1st A
1988–1997 1998–2007 2008–2017
Applied Geochemistry 45 1.019 (Q1) 22 UK 1312 29.2 1991 5 (1) 2 (13) 3 (31)
Journal of Hazardous Materials 45 1.727 (Q1) 20 Netherlands 1205 26.8 2002 0 6 (8) 1 (37)
Science of the Total Environment 43 1.621 (Q1) 20 Netherlands 1887 43.9 1999 0 1 (16) 5 (27)
Chemosphere 37 1.417 (Q1) 16 UK 1293 34.9 2003 0 11 (7) 4 (30)
Environmental Earth Sciences 33 0.574 (Q2) 10 Germany 268 8.1 2009 0 0 2 (33)
Journal of Geochemical Exploration 29 1.047 (Q1) 15 Netherlands 631 21.8 1998 0 11 (7) 7 (22)
Journal of Environmental Management 26 1.141 (Q1) 11 USA 346 13.3 2005 0 35 (2) 6 (24)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22 0.813 (Q2) 8 Germany 150 6.8 2010 0 0 7 (22)
Water Air and Soil Pollution 22 0.578 (Q2) 13 Netherlands 479 21.8 2002 0 6 (8) 10 (14)
Ecological Engineering 20 1.053 (Q1) 9 Netherlands 219 11.0 2002 0 24 (3) 9 (17)
A: annual number of total articles; SJR: Scopus Journal Ranking; C: country; TC: annual number of citations for all articles; TC/A: number of citations by article; 1st A: first article of MMW
research by journal; R: ranking position.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 18 of 27

The group of the 10 most productive journals on MMW included 29% of the total, indicating
a wide distribution of publications on this theme. All of the publications included were among the
first or second quartile in SJR ranking. The journal with the most citations was Science of the Total
Environment with 1887; it also had the greatest average number of citations per article, with 43.9.
The Journal of Hazardous Materials was the publication with the greatest SJR index (1.727).
Table 10 shows the list of the 10 most productive countries publishing articles on MMW.
Once again, the United States was the country with the most articles, followed by Canada, Spain,
China, and Australia. This means that the five most productive countries on MMW coincided with
those on MW. In terms of the number of citations, the United States was the most important, followed
by Canada, Spain, and the United Kingdom. As with research on MW, taking into account the average
number of citations per article, the United Kingdom was placed first, with 27.5 citations per article,
followed by Portugal with 22, Sweden with 21.5, and the United States with 21. The table also includes
the percentage of articles on MMW compared with the number of articles on MW (AMW) of each of
the nine most productive countries in both research fields. The country with the largest percentage of
articles on management of the total works on MW was India with 40%, followed by Portugal with
36.5%, the United States with 33.4%, and Spain with 32.4%.

Table 10. Most productive countries in MMW research.

R (A)
Country A TC TC/A AMW
1988–1997 1998–2007 2008–2017
United States 205 4310 21.0 33.4 1 (15) 1 (82) 1 (108)
Canada 128 2333 18.2 25.7 3 (3) 2 (51) 3 (74)
Spain 110 2229 20.3 32.4 0 6 (22) 2 (88)
China 90 1589 17.7 32.1 0 7 (19) 4 (71)
Australia 79 1063 13.5 26.2 6 (1) 7 (19) 5 (59)
United Kingdom 75 2065 27.5 31.1 2 (7) 4 (30) 7 (38)
India 68 711 10.5 40.0 0 5 (24) 6 (44)
Germany 56 850 15.2 29.9 3 (3) 3 (33) 13 (20)
Portugal 38 837 22.0 36.5 0 13 (7) 8 (31)
South Africa 32 323 10.1 ND 6 (1) 11 (8) 11 (23)
Sweden 32 688 21.5 ND 5 (2) 9 (15) 17 (15)
A: annual number of total articles; TC: annual number of citations for all articles; TC/A: number of citations by
article; AMW: percentage of contribution of MMW to MW (number of articles of MMW/number of articles of MW);
R: ranking position.

Table 11 shows the main characteristics of the institutions with the greatest number of articles
on MMW. Sweden’s Lulea Tekniska Universitet had the most publications. This institution does
not stand out for its production of articles on MW; however, it is a reference for MMW. Spain’s
Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena had the same number of publications, and was included among
the group of most important producers of MW articles. However, its first-place ranking in MMW
research means this is one of its most important areas of research. Other institutions that gained
ground with respect to Table 5 are the United States Geological Survey, which was ranked third,
and Spain’s National Research Council in fifth place. Other institutions that did not appear among the
most productive in MW, but did for MMW, were the Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal), the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (Spain), and the
Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal). The United States Geological Survey is the institution with the
greatest number of citations, followed by the National Research Council of Spain, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (Spain). In the
ranking of average citations per article, these institutions remained in the same order. Those with the
largest percentage of articles produced in collaboration were: the Universidade de Lisboa and the
Université du Quebec in Abitibi-Temiscamingue with 50% of the total. These were followed by Spain’s
National Research Council with 43.8%, and Sweden’s Lulea Tekniska Universitet with 38.9%.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 19 of 27

Table 11. Most productive institutions in MMW research.

