Comparing humidity cell and mass flux testing for a sulfide-bearing cement-treated slate

Acid-producing waste rock can be an abundant by-product of urban construction and its environmental impact necessitates proper disposal. A potential technique to limit acid drainage from this waste rock is cement-based solidification and stabilisation (s/s). For urban projects, leaching tests (e.g. mass flux testing) are used to evaluate the performance of a cement-treated material, while for mining projects, humidity cell testing is often performed. The purpose of this paper is to compare these two methods of performance testing to examine the leachate generate from a pyritic slate rock obtained from an excavation project. Based on the humidity cell and mass flux testing performed, cement-based s/s was effective in neutralising the pH of the effluent leachate and slowing or preventing the release of most examined contaminants. Notable exceptions were sulfur and sulfate, which were detected in significantly higher concentrations in the binder-treated samples. It was noted that humidity cell testing may produce an eluate with more concentrated potential contaminants than mass flux testing for s/s monoliths as mass flux is likely more indicative of performance of the s/s monolith.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Geotechnics
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.25.00207
Primary Topic
Mine drainage and remediation techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing humidity cell and mass flux testing for a sulfide-bearing cement-treated slate

Colin D. Hills, Rob Jamieson, Matthew Walker, Sheldon Irving Roach et al.
Environmental Geotechnics
Mine drainage and remediation techniques
article

Comparing humidity cell and mass flux testing for a sulfide-bearing cement-treated slate

Colin D. Hills, Rob Jamieson, Matthew Walker, Sheldon Irving Roach, Craig B. Lake
article en

Abstract

Acid-producing waste rock can be an abundant by-product of urban construction and its environmental impact necessitates proper disposal. A potential technique to limit acid drainage from this waste rock is cement-based solidification and stabilisation (s/s). For urban projects, leaching tests (e.g. mass flux testing) are used to evaluate the performance of a cement-treated material, while for mining projects, humidity cell testing is often performed. The purpose of this paper is to compare these two methods of performance testing to examine the leachate generate from a pyritic slate rock obtained from an excavation project. Based on the humidity cell and mass flux testing performed, cement-based s/s was effective in neutralising the pH of the effluent leachate and slowing or preventing the release of most examined contaminants. Notable exceptions were sulfur and sulfate, which were detected in significantly higher concentrations in the binder-treated samples. It was noted that humidity cell testing may produce an eluate with more concentrated potential contaminants than mass flux testing for s/s monoliths as mass flux is likely more indicative of performance of the s/s monolith.

Environmental Geotechnics
Dalhousie University (CA), Northwood (CA), University of Greenwich (GB)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Mine drainage and remediation techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparing humidity cell and mass flux testing for a sulfide-bearing cement-treated slate — Colin D. Hills, Rob Jamieson, et al. · Environmental Geotechnics (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS