This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles

for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

Designation: D8187 − 18

Standard Guide for

Interpretation of Standard Humidity Cell Test Results1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D8187; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope 1.5 This guide is intended to facilitate use of Test Method

1.1 This kinetic test guide covers interpretation and coop-
erative management of a standard laboratory weathering
procedure, Test Method D5744. The guide suggests strategies
for analysis and interpretation of data produced by Test Method
D5744 on mining waste rock, metallurgical processing wastes,
and ores.
1.1.1 Cooperative management of the testing involves
agreement of stakeholders in defining the objectives of the
testing, analytical requirements, planning the initial estimate of
duration of the testing, and discussion of the results at decision
points to determine if the testing period needs to be extended
and the disposition of the residues.
1.2 The humidity cell test (HCT) enhances reaction product
transport in the aqueous leach of a solid material sample of
specified mass. Standard conditions allow comparison of the
relative reactivity of materials during interpretation of results.
1.3 The HCT measures rates of weathering product mass
release. Soluble weathering products are mobilized by a
fixed-volume aqueous leach that is performed and collected
weekly. Leachate samples are analyzed for pH, alkalinity/
acidity, specific conductance, sulfates, and other selected
analytes which may be regulated in the environmental drainage
at a particular mining or metallurgical processing site.
1.4 This guide covers the interpretation of standard humid-
ity cell tests conducted to obtain results for the following
objectives:
Guide and Objective
A – Confirmation of Static Testing Results
B – Evaluation of Reactivity and Leachate Quality
for Segregating Mine, Processing Waste, or
Ore
C – Evaluation of Quality of Neutralization
Potential Available to React with Produced
Acid
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D34 on Waste
Management and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D34.01.04 on Waste
Leaching Techniques.
Current edition approved April 1, 2018. Published May 2018. Originally
approved in 2018. DOI: 10.1520/D8187-18.
D5744 to meet kinetic testing regulatory requirements for
metallurgical processing products, mining waste rock, and ores
sized to pass a 6.3-mm (0.25-in.) Tyler screen.
1.5.1 Interpretation of standard humidity cell test results has
been found to be useful for segregation of ore and waste and
design of proper stockpiling and disposal facilities.
1.6 Interlaboratory testing of the standard D5744 humidity
cell has been confined to mine waste rock. Application of this
guide to metallurgical processing waste (for example, mill
process tailings) is not supported by interlaboratory test data.
Method B of Test Method D5744, however, has been found
useful for testing of metallurgical products, and this guide is
also useful for interpretation of those results (1).2
1.7 This guide is intended to describe various procedures for
interpreting the results from standard laboratory weathering of
solid materials in accordance with Test Method D5744. It does
not describe all types of sampling and analytical requirements
that may be associated with its application, nor all procedures
for interpretation of results.
1.8 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
standard. No other units of measurement are included in this
guide.
1.8.1 Exception—The values given in parentheses are for
information only.
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
Sections responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
5–6 priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
7–8
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.10 This international standard was developed in accor-
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
9 – 10
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of
this standard.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States

1
 D8187 − 18
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards: 3 4.1 Use of HCT Data and Testing Objectives—The labora-
D5681 Terminology for Waste and Waste Management
D5744 Test Method for Laboratory Weathering of Solid
Materials Using a Humidity Cell
D6234 Test Method for Shake Extraction of Mining Waste
by the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
E1915 Test Methods for Analysis of Metal Bearing Ores and
Related Materials for Carbon, Sulfur, and Acid-Base
Characteristics
E2242 Test Method for Column Percolation Extraction of
Mine Rock by the Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of terms used in this guide,
see Terminology D5681.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 acid concentration present (ACP), n—in static acid-
base classification, an estimate of mineral acidity determined
by titration of a sample slurry with water.
3.2.2 acid generation potential (AGP), n—in static acid-
base classification, an estimate of sulfidic mineral content
determined from mineralogy or the sulfide sulfur content.