TC/A
Institution C A TC TC/A H Index * IC (%)
IC NIC
Lulea tekniska Universitet Sweden 18 248 13.8 9 38.89 9.1 16.7
Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena Spain 18 422 23.4 9 33.33 49.7 10.3
United States Geological Survey USA 17 658 38.7 10 11.76 8.0 42.8
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Spain 16 538 33.6 10 43.75 20.7 43.7
Chinese Academy of Sciences China 16 339 21.2 10 25.00 27.3 19.2
The University of British Columbia Canada 15 142 9.5 6 26.67 8.3 9.9
Universidade de Lisboa Portugal 14 154 11.0 6 50.00 3.3 18.7
United States Environmental Protection Agency USA 13 433 33.3 8 15.38 5.5 38.4
University of Queensland Australia 13 73 5.6 6 15.38 0.5 6.5
Universite du Quebec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue Canada 12 61 5.1 5 50.00 8.2 2.0
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya Spain 12 201 16.8 8 33.33 12.0 19.1
Universidade de Aveiro Portugal 12 128 10.7 7 25.00 6.3 12.1
* Only sample items. C: country; A: annual number of total articles; TC: annual number of citations in total articles;
TC/A: number of citations by article; IC: international collaborations; NIC: no international collaborations.

3.3. Sustainable Management of Mining Waste

3.3.1. Quantitative Analysis

This section shows the main results obtained from the quantitative analysis of the article sample
on sustainable management of mine waste (SMMW). The definitive sample was made up of 59 articles.
Due to this small number of results, documents can be shown in an abbreviated manner.
The first found article dates from 1992. From then on, the number of articles published on this
topic is highly irregular. Until 1998, there was no continuity in the publication of articles. In 2017,
a total amount of 10 articles can be found. The main journals regarding the publication number on this
field are Ecological Engineering, Minerals, Environmental Earth Sciences, Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, the Journal of Environmental Management, the Journal of Geochemical Exploration,
and the Journal of Hazardous Materials. When the groups of the main journals, according to the
number of articles on the three main studied topics, are compared (MW, MMW, SMMW), some different
publication trends are observed. Applied Geochemistry is the most productive journal in the two main
topics. It is the leader publication on waste management studies. However, this is not the case within
the sustainability field. It also occurs with Science of the Total Environment, Chemosphere, and Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution. Differently, we could find three journals ranking at the first positions within
the three research fields. They are the Journal of Hazardous Materials, Environmental Earth Sciences,
and the Journal of Geochemical Exploration. These journals embrace the whole spectrum of mine waste
management, including sustainability. The Journal of Environmental Management, Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, and Ecological Engineering also stand out in the general management
and sustainable management areas. The latter is also the most productive one on SMMW. Finally,
a journal that was not outstanding in the two first topics occupies the second position on SMMW.
We refer to the journal Minerals, which has placed itself as a leading specialist and a reference journal
on the sustainable management of mine waste.
Authors with the highest number of publications were Banning, N.C.; Fan, R.; Gerson, A.R.;
Huang, L.; Kawashima, N.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Lottermoser, B.G.; Qian, G.; Schumann, R.C.; Short, M.D.;
and Smart, R.S.C. As far as authors are concerned, only six of the 10 most important ones on WM were
to be found publishing on MMW. Öhlander and Conesa share the first position; followed by Blowes,
Benzaazoua, Hudson-Edwards, and Lottermoser. The last author is also one of the most prolific ones
on SMMW. This can suggest the great diversity of fields within the study of mine waste. The most
relevant institutions came from Australia: the University of Queensland, the University of Western
Australia, and the University of South Australia. All of the institutions in Table 5 are also active in
Table 11, except for the Western University, the University of Saskatchewan, and the University of
Waterloo. It can be stated that the three Australian institutions are the only institutions that stand out
in the three analyzed fields of research. The country with the highest number of articles is Australia,
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 20 of 27

followed by Canada, the United States, China, India, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These countries
configure the most relevant group regarding the publications on the three studied topics.
The Environmental Science category includes a greater number of articles, resulting in 59.3% out
of the total, followed by Earth and Planetary Sciences with 38.9%, Agricultural and Biological Sciences
with 15.3%, Engineering with 15.3%, and Materials Science with 6.8%. In contrast, the Economics,
Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences categories have only two documents, and the
multidisciplinary category only has one. This implies an absolute predominance of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering regarding these studies. This result can be also obtained within the other
two analyzed topics (MW and MMW).

3.3.2. Qualitative Analysis

In the qualitative analysis, works on SMMW were divided up according to the two main aspects
on which the articles focus: scope of sustainability and focus of action. Table 12 comprises the 59-article
sample grouped by these two features.

Table 12. Articles published on the sustainable management of mine waste (SMMW).

Scope of Sustainability Focus of Action Article

Stabilization and waste Li, X., Huang, L. [61]; Li, X. et al. [62]; Qian et al. [63];
treatment Ogbughalu et al. [64]
Evaluation of environmental Ellis, D.V. [65]; Miler, M.; Gosar, M. [66]; Méndez-Ramírez, M.;
Environmental
impacts Hernández, M.A.A. [67]; Popovic et al. [13]
Bansch, C.; Topp, W. [68]; Gatzweiler et al. [69]; Ghose, M.K. [70];
Elshorbagy et al. [71]; Bowen et al. [72]; Van Deventer, P.W.;
Bloem, A.A.; Hattingh, J.M. [73]; Maddocks, G.; Lin, C.;
McConchie, D. [74]; Lottermoser, B.G.; Glass, H.J.; Page, C.N. [75];
Wu et al. [76]; Pepper et al. [77]; Melgar-Ramírez et al. [78];
Remediation and recovery of Valente et al. [79]; Courtney, R. [80]; Bigot et al. [81]; Adams, A.;
soils and landscape Raman, A.; Hodgkins, D. [82]; Sjöberg et al. [83]; Naeth, M.A.;
Wilkinson, S.R. [84]; Banning et al. [85]; Johansson et al. [86];
Li, J.J.; Yan, J.X.; Li, H.J. [87]; Anawar, H.M. [88]; Santini, T.C.;
Banning, N.C. [89]; Nirola et al. [90]; Párraga-Aguado et al. [91];
Nancucheo et al. [92]; Plaza et al. [93]; Sözen et al. [94];
Mwandira, W.; Nakashima, K.; Kawasaki, S. [95]
Reuse and recycling of
Dold, B. [2]; Bartke, K. [96]
materials
Treatment and remediation of Kalin, M. [97]; Azam, S. [98]; Younger, P.L. [99];
contaminated water Macklin et al. [100]
Cooperation in the
Meech et al. [101]
development of I + D + I
Environmental Economic Recycling of materials and
Careddu et al. [102]
rehabilitation of landscape
Remediation and recovery of Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R. [103]; Wajima, T.; Ikegami, Y. [104];
soils and landscape Hwang, T.; Neculita, C.M.; Han, J.-I. [105]
Emery et al. [106]; Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. [107]; Gabzdyl, W.;
Hanak, B. [108]; Arrigo et al. [109]; Haibin, L.; Zhenling, L. [110];
Reuse and recycling of
Lottermoser, B.G. [111]; Cadierno et al. [112]; Kundu et al. [113];
materials
Yang et al. [114]; Rana, A.; Kalla, P.; Csetenyi, L.J. [115];
Taha et al. [116]; Gorakhki, M.H.; Bareither, C.A. [117]

The Sustainability concept includes three fields: the economic, the environmental, and the social
one [48]. According to this, the sustainable development of any activity should assure an economical
use, the integrity of ecological systems, and a contribution to social welfare for current and future
generations [13]. Mining activities, and especially its waste management, raise conflicts between these
three fields. Waste management has an economic impact. Wastes of the mining activities are one of
the main polluting agents for soil, water, and air. As far as the social aspect is concerned, mining
raises interest conflicts between the main stakeholders. The welfare of the population living within
the mining influence areas depends to a large extent on the appropriate management of mine waste.
We can mention health hazard as an example. As the table shows, all of the analyzed articles speak of
aspects relevant to the environment. The main concerns regarding sustainable waste management
focus on environmental impacts. They handle pollution prevention or decontamination treatments.
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 21 of 27

Only 28.8% of the articles include an economic perspective of waste management. No article of
our selected sample was found where the impact of mine waste management on human welfare is
analyzed, which is further beyond the economic and environmental impacts.
As far as the focus of action is concerned, the articles have been grouped regarding the two
main sets of activities detected during the review. Sustainable waste management concentrates on
two activities: material reuse and waste depollution. On the one hand, a set of articles is devoted
to the incorporation of waste materials in the production process. This can be achieved through
recycling, reuse, and recuperation, among other processes. On the other hand, a further set of articles
focus on the treatment processes of waste and cleanup, such as bioremediation and phytoremediation.
In works with an exclusive focus on environmental sustainability, 95.2% of the articles concentrate
on different depollution aspects, while 66.7% of the articles treat the remediation of soils polluted by
wastes. The impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity, the stabilization of polluting agents, and the
remediation of polluted water are considered by 9.5% of the publications. Material reuse can only be
found in 4% of this article group.
Regarding the works focusing on economic and environmental sustainability, the reuse of waste
materials stands out within 70.6% of the total publications, while only 17.6% of the articles analyzed
profitable processes for the recuperation of polluted soils. One work is jointly devoted to material
reutilization and depollution. A further study aims at the study of interinstitutional cooperation for
the development of waste management projects that contribute to improve profitability and reduce
environmental impacts.

4. Conclusions
This study analyzed the dynamics of global research into mining waste analysis and its sustainable
management from 1988 to 2017. A systematic and bibliometric analysis was completed on a sample
of 3577 articles. The results indicated a rapid increase in the number of published articles each year,
growing from 14 in 1988 to 279 in 2017. This increase has occurred particularly since 2008, with 63% of
the overall total. This increase in mining waste articles and journals, authors, institutions, and countries
indicated that this line of research is receiving growing worldwide attention. This is due to several
factors, including concerns over environmental threats, a greater social awareness of environmental
issues, and new and more restrictive regulations in developed countries. We demonstrated that mining
waste and mining waste management are two fields of research with a marked differential growth rate
within the field of mining research worldwide.
Applied Geochemistry, Science of the Total Environment, and the Journal of Geochemical
Exploration were the journals with the largest number of articles published on mining waste.
Along with the first two, the Journal of Hazardous Materials was one of the journals that published the
most articles on mining waste. The United States was the country with the largest number of articles
published on mining waste management, followed by Canada, Spain, Australia, and China. These are
also the most prolific countries in terms of articles on managing mining waste. If you consider the
average number of citations per article on mining waste, the order changes to: UK, the United States,
Spain, Portugal, and Canada. Considering the population of each country, Canada was placed first.
In the list of the 10 most published authors on mining waste, the top four were Canadian: Blowes,
Yanful, Benzaazoua, and Bussière. The University of British Columbia, the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, and the University of Queensland were the three institutions with the largest number of
published papers on mining waste, whereas Sweden’s Lulea Tekniska Universitet, Spain’s Universidad
Politécnica de Cartagena, and the United States Geological Survey were those with most articles on
mining waste management.
The keywords analysis that was used in the articles studied showed that various mining
products were among the most frequently used words, including: zinc, lead, copper, metals,
heavy metals, iron, and arsenic. The most common terms related to processes and mining
elements were: “tailings”, “acid mine drainage”, “concentration”, “industrial waste”, “oxidation”,
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 22 of 27

