JOM, Vol. 68, No.

11, 2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11837-016-2111-y
Ó 2016 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Comparative Analysis of Processes for Recovery of Rare Earths

from Bauxite Residue

CHENNA RAO BORRA,1 BART BLANPAIN,2 YIANNIS PONTIKES,2

KOEN BINNEMANS,3 and TOM VAN GERVEN1,4

1.—Department of Chemical Engineering, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 2.—Department of

Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 3.—Department of Chemistry, KU
Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 4.—e-mail: tom.vangerven@cit.kuleuven.be

Environmental concerns and lack of space suggest that the management of

bauxite residue needs to be re-adressed. The utilization of the residue has thus
become a topic high on the agenda for both academia and industry, yet, up to
date, it is only rarely used. Nonetheless, recovery of rare earth elements
(REEs) with or without other metals from bauxite residue, and utilization of
the left-over residue in other applications like building materials may be a
viable alternative to storage. Hence, different processes developed by the
authors for recovery of REEs and other metals from bauxite residue were
compared. In this study, preliminary energy and cost analyses were carried
out to assess the feasibility of the processes. These analyses show that the
combination of alkali roasting-smelting-quenching-leaching is a promising
process for the treatment of bauxite residue and that it is justified to study this
process at a pilot scale.

developed by the authors for recovering REEs

INTRODUCTION
Bauxite residue (red mud) is a waste generated
during the Bayer process of alumina production
from bauxite. About 140 million tonnes of bauxite
residue are generated annually and almost 3 billion
tonnes are already stockpiled.1 Long-term storage of
such volumes of waste not only occupies valuable
land but is also harmful for the environment, which
in turn incurs major liabilities and costs to the
alumina industries. Utilization of the residue in
other applications could be a sustainable alterna-
tive. Currently, only 2–3% of this material is
currently used in cement and ceramic applica-
tions,1,2 but new integrated processes seem
promising.3
Major elements that are present in the bauxite
residue are iron, aluminium, silicon, titanium and
calcium. It also contains some valuable but minor
elements such as rare-earth elements (REEs). The
REEs present in the bauxite ore report to bauxite
residue during the Bayer process.4 Recovery of
REEs and other metals and the utilization of the
leftover residue in building applications can con-
tribute to solving the bauxite residue problem and
create value. Different processes have been
with/without other metals from Greek bauxite
residue: (1) direct leaching (L); (2) smelting-leaching
(S-L); (3) alkali roasting-smelting-quenching-leach-
ing (AR-S-Q-L); and (4) sulfation-roasting-leaching
(Su-R-L).5–8 Quantitative flow sheets of these pro-
cesses are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The values
given in these figures are fully based on experimen-
tal values and results.
ENERGY ANALYSIS
Ò
FactSage 6.4 was used for calculating the energy
consumption of the different processes.9 Phase
equilibria were calculated at 25°C and at the
process temperature. The difference between the
enthalpies is the minimum energy required for the
process. It was assumed that around 20% of the
consumed energy is used for purposes other than
supplying energy to the reactions, raw materials
and products (cooling the furnace shell, heat losses
through the furnace wall, radiation, etc.).10–15
Although the energy losses will be less for processes
performed at lower temperature, this was not taken
into account in this study. The 20% loss does not
include the loss of chemical energy in the form of CO

2958 (Published online September 27, 2016)