3.2.3 acid neutralization potential (ANP), n—in acid-base
classification, an estimate of basic mineral content determined
from mineralogy, the carbonate carbon content, or acid neu-
tralization potential acidity titration result. The preferred esti-
mate for use is based on the capacity of the mineral to maintain
circumneutral pH as it dissolves.
3.2.4 adaptive management plan (AMP), n—in environmen-
tal kinetic testing, a structured, iterative process of robust
decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to
reduce uncertainty over time via system monitoring.
3.2.5 decision point, n—in management of a humidity cell
test operation, a point in time during the operation of a
humidity cell that is selected, during the planning stage, for the
stakeholders to meet and make decisions on whether to
continue or modify the operation of the test.
3.2.6 humidity cell performance database, n—a compilation
of: (1) tested rock sample, mining waste, ore, or metallurgical
tailings characterization; (2) completed sample collection rep-
resenting the geological classifications and acid-base charac-
teristics; and (3) humidity cell field weathering test reports, for
use in planning and interpretation of HCTs.
3.2.7 mining waste, n—overburden or waste rock excavated
and disposed of during mining operations.
3.3 Symbols—Variables listed in this guide are defined in the
individual sections in which they are discussed.
3
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
2
4. Significance and Use
tory weathering test method (D5744) generates data that can be
used to:
4.1.1 Determine whether a solid material will produce an
acidic, alkaline, or neutral effluent;
4.1.2 Identify solutes in the effluent that represent dissolved
weathering products formed during a specified period of time,
and inform the user of their potential to produce environmental
impacts at a mining or metallurgical processing site under
proposed operating conditions;
4.1.3 Determine the mass of solute release; and
4.1.4 Determine the rate at which solutes are released (from
the solids into the effluent) under the closely controlled
conditions of the test for comparison to other materials.
4.1.5 These approaches are based on the existence of
detailed mineralogical work and static tests that provide a basis
for interpreting HCT results.
4.1.6 Detailed mineralogical work might lead a reviewer to
suspect either acid neutralization potential (ANP) or acid
generation potential (AGP) minerals have questionable
availability, which would be a significant factor in interpreting
HCT results and decisions concerning test duration.
4.2 Interpretation of data generated by the laboratory weath-
ering procedure can be used to address the following objec-
tives:
4.2.1 Determine the variation of drainage quality as a
function of compositional variations (for example, iron sulfide
and calcium plus magnesium carbonate contents) within indi-
vidual mine rock lithologies;
4.2.2 Determine the amount of acid that can be neutralized
by the sample while maintaining a drainage pH of ≥6.0 under
the conditions of the test;
4.2.3 Estimate mine rock weathering rates to aid in predict-
ing the environmental behavior of mine rock; and
4.2.4 Determine mine rock weathering rates to aid in
experimental design of site-specific kinetic tests.
4.3 Interpretation Approaches—Guides A, B, and C are
intended as examples of what to consider in developing an
approach for determining how reasonable objectives for hu-
midity cells might be structured, and some possible criteria for
cooperative management of HCTs involving stakeholders.
4.3.1 It is also possible to use an approach to establish a
decision point, rather than an end point, to the humidity cell
test during the planning stage. Guides A, B, and C are
examples of techniques and associated criteria comprising
some approaches to help interpret data generated by humidity
cell tests. Decision points can be established during the
planning stage to allow stakeholders an opportunity to review
the results and decide if additional weathering cycles are
needed to meet the objectives of the testing.
4.3.2 Continuation of the HCT beyond the decision point
may or may not provide important information regarding the
acceleration or deceleration of oxidation and metal leaching in
the material being tested.
4.3.3 More detailed leachate information from a longer
HCT may be critical information for designing waste manage-
ment or water treatment facilities as accounted for in an AMP,
 D8187 − 18
but an agreed-upon endpoint of test objectives would allow for
a decision that advances mine planning and permitting.
4.3.4 The laboratory weathering procedure provides condi-
tions conducive to oxidation of solid material constituents and
enhances the transport of weathering reaction products con-
tained in the resulting weekly effluent. This is accomplished by
controlling the exposure of the solid material sample to such
environmental parameters as reaction environment temperature
and application rate of water and oxygen.