and “environmental monitoring”. The most common terms related to soil contamination were: “soils”,
“soil pollutants”, “pH”, and “soil pollution”. The network mapping of co-occurrence of keywords
revealed three different clusters focused on contamination and public health, waste management,
and environmental restoration.
Regarding the sustainable management of mining waste, it has been proven that this is a recent
field of study. Only 59 articles were found in the sample. Although studies on sustainable mining waste
management are of secondary importance, it is a field of research that shows great potential given
the increasing social awareness about the environmental repercussions of mining and the increasing
demands for sustainable production methods. Our analysis shows a twofold action in order to achieve
the sustainable management of mining waste. On the one side, efforts to depollute mining waste are
in progress. This action embraces air, water, and soil. Nevertheless, the last one has attracted the most
attention to date. On the other side, the recycling of mining wastes is being developed. It enables
reductions in energy consumption, the emission of greenhouse gases, and waste generation. Moreover,
it also results in cost reduction and higher profitability.
Currently, the treatment of mining waste focuses on remediation, reuse, and evaluating the mined
area for alternative use. Lines of research are oriented toward the application of biotechnology,
the use of microbes, and bioremediation with algae, and phytoremediation. To resolve water
contamination issues, the use of nutrient-enriched sediments has been proposed to reduce metal
acidity and increase pH, in addition to applying engineering systems for storage following ecological
principles. Concerning the reuse of residues, it is proposed to use the link between mining and
construction to convert waste into building materials. Another area of research involves investigating
the use of slag and gases to generate electricity.
A relevant issue that has arisen during this research work refers to the contribution of mine waste
management to sustainability. In the studies on mining waste, the term sustainability is commonly
associated with environmental protection, since most works focus on it. Fewer articles have analyzed
mine waste management from an economic point of view. No articles have been found where waste
management contributes to social welfare, apart from those comments on health hazards. We can
therefore state that there is a relevant gap in this research field. The approach to sustainability analysis
should be based on multidisciplinary frameworks where technical and socio-economic methods are
taken into account. This can provide relevant information for all of the involved stakeholders in the
decision-making processes regarding the management of material and natural resources.

Author Contributions: The four authors have equally contributed to this paper. All authors have revised and
approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments: This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund by means of the research projects
ECO2017-82347-P and HAR2014-56428-C3-2, and by the Research Plan of the University of Almería through
a Predoctoral Contract to Juan F. Velasco Muñoz. This paper was developed during the research stay by
José A. Aznar-Sánchez at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Reichl, C.; Schatz, M.; Zsak, G. World-Mining-Data. In Minerals Production; International Organizing
Committee for the World Mining Congresses: Vienna, Austria, 2016; Volume 31.
2. Dold, B. Sustainability in metal mining: From exploration, over processing to mine waste management.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2008, 7, 275–285. [CrossRef]
3. Gómez Ros, J.M.; García, G.; Peñas, J.M. Assessment of restauration success of former metal mining areas
after 30 years in a highly polluted Mediterranean mining area: Cartagena-La Union. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 57,
393–402. [CrossRef]
4. Bakken, G.M. Montana, Anaconda, and the Price of Pollution. Historian 2007, 69, 36–48. Available online:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24453910 (accessed on 14 April 2018). [CrossRef]
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 23 of 27

