7. Alterations in SO 4 concentrations with PV; (a) comparison amongst L-T1 and
7. Changes in SO four concentrations with PV; (a) comparison between L-T1 and I-T1, (b) comparison among L-T2 and I-T2, comparison amongst L-T1-AL and I-T1-AL and (d) comparison amongst L-T2 and I-T2, (c) (c) comparison between L-T1-AL and I-T1-AL and (d) compariso parison amongst L-T2-ImI-T2-Im. between L-T2-Im and and I-T2-Im.four 3.3.4. Recovery Ratio were GLPG-3221 Membrane Transporter/Ion Channel observed within the starting, and then the concentrations of SOThe peak leaching concentrations of SO2- ,except in cases of L-T1-AL and I-T1-AL, 2- significantly deTo evaluate the effects of evaporation and residual pore water, the recovery ratio o collected leachate volume to sprinkled distilled water volume for the laboratory column and that to BMS-986094 manufacturer rainfall observed inside the nearest meteorological station for the in situ column had been calculated. Figure 8 shows the ratios for laboratory and in situ column experimentsMinerals 2021, 11,12 ofcreased. This indicates that sulfide minerals for instance pyrite are dissolved in the beginning of column experiments. By comparing laboratory and in situ circumstances for columns consisting of only rock layer, SO4 2- leaching concentrations in the in situ situation have been somewhat larger than these on the laboratory situation. These benefits indicate that in situ columns are exposed to much more oxic situations in comparison with the laboratory columns, which would induce oxidation and dissolution of sulfide minerals contained in rock samples, resulting in slight decreases of pH and increases of Eh inside the leachate. [63,64]. three.three.four. Recovery RatioTo evaluate the effects of evaporation and residual pore water, the recovery ratio of collected leachate volume to sprinkled distilled water volume for the laboratory columns and that to rainfall observed in the nearest meteorological station for the in situ columns have been calculated. Figure 8 shows the ratios for laboratory and in situ column experiments. For the laboratory columns, the initial recovery ratios of L-T1, L-T2, L-T1-AL and L-T2-Im were 0.63, 0.61, 0.05, and 0.90, respectively, as a consequence of packing the rock dried in area temperature in the column. Just after the second collection, the ratios of all 4 situations approached approximately 0.90. This suggests that about ten of sprinkled distilled water was evaporated for the duration of the experiment. Under in situ conditions, the initial recovery ratios of I-T1, I-T2, I-T1-AL and I-T2-Im had been 0.20, 0.21, 0.19, and 0.21, respectively. However, right after the rock sample in the column became wet, the ratios of 4 situations fluctuated between 0.50 and 1.25. That is resulting from the frequency and intensity of rain, adjustments in temperature, 13 of 1 Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER Review humidity, and solar radiation. These factors could affect unstable recovery in the leachate, i.e., unsteady-state infiltration for in situ column experiments.Figure 8. Modifications inin recovery ratio with (a) comparison among L-T1 and I-T1, (b)I-T1, (b) comparison Figure eight. Alterations recovery ratio with PV; PV; (a) comparison in between L-T1 and comparison in between L-T2 and I-T2, (c)(c) comparison among L-T1-AL and I-T1-AL and (d) comparison between amongst L-T2 and I-T2, comparison in between L-T1-AL and I-T1-AL and (d) comparison among L-T2-Im and I-T2-Im. L-T2-Im and I-T2-Im.3.3.five. Temperature and Rainfall beneath In Situ ConditionsFigure 9 illustrates the adjustments in rainfall and temperature from the in situ columns The x axis shows the experimental period. The left y axis shows As leaching concentrations in the leachate in cases of I-T1 and I-T2, and.