4.3.5 Because efficient removal of reaction products is vital
to track mineral dissolution rates during the procedure, labo-
ratory leach volumes are large per unit mass of rock to promote
the rinsing of weathering reaction products from the mine rock
sample. Interpretation of laboratory kinetic tests by comparison
with field tests has shown that more reaction products from
mineral dissolution are consistently released per unit weight
and unit time in laboratory weathering tests (2). For example,
sulfate release rates observed in laboratory tests of metal mine
rock have been reported to be three to eight times those for
small-scale field test piles of Duluth complex rock (3), and
from two to 20 times those for small-scale field test piles of
Archean greenstone rock (4). A greater increase is anticipated
when laboratory rates are compared with field rates measured
from operational waste rock piles.
4.4 In some cases, it may be useful to establish criteria for
a decision to end the weathering cycles for a particular cell
based on HCT results but still continue to maintain the HCT
test weathering cycles for a longer duration.
4.4.1 In other cases, it might be useful to have duplicate
HCTs and use one as a basis for a decision point and
subsequent destructive evaluation of reaction products.
4.4.1.1 The duplicate cell could be maintained to confirm
the basis for the decision and be used to update the AMP and
financial guarantee, if necessary.
4.4.2 This approach supports a decision concerning mine
waste management and planning, including an AMP.
4.4.3 This approach does not necessarily resolve the need
for accurate prediction of long-term metal leaching and drain-
age quality, but is recommended as a tool for making decisions
on how to conduct testing with the objective of determining
how ore and waste will be handled and monitored, and the
potential level of risk involved in related decisions for specific
sites and materials.
4.5 Continuing HCT weathering cycles for an extended
period of time may also provide a higher level of certainty.
4.6 Depending on the site-specific resources at risk and
behavior of waste materials, an extended HCT weathering
cycle duration may be an important consideration for stake-
holder groups to use in evaluating HCTs.
4.7 As a mine typically involves very large quantities of
waste rock, which will be leached by at least some amount of
incident precipitation for extended times, ongoing monitoring
of waste facility performance, including any produced effluent
or leachate, is almost always required as a condition of permit
approval.
3
4.8 Performance monitoring of permitted facilities can be a
critical element in the development of a humidity cell perfor-
mance database, as well as support for the evolving HCT
weathering cycle duration criteria and approach proposed here.
4.9 A humidity cell performance database could be devel-
oped in a standard format to allow comparison of laboratory
weathering results with drainage from field waste facility
performance, based on publicly available information.
4.9.1 A model approach with possible objectives and crite-
ria are presented below as examples to help interpret HCT
results.
4.10 Variations in specific approach requirements and crite-
ria (% sulfur, sulfide sulfur, carbonate, pH, sulfate release, etc.)
will depend on the site-specific objectives, deposit mineralogy,
and characterization, including various static test results and
management plans agreed upon by stakeholders.
4.10.1 Regardless of the site-specific stakeholder objectives,
instability in metal release rates should strongly suggest
continuation of weathering cycle testing.
4.10.2 Regardless of the decision process followed, the
ultimate responsibility for the permitting decision lies with the
permitting agency(s), and the ultimate environmental liability
and operating responsibility lies with the mining company.
4.11 These approaches are suggested as a model to be used
by the involved stakeholders for their determination of when it
is appropriate to schedule and extend HCT weathering cycles
and how to treat the residues.
4.12 The specific parameters (sulfur, CaCO3, SO4–2 release
rates, metal release rates, etc.) involved will likely vary
depending on site-specific factors, which could include the
lithology, petrology and mineralogy, climate, regulatory
approach, environmental risk for the units, and ore deposit type
being evaluated.
4.13 The criteria selected for management of the duration of
HCTs should rely on a combination of parameters, as any
criteria based on a single parameter value like % sulfur will not
be reliable (5).
4.14 The values in the approaches presented are chosen only
as examples, and actual cell management criteria are intended
to be reviewed and agreed upon by the stakeholders, on a
site-specific basis.