5. Durucan, S.; Korre, A.; Muñoz-Melendez, G. Mining life cycle modelling: A cradle-to-gate approach to
environmental management in the minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1057–1070. [CrossRef]
6. Alloway, B.J. Heavy Metals in Soils; Blackie: Glasgow, UK, 1995; ISBN 0751401986.
7. Pérez Cebada, J.D. Mining corporations and air pollution science before the Age of Ecology. Ecol. Econ. 2016,
123, 77–83. [CrossRef]
8. Pasariello, B.; Giuliano, V.; Quaresima, S.; Barbaro, M.; Caroli, S.; Forte, G.; Carelli, G.; Iavicoli, I. Evaluation
of the environmental contamination at abandoned mining site. Microchem. J. 2002, 73, 245–250. [CrossRef]
9. Hudson-Edwards, K.A.; Dold, B. Mine Waste Characterization, Management and Remediation. Minerals
2015, 5, 82–85. [CrossRef]
10. Fetter, C.W. Contaminant Hydrogeology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1999; ISBN
13 978-1577665830.
11. Iribar, V.; Izco, F.; Tames, P.; Antigüedad, I.; da Silva, A. Water contamination and remedial measures at
the Troya abandoned Pb-Zn mine (The Basque Country, Northern Spain). Environ. Geol. 2000, 39, 800–806.
[CrossRef]
12. Alberruche del Campo, E.; Arranz-González, J.C.; Rodríguez-Pacheco, R.; Vadillo-Fernández, L.;
Rodríguez-Gómez, V.; Fernández-Naranjo, F.J. Manual para la Evaluación de Riesgos de Instalaciones de Residuos
de Industrias Extractivas Cerradas o Abandonadas; Instituto Geológico y Minero de España-Ministerio de
Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2014; ISBN 978-84-7840-934-1.
13. Popovic, V.; Miljkovic, J.Ž.; Subic, J.; Jean-Vasile, A.; Adrian, N.; Nicolaescu, E. Sustainable land management
in mining areas in Serbia and Romania. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11857–11877. [CrossRef]
14. Salomons, W.; Förstner, U.; Mader, P. (Eds.) Heavy Metals. Problems and Solutions; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
1995; ISBN 978-3-642-79316-5.
15. Pérez-Santana, S.; Pomares, A.M.; Villanueva, T.M.; Peña-Icart, M.; Brunori, C.; Morabito, R. Total and partial
digestion of sediments for the evaluation of trace element environmental pollution. Chemosphere 2007, 66,
1545–1553. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Zhang, L.; Liao, Q.; Shao, S.; Zhang, N.; Shen, Q.; Liu, C. Heavy Metal Pollution, Fractionation, and Potential
Ecological Risks in Sediments from Lake Chaohu (Eastern China) and the Surrounding Rivers. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 14115–14131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Paustenbach, D.J. The practice of exposure assessment: A state of the art review. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B
Crit. Rev. 2000, 3, 179–291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Christophoridis, C.; Dedepsidis, D.; Fytianos, K. Occurrence and distribution of selected heavy metals in the
surface sediments of Thermaikos Gulf, N. of Greece. Assessment ussing pollution indicators. J. Hazard. Mater.
2009, 168, 1082–1091. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Khan, M.Z.H.; Hasan, M.R.; Khan, M.; Aktar, S.; Fatema, K. Distribution of Heavy Metals in Surface
Sediments of the Bay of Bengal Coast. J. Toxicol. 2017, 9235764. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Borja, A.; Heinrich, H. Implementing the European Water Framework: The debate continues. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2005, 50, 486–488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Díaz de Alba, M.; Galindo-Riaño, M.D.; Casanueva-Marenco, M.J.; García-Vargas, M.; Kosore, C.M.
Assessment of the metal pollution, potential toxicity and speciation of sediments from Algeciras Bay
(South Spain) using chemometric tools. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 190, 177–187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Zhou, H.; GuoSoil, X. Soil Heavy Metal Pollution Evaluation around Mine Area with Traditional and
Ecological Assessment Methods. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2015, 3, 28–33. [CrossRef]
23. Pellegrini, S.; García, G.; Peñas-Castejón, J.M.; Vignozzi, N.; Constantini, E.A.C. Pedogenesis in mine tails
affects macroporisity, hydrological properties and pollutant flow. Catena 2016, 136, 3–16. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, X.; Zhou, J.; Chen, Q.; Shi, X.; Gou, Y. CFD Simulation of Pipeline Transport Properties of Mine Tailings
Three-Phase Foam Slurry Backfill. Minerals 2017, 7, 149. [CrossRef]
25. Buzzi, J.; Riaza, A.; García-Meléndez, E.; Weide, S.; Bachmann, M. Mapping changes in a recovering mine
site with hyper spectral airborne HyMap imagery (Sotiel, SW Spain). Minerals 2014, 4, 313–329. [CrossRef]
26. Pattelli, G.; Rimondi, V.; Benvenuti, M.; Chiarantini, L.; Colica, A.; Costagliola, P.; Di Benedetto, F.; Lattanzi, P.;
Paolieri, M.; Rinaldi, M. Effects of the November 2012 flood event on the mobilization of Hg from the Mount
Amiata mining district to the sediments of the Paglia River Basin. Minerals 2014, 4, 241–256. [CrossRef]
27. Lynch, S.F.L.; Batty, L.C.; Byrne, P. Environmental risk of metal mining contaminated river bank sediment at
redox-transitional zones. Minerals 2014, 4, 52–73. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 24 of 27

28. Nordstrom, D.K. Mine waters: Acidic to circumneutral. Elements 2011, 7, 393–398. [CrossRef]
29. Dold, B. Submarine tailings disposal (STD)—A review. Minerals 2014, 4, 642–666. [CrossRef]
30. Johnson, D.B. Recent developments in microbiological approaches for securing mine wastes and for
recovering metals from mine waters. Minerals 2014, 4, 279–292. [CrossRef]
31. Huang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, D.; Porter, A.L. Four dimensional science and technology planning:
A new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 81,
39–48. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, K.; Yao, X. Research development, current hotspots, and future directions of water
research based on MODIS images: A critical review with a bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.
2017, 24, 15226–15239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Rodrigues-Vaz, C.; Shoeninger-Rauen, T.R.; Rojas-Lezana, A.G. Sustainability and innovation in the
automotive sector: A structured content analysis. Sustainability 2017, 9, 880. [CrossRef]
34. Gusmão-Caiado, R.G.; de Freitas-Dias, R.; Veiga-Mattos, L.; Gonçalves-Quelhas, O.L.; Leal-Filho, W.
Towards sustainable development through the perspective of eco-efficiency—A systematic literature review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 890–904. [CrossRef]
35. Zhong, S.; Geng, Y.; Liu, W.; Gao, C.; Chen, W. A bibliometric review on natural resource accounting during
1995–2014. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 122–132. [CrossRef]
36. Li, W.; Zhao, Y. Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 50, 158–166. [CrossRef]
37. Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J.; Noyons, E.C. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric
networks. J. Informetr. 2010, 4, 629–635. [CrossRef]
38. Garfield, E. Citation Indexes for Science. Science 1955, 122, 108–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y.; Porter, A.L.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, D. A patent analysis method to trace technology evolutionary
pathways. Scientometrics 2014, 100, 705–721. [CrossRef]
40. Lee, S.; Lee, S.; Seol, H.; Park, Y. Using patent information for designing new product and technology:
Keyword based technology roadmapping. R D Manag. 2008, 38, 169–188. [CrossRef]
41. Suominen, A.; Toivanen, H. Map of science with topic modeling: Comparison of unsupervised learning and
human-assigned subject classification. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2464–2476. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.; Lu, J.; Zhang, G. Detecting and predicting the topic change of Knowledge-based Systems:
A topic-based bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2016. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2017, 133, 255–268. [CrossRef]
43. Rafols, I.; Porter, A.L.; Leydesdorff, L. Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library
management. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 61, 1871–1887. [CrossRef]
44. Robinson, D.K.; Huang, L.; Guo, Y.; Porter, A.L. Forecasting Innovation Pathways (FIP) for new and emerging
science and technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 267–285. [CrossRef]
45. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, G.; Zhu, D.; Lu, J. Science evolutionary pathways: Identifying and visualizing relationships
for scientific topics. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 1925–1939. [CrossRef]
46. Durieux, V.; Gevenois, P.A. Bibliometric Indicators: Quality Measurements of Scientific Publication. Radiology
2010, 255, 342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Garrido-Cárdenas, J.A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The metagenomics worldwide research. Curr. Genet. 2017,
63, 819–829. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Velasco-Muñoz, J.V.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Sustainable water use
in agriculture: A review of worldwide research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1084. [CrossRef]
49. Salmerón-Manzano, E.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Worldwide scientific production indexed by Scopus on
Labour Relations. Publications 2017, 5, 25. [CrossRef]
50. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis.
Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [CrossRef]
51. Gavel, Y.; Iselid, L. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Inf. Rev. 2008, 32, 8–21.
[CrossRef]
52. Borrett, S.R.; Sheble, L.; Moody, J.; Anway, E.C. Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016.
Ecol. Model. 2018, 382, 63–82. [CrossRef]
53. Wildgaard, L. A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy,
Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics
2015, 104, 873. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 25 of 27

