4.5 Article

Smelting of Bauxite Residue (Red Mud) in View of Iron and Selective Rare Earths Recovery

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE METALLURGY
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 28-37

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40831-015-0026-4

关键词

Bauxite residue; Iron; Leaching; Rare earths; Red mud; Slag; Smelting

资金

  1. DBOF grant from KU Leuven
  2. Research Platform for the Advanced Recycling and Reuse of Rare Earths (IOF-KP RARE3)
  3. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During acid leaching of bauxite residue (red mud), the increase in dissolution of rare-earth elements (REEs) is associated with an increase in iron dissolution, which poses problems in the downstream processing. Therefore, it would be beneficial to remove iron from bauxite residue by smelting reduction. The slag generated in the smelting reduction process could then be further processed for recovery of REEs. Smelting experiments were carried out at temperatures between 1500 and 1600 A degrees C. Wollastonite (CaSiO3) was used as a flux and graphite as a reducing agent. The addition of wollastonite decreases the slag melting temperature and the viscosity, facilitating slag-metal separation, whereas a graphite content higher than the optimum level alters the slag chemistry and hinders the slag-metal separation. The optimum conditions were found to be for heating at 1500 A degrees C: 20 wt% of wollastonite and 5 wt% of graphite. More than 85 wt% of the iron was separated from the slag in the form of a nugget. A further 10 wt% of the iron could be extracted from the slag by subsequent grinding and magnetic separation. The slag obtained after iron removal was treated with HCl, HNO3, and H2SO4 acids to extract REEs. Room-temperature leaching was found to be not beneficial for REEs extraction. High-temperature leaching enhanced the recovery of REEs. More than 95 % of scandium, > 70 % of REEs, and about 70 % of titanium could be leached at 90 A degrees C. The selectivity of REEs over iron during slag leaching was clearly improved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据