4.15 The specific parameters and values selected might vary
considerably depending on site-specific factors, which might
include environmental risk. It is up to the stakeholders to
modify and use this approach to develop objectives which meet
the specific requirements at their site and to use their modifi-
cations to reach a consensus on test duration.
4.16 The following decision criteria (sulfide sulfur quanti-
tative limit, sulfate release rates, pH, and steady state duration)
must be developed on a site/project-specific basis based on
considerations including site-specific lithology, mineralogy,
trace metal characteristics, and potential environmental risks.
The values given in the following guides are merely example
criteria; it is up to the stakeholders to manage their own
criteria.
 D8187 − 18

GUIDE A

CONFIRMATION OF STATIC TESTING RESULTS

5. Summary of Guide

5.1 Stakeholders agree on preliminary scope and duration of TABLE 2 Summary of NCC Classifications and Final HCT pH
HCT tests based on lithology, mineralogy, static testing results, Ranges for the Genesis Project
ore, mine, and processing requirements. Materials are classi- Lowest HCT Highest HCT Number of
NCC Classification
Final pH Final pH Composites
fied and tested by Test Method D5744 and results interpreted to Acidic 2.24 2.33 2
compare with Test Methods E1915 static testing classifications. Slightly Acidic 2.62 2.81 2
Inert-Neutral 4.45 7.94 7
6. Procedure Slightly Basic 3.79 7.46 3
Basic 6.66 7.61 4
6.1 Classify the HCT test materials according to their Highly Basic 7.11 7.98 2
acid-base classification in accordance with Test Methods
E1915, as shown in Table 1.
6.1.1 Results from materials tested by Test Method D5744
and interpreted may be used to assess the suitability of static
testing classifications and the relative ranges of drainage cant acid generation potential) should be adequate to confirm
quality parameters to be associated with the static testing the classification for ore and waste control during mining and
classifications for the materials tested on a site-specific basis. metallurgical operations.
6.1.2 An example of the classification of materials and 6.4.2 A decision point should be planned at 20 weeks to
humidity cell final pH results for the Genesis Project (6) is determine whether or not the static test results have been
shown in Table 2. confirmed.
6.2 Confirmation of static test results using humidity cells 6.4.3 It is important to note that even for highly acidic (high
should be initiated early in the mine and process development potential for acid generation) or highly basic (high net neutral-
cycle to identify whether certain waste materials will require izing potential) samples, a longer test duration may provide
further study when the plan of operations for the facilities is important information regarding the acceleration or decelera-
better defined. tion of oxidation and metal release behavior that may be
critical information for designing waste management or water
6.3 The tests should include weathered solid material analy- treatment facilities.
ses according to Test Method D5744, or mass balance
calculations, as appropriate. 6.5 Screening effluents for water treatment requirements
should include comparisons of effluents between HCTs (weath-
6.4 End Member Classifications—Highly acidic (ABA val- ering of sample) and Test Method E2242 or D6234, represent-
ues of ≤ –10 net calcium carbonate [NCC]), or highly basic ing the best case (water leach of sample mobile salts), and the
lithologies (NCC values ≥ +10), as determined by Test Meth- residual solutions from the University of British Columbia
ods E1915. Research Confirmation Test (7) to represent the worst case
6.4.1 If the objective of the humidity cell test is to confirm (extended reaction of sample with bacteria and acid at low pH).
static test results for samples that show high potential for acid 6.5.1 Effluent concentrations should be compared to site-
generation (slightly acidic to highly acidic) or high net poten- specific discharge requirements and U.S. EPA primary and
tial available for neutralization of acid (basic to highly basic), secondary drinking water maximum contaminant limits
a 20-week duration test period (or even shorter durations, in (MCLs) to identify, rate, and rank analytes that should be
particular in the case of highly reactive samples with signifi- monitored during operations and leaching tests.
6.5.2 If this screening information raises concerns, then it
TABLE 1 Summary of Acid-Base Characteristics may be appropriate to identify a different objective and testing
Classification Specifications, % CaCO3A
protocol for use in water treatment process development, such
Highly AcidicB NCC # –10 as large columns or weathering pads at the site.