54. Ştirbu, S.; Thirion, P.; Schmitz, S.; Haesbroeck, G.; Greco, N. The Utility of Google Scholar When Searching
Geographical Literature: Comparison With Three Commercial Bibliographic Databases. J. Acad. Librariansh.
2015, 41, 322–329. [CrossRef]
55. Judd, S.J. Membrane technology costs and me. Water Res. 2017, 122, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Feng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.H. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review
and bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 296–307. [CrossRef]
57. Mugomeri, E.; Bekele, B.S.; Mafaesa, M.; Maibvise, C.H.; Tarirai, C.; Aiyuk, S.E. A 30-year bibliometric
analysis of research coverage on HIV and AIDS in Lesotho. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2017, 15, 1–9. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
58. Mateo-Sanguino, T.J. 50 years of rovers for planetary exploration: A retrospective review for future directions.
Robot. Auton. Syst. 2017, 94, 172–185. [CrossRef]
59. Kokol, P.; Blazun-Vosner, E.; Zeleznik, D. Clinical simulation in nursing: A bibliometric analysis after its
tenth anniversary. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2017, 13, 161–167. [CrossRef]
60. Velasco-Muñoz, J.V.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; López-Serrano, M.J. Advances in water use
efficiency in agriculture: A bibliometric analysis. Water 2018, 10, 377. [CrossRef]
61. Li, X.; Huang, L. Toward a new paradigm for tailings phytostabilization—Nature of the substrates,
amendment options, and anthropogenic pedogenesis. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 813–839.
[CrossRef]
62. Li, X.; You, F.; Bond, P.L.; Huang, L. Establishing microbial diversity and functions in weathered and neutral
Cu-Pb-Zn tailings with native soil addition. Geoderma 2015, 247–248, 108–116. [CrossRef]
63. Qian, G.; Schumann, R.C.; Li, J.; Short, M.D.; Fan, R.; Li, Y.; Kawashina, N.; Zhou, Y.; Smart, R.S.C.;
Gerson, A.R. Strategies for reduced acid and metalliferous drainage by pyrite surface passivation. Minerals
2017, 7, 42. [CrossRef]
64. Ogbughalu, O.T.; Gerson, A.R.; Qian, G.; Smart, R.S.C.; Schumann, R.C.; Kawashima, N.; Fan, R.; Li, J.;
Short, M.D. Heterotrophic microbial stimulation through biosolids addition for enhanced acid mine drainage
control. Minerals 2017, 7, 105. [CrossRef]
65. Ellis, D.V. Effect of mine tailings on the biodiversity of the sea bed: Example of the Island Copper Mine,
Canada. Seas Millennium Environ. Eval. 2000, 3, 235–246.
66. Miler, M.; Gosar, M. Characteristics and potential environmental influences of mine waste in the area of the
closed Mežica Pb-Zn mine (Slovenia). J. Geochem. Explor. 2012, 112, 152–160. [CrossRef]
67. Méndez-Ramírez, M.; Hernández, M.A.A. Distribución de Fe, Zn, Pb, Cu, Cd y As originada por residuos
mineros y aguas residuales en un transecto del Río Taxco en Guerrero, México. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geol. 2012,
29, 450–462.
68. Bansch, C.; Topp, W. Woodland soil in a reclaimed lignite open-cast mine: A sustainable improvement of soil
quality? Verh. Ges. Okol. 1998, 29, 511–518.
69. Gatzweiler, R.; Jahn, S.; Neubert, G.; Paul, M. Cover design for radioactive and AMD-producing mine waste
in the Ronneburg area, Eastern Thuringia. Waste Manag. 2001, 21, 175–184. [CrossRef]
70. Ghose, M.K. Restoration and revegetation strategies for degraded mine land for sustainable mine closure.
Land Contam. Reclam. 2004, 12, 363–378. [CrossRef]
71. Elshorbagy, A.; Jutla, A.; Barbour, L.; Kells, J. System dynamics approach to assess the sustainability of
reclamation of disturbed watersheds. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 32, 144–158. [CrossRef]
72. Bowen, C.K.; Schuman, G.E.; Olson, R.A.; Ingram, L.J. Influence of topsoil depth on plant and soil attributes
of 24-year old reclaimed mined lands. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2005, 19, 267–284. [CrossRef]
73. Van Deventer, P.W.; Bloem, A.A.; Hattingh, J.M. Soil quality as a key success factors in sustainable
rehabilitation of kimberlite mine waste. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2008, 108, 131–137. Available online:
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S2225-62532008000300001&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en (accessed
on 14 April 2018).
74. Maddocks, G.; Lin, C.; McConchie, D. Field scale remediation of mine wastes at an abandoned gold mine,
Australia II: Effects on plant growth and groundwater. Environ. Geol. 2009, 57, 987. [CrossRef]
75. Lottermoser, B.G.; Glass, H.J.; Page, C.N. Sustainable natural remediation of abandoned tailings by
metal-excluding heather (Calluna vulgaris) and gorse (Ulex europaeus), Carnon Valley, Cornwall, UK. Ecol. Eng.
2011, 37, 1249–1253. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 26 of 27

76. Wu, X.; Chen, Y.; Hu, J.; Yang, J.; Zhang, G. Current status and remediation measures for the solid mine
ecological environment in Beijing, China. Environ. Earth. Sci. 2011, 64, 1555. [CrossRef]
77. Pepper, I.L.; Zerzghi, H.G.; Bengson, S.A.; Iker, B.C.; Banerjee, M.J.; Brooks, J.P. Bacterial populations within
copper mine tailings: Long-term effects of amendment with Class A biosolids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113,
569–577. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Melgar-Ramírez, R.; González, V.; Sánchez, J.A.; García, I. Effects of application of organic and inorganic
wastes for restoration of sulphur-mine soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 6123–6131. [CrossRef]
79. Valente, T.; Gomes, P.; Pamplona, J.; de la Torre, M.L. Natural stabilization of mine waste-dumps—Evolution
of the vegetation cover in distinctive geochemical and mineralogical environments. J. Geochem. Explor. 2012,
123, 152–161. [CrossRef]
80. Courtney, R. Mine tailings composition in a historic site: Implications for ecological restoration.
Environ. Geochem. Health 2013, 35, 79–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Bigot, M.; Guterres, J.; Rossato, L.; Pudmenzky, A.; Doley, D.; Whittaker, M.; Pillai-McGarry, U.; Schmidt, S.
Metal-binding hydrogel particles alleviate soil toxicity and facilitate healthy plant establishment of the native
metallophyte grass Astrebla lappacea in mine waste rock and tailings. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 248–249, 424–434.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Adams, A.; Raman, A.; Hodgkins, D. How do the plants used in phytoremediation in constructed wetlands,
a sustainable remediation strategy, perform in heavy-metal-contaminated mine sites? Water Environ. J. 2013,
27, 373–386. [CrossRef]
83. Sjöberg, V.; Karlsson, S.; Grandin, A.; Allard, B. Conditioning sulfidic mine waste for growth of Agrostis
capillaris-impact on solution chemistry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 6888. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Naeth, M.A.; Wilkinson, S.R. Establishment of restoration trajectories for upland tundra communities on
diamond mine wastes in the Canadian arctic. Restor. Ecol. 2014, 22, 534–543. [CrossRef]
85. Banning, N.C.; Sawada, Y.; Phillips, I.R.; Murphy, D.V. Amendment of bauxite residue sand can alleviate
constraints to plant establishment and nutrient cycling capacity in a water-limited environment. Ecol. Eng.
2014, 62, 179–187. [CrossRef]
86. Johansson, C.L.; Paul, N.A.; de Nys, R.; Roberts, D.A. The complexity of biosorption treatments for oxyanions
in a multi-element mine effluent. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 386–392. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Li, J.J.; Yan, J.X.; Li, H.J. Effects of different reclaimed measures on soil carbon mineralization and enzyme
actives in mining areas. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 4178–4185. [CrossRef]
88. Anawar, H.M. Sustainable rehabilitation of mining waste and acid mine drainage using geochemistry, mine
type, mineralogy, texture, ore extraction and climate knowledge. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 158, 111–121.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Santini, T.C.; Banning, N.C. Alkaline tailings as novel soil forming substrates: Reframing perspectives on
mining and refining wastes. Hydrometallurgy 2016, 164, 38–47. [CrossRef]
90. Nirola, R.; Megharaj, M.; Beecham, S.; Aryal, R.; Thavamani, P.; Vankateswarlu, K.; Saint, C. Remediation
of metalliferous mines, revegetation challenges and emerging prospects in semi-arid and arid conditions.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 20131–20150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Párraga-Aguado, I.; González-Alcaraz, M.N.; López-Orenes, A.; Ferrer-Ayala, M.A.; Conesa, H.M. Evaluation
of the environmental plasticity in the xerohalophyte Zygophyllum fabago L. for the phytomanagement of mine
tailings in semiarid areas. Chemosphere 2016, 161, 259–265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Nancucheo, I.; Bitencourt, J.A.P.; Sahoo, P.K.; Oliveira-Alves, J.; Siqueira, J.O.; Oliveira, G. Recent
Developments for Remediating Acidic Mine Waters Using Sulfidogenic Bacteria. BioMed Res. Int. 2017,
2017, 7256582. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Plaza, F.; Wen, Y.; Perone, H.; Xu, Y.; Liang, X. Acid rock drainage passive remediation: Potential use of
alkaline clay, optimal mixing ratio and long-term impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 572–585. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
94. Sözen, S.; Orhon, D.; Dinçer, H.; Ateşok, G.; Baştürkçü, H.; Yalçın, T.; Öznesil, H.; Karaca, C.; Allı, B.;
Dulkadiroğlu, H.; et al. Resource recovery as a sustainable perspective for the remediation of mining wastes:
Rehabilitation of the CMC mining waste site in Northern Cyprus. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2017, 76,
1535–1547. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2018, 8, 284 27 of 27