Acidic –10 < NCC # –2
Slightly Acidic –2 < NCC # –0.2 6.6 Mid-Range Classifications – Inert-Neutral or Slightly
Neutral –0.2 < NCC < 0.2 and AGP < –0.2 or ANP > 0.2 Basic Lithologies (NCC –0.2 to 2.0):
Inert –0.2 < NCC < 0.2 and AGP > –0.2 and ANP < 0.2 6.6.1 If the overall objective is to evaluate a material that is
Slightly Basic 0.2 $ NCC < 2.0
Basic 2.0 $ NCC < 10 classified as having an uncertain or lower potential (inert-
Highly Basic NCC $ 10 neutral to slightly basic) to produce acid leachate by static
A
Common acid-base account units of parts per thousand CaCO3 may be testing, then the criteria developed will be more site specific
calculated by multiplying % CaCO3 by a factor of ten. (mineralogy, lithology, environmental risk) and more complex.
B
Negative units are used for acid characteristics so that they can be balanced by
positive base characteristics through addition. 6.6.2 If the objective is to identify material that may
produce acid leachate (inert-neutral, slightly basic) and will be

4
 D8187 − 18
managed as acid-producing material, then the 20-week dura-
tion test period should be adequate and should be supple-
mented by Test Method D5744 weathered solid material
analyses, or mass balance calculations as noted above.
6.6.3 All cells with static test classification of material
ranging from inert-neutral to slightly basic that produced
moderately (4 > pH >2) to strongly acidic (pH > 2) effluent,
owing to sulfide oxidation (for example, stable average pH
< 4.0 during the last ten weeks of testing), will be determined
to be potentially acid generating, and testing can be terminated
after the end of the ten weeks at pH < 4.0.
NOTE 1—Decision criteria (pH and steady state duration) must be
developed on a site/project-specific basis, based on considerations includ-
ing site-specific lithology, mineralogy, trace metal characteristics, and
potential environmental risks. The values given are merely example
criteria; it is up to the stakeholders to manage their own criteria.
6.6.3.1 In this case, it is possible that a 20-week duration
test period will be sufficient, so a decision point should be
planned at Week 20.
6.6.4 All cells with static test classification of material
ranging from inert-neutral to slightly basic that have main-
tained neutral to alkaline conditions (for example, a stable,
+0.5 pH, average cell effluent of pH > 6.5 for at least ten
weeks), and that have calcium plus magnesium to sulfate ratios
that are consistent with carbonate neutralization (for example,
molar ratio > 1:1) and that have an ANP:AGP ratio greater than
2, or no significant sulfide detected (< 0.1 % sulfide sulfur) in
accordance with Test Methods E1915, need not extend the
weathering cycles after the end of ten weeks averaging a stable
pH > 6.5 + 0.5.
NOTE 2—Low-sulfur rock can produce an acidic pH, even in cold
climates where reaction rates are slow. Bailey et al. summarized drainage
quality from a large waste rock test pile with an average sulfur content of
0.058 % from May 2008 through 2010. The pile, located at the Diavik
mine in a permafrost region, was constructed from 2005 to 2007 with
dimensions of 60 by 50 by 15 m high. Drainage pH from the pile
decreased from circumneutral in May to the range of 4 to 5 in October
each year (8).
5
6.6.4.1 Mineralogical methods such as mineral liberation
analysis (MLA) may be used to help quantify available sulfide
sulfur content below 0.1 %, if needed for proper interpretation
of HCT results.
6.6.4.2 Mineralogy should be used to investigate apparent
mismatches of static test classification with HCT effluent
quality, such as the 3.79 final pH for the slightly basic
classification in Table 2.
6.6.5 Cells with static test classification of material as inert
or non-reactive lithologies (samples with <0.1 % sulfide sulfur
and positive or near-zero static test results) with NCC in the
range of NCC > –0.2 % CaCO3, ANP ≥ 0.2 % CaCO3, AGP >
–0.2 % CaCO3, and that have average sulfate release of less
than 3 mg ⁄kg ⁄week for each of the last ten weeks, can be
terminated after ten weeks of sulfate release <3 mg ⁄kg ⁄week.
(Negative units are used for acid characteristics so that they can
be balanced by positive base characteristics through addition.)
NOTE 3—The decision criteria, such as sulfide sulfur or NCC cutoff,
sulfate release rate, duration of steady state, etc., must be developed by the
stakeholders on a site/project-specific basis, based on considerations
including site-specific lithology, mineralogy, trace metal characteristics,
and potential environmental risks.
6.6.6 Bear in mind that samples with very low sulfide sulfur
can exhibit anomalous pH readings based on a sample having
little to no buffering capacity. While interesting in a geochemi-
cal sense, it should not necessarily be interpreted as represent-
ing potential acidity (see Note 2).
6.6.7 Low-pH leachate results generated by these test ma-
terials can be compared with the pH of the laboratory water
used to flush the cells.
6.6.8 The values suggested for % sulfide sulfur, CaCO3,
sulfate release, and weeks of stability were suggested by Acid
Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector task
group members familiar with HCT evaluations, and are pre-
sented only as reference values. These values may need to be
adjusted depending on the deposit-specific lithology,
mineralogy, and resources at risk.
 D8187 − 18
GUIDE B
EVALUATION OF REACTIVITY AND LEACHATE QUALITY FOR SEGREGATING MINE, PROCESSING
WASTE, OR ORE
7. Summary of Guide
7.1 Stakeholders agree on preliminary scope and duration of
HCT tests based on lithology, mineralogy, static testing results,
ore, mine, and processing requirements. Materials are classi-
fied in accordance with Test Methods E1915, tested by Test
Method D5744, and results interpreted to compare with Test
Methods E1915 static testing classifications, reactivity, and
leachate quality for the purpose of routing ore, mine, and
processing waste materials during mining, processing, and
closure.
8. Procedure
8.1 Reactivity and Leachate Quality—If the objective is to
evaluate the relative reactivity and leachate quality for the
site-specific purpose of segregating and managing mine, pro-
cessing waste, or ore, the following evaluation criteria may be
appropriate.
8.2 All cells with static test classification of material rang-
ing from inert-neutral to slightly basic that have become
moderately to strongly acidic, owing to sulfide oxidation (for
example, stable average pH < 4.0 during the last ten weeks of
testing), will be determined to be acid generating, and testing
need not be extended after the end of the ten weeks at pH < 4.0.
In this case, it is possible that a 20-week duration test period
will be sufficient.
8.2.1 In some cases, it may be necessary to continue
weathering cycle testing until the specific parameters of
interest for the project have stabilized. Based either on con-
flicting static test results or mineralogy, uncertainties (such as
pH fluctuations near pH 7 or fluctuation in metals concentra-
tions in the effluent) may result in the continuation of the
testing.
8.3 All cells with static test classification of material rang-
ing from neutral to slightly basic and with calcium plus
magnesium to sulfate ratios that are consistent with carbonate
neutralization (for example, molar ratio > 1:1) and an AN-
P:AGP ratio greater than 2, or sulfide sulfur <0.1 %, can be
terminated under the following results.
8.3.1 The sample has maintained neutral to alkaline condi-
tions (for example, a stable average cell effluent of pH ≥ 6.5 for
at least ten weeks) after the end of the ten-week period,
averaging pH ≥ 6.5.
6
NOTE 4—Decision criteria (NCC classification, elemental content,
acid-base account, sulfide content, pH, and steady state duration) must be
developed on a site/project-specific basis, based on considerations includ-
ing site-specific lithology, mineralogy, trace metal characteristics, and
potential environmental risks. The values given are merely example
criteria; it is up to the stakeholders to manage their own criteria.
8.4 Based either on conflicting static test results or
mineralogy, which could include deposit-specific questionable
availability of either AGP or ANP, uncertainties may result in
stakeholder decisions on the continuation of the weekly testing.