95. Mwandira, W.; Nakashima, K.; Kawasaki, S. Bioremediation of lead-contaminated mine waste by
Pararhodobacter sp. based on the microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation technique and its
effects on strength of coarse and fine grained sand. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 109, 57–64. [CrossRef]
96. Bartke, K. Waste management in the mineral recovery industry according to EU guideline 2006/21/EC.
Wasser Abfall 2009, 11, 40–44.
97. Kalin, M. Passive mine water treatment: The correct approach? Ecol. Eng. 2004, 22, 299–304. [CrossRef]
98. Azam, S. Thickening of mine waste slurries. Geotech. News 2004, 22, 40–43.
99. Younger, P.L. Environmental impacts of coal mining and associated wastes: A geochemical perspective.
Geol. Soc. Lond. 2004, 236, 169–209. [CrossRef]
100. Macklin, M.G.; Brewer, P.A.; Hudson-Edwards, K.A.; Bird, G.; Coulthard, T.J.; Dennis, I.A.; Lechler, P.J.;
Miller, J.R.; Turner, J.N. A geomorphological approach to the management of rivers contaminated by metal
mining. Geomorphology 2006, 79, 423–447. [CrossRef]
101. Meech, J.A.; Scoble, M.; Wilson, W.; Lang, B.; Klein, B.; Veiga, M.M.; Hall, R.; Ghomshei, M.; Baldwin, S.;
Lavkulich, L.M.; et al. CERM3 and its contribution to providing sustainable research for the mining industry.
CIM Bull. 2003, 96, 72–81.
102. Careddu, N.; Siotto, G.; Siotto, R.; Tilocca, C. From landfill to water, land and life: The creation of the Centre
for stone materials aimed at secondary processing. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 258–265. [CrossRef]
103. Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R. Soil organic carbon stock for reclaimed minesoils in northeastern Ohio.
Land Degrad. Dev. 2005, 16, 377–386. [CrossRef]
104. Wajima, T.; Ikegami, Y. Stabilization of mine waste using paper sludge ash under laboratory condition. J. Jpn.
Inst. Met. 2008, 72, 903–910. [CrossRef]
105. Hwang, T.; Neculita, C.M.; Han, J.I. Biosulfides precipitation in weathered tailings amended with food
waste-based compost and zeolite. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 1857–1864. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Emery, J.J.; MacKay, M.H.; Umar, P.A.; Vanderveer, D.G.; Pichette, R.J. Use of wastes and byproducts as
pavement construction materials. In Proceedings of the Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, ON,
Canada, 25–28 October 1992; pp. 45/1–45/10.
107. Venkatarama-Reddy, B.V. Sustainable building technologies. Curr. Sci. 2004, 87, 899–907.
108. Gabzdyl, W.; Hanak, B. Raw materials from the Upper Silesia Coal Basin and from the adjacent areas.
Prz. Geol. 2005, 53, 726–733.
109. Arrigo, I.; Catalfamo, P.; Cavallari, L.; Di Pasquale, S. Use of zeolitized pumice waste as a water softening
agent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 147, 513–517. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Liu, H.; Liu, Z. Recycling utilization patterns of coal mining waste in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54,
1331–1340. [CrossRef]
111. Lottermoser, B.G. Recycling, reuse and rehabilitation of mine wastes. Elements 2011, 7, 405–410. [CrossRef]
112. Cadierno, J.F.; Romero, M.I.G.; Valdés, A.J.; Morán del Pozo, J.M.; García-González, J.; Robles, D.R.;
Espinosa, J.V. Characterization of Colliery Spoils in León: Potential Uses in Rural Infrastructures.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2014, 32, 439–452. [CrossRef]
113. Kundu, S.; Aggarwal, A.; Mazumdar, S.; Dutt, K.B. Stabilization characteristics of copper mine
tailings through its utilization as a partial substitute for cement in concrete: Preliminary investigations.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 227. [CrossRef]
114. Yang, Y.; Chen, T.; Morrison, L.; Gerrity, S.; Collins, G.; Porca, E.; Li, R.; Zhan, X. Nanostructured pyrrhotite
supports autotrophic denitrification for simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal from secondary
effluents. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 328, 511–518. [CrossRef]
115. Rana, A.; Kalla, P.; Csetenyi, L.J. Recycling of dimension limestone industry waste in concrete. Int. J. Min.
Reclam. Environ. 2017, 31, 231–250. [CrossRef]
116. Taha, Y.; Benzaazoua, M.; Hakkou, R.; Mansori, M. Coal mine wastes recycling for coal recovery and
eco-friendly bricks production. Miner. Eng. 2017, 107, 123–138. [CrossRef]
117. Gorakhki, M.H.; Bareither, C.A. Sustainable reuse of mine tailings and waste rock as water-balance covers.
Minerals 2017, 7, 128. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).