Cells with static test classification of material as inert or
non-reactive lithologies (samples with less than 0.1 % sulfide
sulfur and positive acid-base characteristics) with NCC in the
range of > –0.2 % CaCO3, ANP ≤ 0.2 % CaCO3, AGP ≥ –0.2 %
CaCO3, and that have average sulfate release of less than
3 mg ⁄kg ⁄week for each of the last ten weeks, can be terminated
after ten weeks of sulfate release <3 mg ⁄kg ⁄week.
NOTE 5—Decision criteria (NCC classification, sulfide content, sulfate
release rate, pH, and steady state duration) must be developed on a
site/project-specific basis, based on considerations including site-specific
lithology, mineralogy, trace metal characteristics, and potential environ-
mental risks. The values given are merely example criteria; it is up to the
stakeholders to manage their own criteria.
8.4.1 Releases of metals should also demonstrate minimal
solubility < MCLs or declining concentrations to indicate little
value in extending the weathering cycle testing.
8.4.2 Any uncertainties that concern ore or gangue
mineralogy, for example, the presence of sulfate minerals
gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) or alunite (KAl3(SO4)2(OH)6), could
result in anomalously high sulfate release values which would
not necessarily indicate acidic drainage.
8.5 The values suggested for % sulfide, CaCO3, sulfate
release, and weeks of stability were suggested by Acid Drain-
age Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector task group
members familiar with HCT evaluations, and are presented
only as reference values. These values may need to be adjusted
by the stakeholders depending on the deposit-specific
lithology, mineralogy, anomalous test results, and resources at
risk.
 D8187 − 18
GUIDE C
EVALUATION OF QUANTITY OF NEUTRALIZATION POTENTIAL AVAILABLE TO REACT WITH PRODUCED
ACID
9. Summary of Guide
9.1 Stakeholders agree on scope and initial duration (that is,
320 weeks) of HCT tests to decision points based on lithology,
mineralogy, and static testing results. Materials are classified
and tested by Test Method D5744 to support determination of
the relative available acid neutralization potential of test
materials during disposal operations.
10. Procedure
10.1 Determining Neutralization Potential—If the objective
is to measure the amount of neutralization potential chemically
available to neutralize produced acid, the testing must continue
until acidic effluent is produced or until leachate analysis
indicates that all the carbonate mineralization has been de-
pleted.
10.2 This information can be for the purpose of either waste
management planning or geochemical work, which can support
modeling efforts for contaminant release.
10.3 The time period for determining that a humidity cell
test for this objective can be terminated is indeterminate, but
has been as long as 320 weeks.
10.4 In some cases, it will likely be more cost effective to
assume an amendment rate, if mitigative measures will be
necessary, and incorporate them into a plan of operations than
to try and predict a depletion rate or try to determine the ANP
available.
10.5 Residue Analysis—The final residues from the ex-
tended testing should be characterized by the recommended
Test Method D5744 weathered solid material analyses.
10.6 Leachate Analysis—Additional detailed discussion on
test duration and frequency of analyses can be found in the Test
Method D5744 leachate analysis.
10.7 Test Duration—Given the potential long duration of
this objective for humidity cell tests, the importance of early
test initiation cannot be overstated.
11. Other Considerations for HCT Interpretation and
Operation Management
11.1 Ongoing field pilot study tests can be used to supple-
ment humidity cell results and support geochemical modeling.
11.2 Geoenvironmental comparisons with closely related
deposits.
11.3 Duplicate Cells—May be needed for lithologies with
complex mineralogy or conflicted static test results. In this
case, should a cell’s weekly flushing be stopped, the Test
Method D5744 weathered solid material analysis should be
7
completed. If this analysis indicated uncertainties, including
the unexpected release of metals at circumneutral pHs, the
duplicate cell weekly flushing can be continued in an attempt
to resolve identified uncertainties (which may include detailed
metal leaching information, if needed for geochemical model-
ing).
11.4 Deviations from the Test Method D5744 protocol are
discouraged, but should be detailed and agreed upon by the
stakeholders prior to test initiation if believed necessary.
11.5 Test Method D5744 will continue to be reviewed and
updated at a minimum frequency of every five years, and can
be revised at any time to make necessary changes.
11.6 Monitoring the field drainage quality and quantity of
waste lithological units will inform the development of a
detailed humidity cell performance database, as well as the
continued use of this guide.
11.6.1 Monitoring the field performance of waste lithologi-
cal units in storage facilities, of course, is also critical to
ensuring environmental protection, which is why it is com-
monly included as a condition of permit approval.
11.6.2 Monitoring information may be useful in developing
a field-scaled timeline for specific mineral assemblages or
deposits in order to assign a preliminary timeline for kinetic
tests that have decision points with some basis in reality.
11.7 It is important to understand that humidity cell tests
should not be considered a “one-stop” test for all solute release
and kinetic reaction questions.
11.8 Concerns about the lack of control of microbial-
mediated processes within humidity cell tests are an ongoing
research question.
11.9 Humidity cell tests are simply another tool in the
toolbox, and the results of any humidity cell tests must be
considered in conjunction with all the other static, short-term
leach tests, kinetic tests, and mineralogical work that must be
a part of detailed rock characterization.
11.10 These approaches are suggested as a model to be used
by the involved stakeholders for their determination of when it
is appropriate to schedule and extend weathering cycles for an
HCT and how to treat the residues.
11.11 The specific parameters (% S, % CaCO3, SO4 release
rates, metal release rates, etc.) involved will likely vary
depending on site-specific factors, which could include the
lithology, petrology and mineralogy, climate, regulatory
framework, environmental risk for the geological units, and ore
deposit type being evaluated.
 D8187 − 18
11.11.1 The criteria selected for decision making during 11.12.2 It is up to the stakeholders to modify and use this
testing should rely on a combination of parameters such as pH, approach to develop objectives which meet the specific re-
alkalinity, acidity, or cation and anion release, as any criteria quirements at their site and to use their modifications to reach
based on a single parameter value, like sulfide content, will not a consensus on test duration.
be reliable (5).
11.12 The values in these approaches are chosen only as 12. Keywords
examples, and are intended to be reviewed and agreed upon by 12.1 characterization; effluent; humidity cell; kinetic test;
the stakeholders. leaching; weathering
11.12.1 The specific parameters and values selected might
vary considerably depending on site-specific factors, which
might include environmental risk.

REFERENCES

(1) “Additional Information Request #4,” Canadian Environmental As-
sessment Agency, http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p54755/
98039E.pdf.
(2) Morin, K. A. and Hutt, N. M., Environmental Geochemistry of
Minesite Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies, MDAG
Publishing, Vancouver, Canada, 1997.
(3) Lapakko, K. A., “Comparison of Duluth Complex Rock Dissolution in
the Laboratory and Field,” Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of
the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Vol 1, 1994, pp.
419–428.
(4) White, W. W. III, Lapakko, K. A., and Trujillo, E. M., “Progress of
BLM-Funded Acid Mine Drainage Research,” Proceedings of the
24th Annual Conference of the National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs, 2002, https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/pub/MINES/
AMR_Related/NAAMLP/AMD2/White.pdf.
(5) Morin, K. A. and Hutt, N. M., “Is There a Solid-Phase Sulfide Level
Below Which No ARD is Possible?” Case Study, Mine Drainage
Assessment Group, 2006, http://www.mdag.com/case_studies/
cs21.html.
(6) “Genesis Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement,” U.S. Bu-
reau of Land Management, 2010, http://clearinghouse.nv.gov/public/
Notice/2010/E2010-203.pdf.
(7) Duncan, D. W. and Walden, C. C., “Project 1499 Measurement of
Acid Producing Potential,” Research Report, University of British
Columbia, July 24, 1972.
(8) Bailey, B. L., Blowes, D. W., Smith, L., and Sego, D. C., “Diavik
Waste Rock Project: Geochemistry of Low Sulfide Content Large-
scale Waste-rock Test Piles,” Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Vol 1, 2012, pp. 1253–1263.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/