Comparative Analysis of Processes for Recovery of Rare Earths from Bauxite Residue
Fig. 1. Quantitative flow sheet of the direct leaching (L) process.
Fig. 2. Quantitative flow sheet of the smelting-leaching (S-L) pro-
cess.
in the out gases.14 We assume that the CO content
in the out gases will be low as most of the CO can
react with the higher oxides when it is going
through the burden before leaving the furnace. This
formation of CO results in increased carbon or fuel
consumption that may slightly increase the raw
material cost, which can decrease the margin in cost
analysis. However, it should be noted that the
sensible heat in the out gases was considered in the
calculations. The energy consumption in leaching
was not included as most of the leaching operations
were performed at room temperature and consume
less energy when compared to high-temperature
processes.
Three processes were selected for energy analysis:
(1) S-L, (2) AR-S-L, and (3) Su-R-L. Direct leaching
(L) was not studied further as this process does not
require high temperatures and was carried out at
room temperature. AR-S-Q-L is not shown as the
quenching step requires a negligible amount of
energy, hence yielding the same energy consump-
tion as AR-S-L.
2959
Figure 5 shows the energy consumption of the
different processes with different options. In addi-
tion, the energy consumption during iron ore smelt-
ing was also calculated for comparison. The
comparison is based on the processing of an equal
amount of iron oxide in bauxite residue and iron ore.
The results showed that almost twice as much
energy is required for direct smelting of bauxite
residue than for iron ore smelting (1.7 GJ). This is
due to the large amount of slag generated, which
needs to be processed. The energy required for the
smelting of low-alumina bauxite residue (7 wt.%
Al2O3) is lower than the direct smelting of high-
alumina bauxite residue. However, it is still higher
than what is required for iron ore smelting due to
the still large amount of slag generated in the
process when compared to iron ore. Furthermore,
the energy required for alumina removal also needs
to be considered to allow for a more fair comparison.
Na2CO3 roasting followed by smelting requires
more energy than direct smelting of bauxite residue.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the alumina
can be recovered as a valuable product in this
Na2CO3 roasting-smelting process. The roasting
temperature can be decreased by replacing Na2CO3
by NaOH. The energy consumption of roasting with
NaOH at 500°C followed by smelting is comparable
to that of the direct bauxite residue smelting process
and can be further decreased by lowering the
roasting temperature to 300°C without much
adverse effects on recovery rates. It should be noted
that the consumption of Na2CO3 and NaOH is very
low as these chemicals can be recycled and reused in
the process.
The energy consumption for smelting is very high.
For example, the smelting of alkali roasted bauxite
residue at 1500°C requires about 2300 kWh/t of iron
produced, in the form of electricity. The electric arc
furnace (EAF) is used for melting of DRI (direct
reduced iron) and scrap, and generally not for pig
iron production from ore, due to the high cost of
electrical energy. The energy required for DRI
melting is less than 500 kWh/t of iron,10 whereas
iron ore smelting requires >1000 kWh/t of iron.
Therefore, it is advisable to pre-reduce the bauxite
residue before melting in the EAF. Other alterna-
tive new iron-making processes such as Finex,
ITMk3 and Hisarna can also be studied for bauxite
residue smelting.16
The energy consumption during bauxite residue
smelting according to the process developed by
Logomerac is around 3600 kWh for producing 1 t
of pig iron and 3 t of slag.17 The calculated energy
for direct smelting of bauxite residue is about 3200
kWh/t of pig iron and 2.4 t of slag. Hence, the
calculations presented here are in line with the
experimental results reported in the literature.
The energy consumption for sulfation roasting is
very high (6 GJ/t). It is even higher than the
energy required for direct smelting of the bauxite
residue. This is due to the large amount of raw
2960 Borra, Blanpain, Pontikes, Binnemans, and Van Gerven

Fig. 3. Quantitative flow sheet of the alkali roasting-smelting-leaching (AR-S-L) and alkali roasting-smelting-quenching-leaching (AR-S-Q-L)
processes.

materials (1 t bauxite residue, 1 t of sulfuric acid

and 0.4 t of water), decomposition of sulfates during
roasting and evaporation of water during sulfation.
Although the energy consumption is high, the
operating temperature is low, which can decrease
the capital cost required in the process. Low-cost
gaseous and liquid fuels can be used in the process,
whereas coke or high-quality coal are required in
smelting. The acid consumption in this process is
the lowest of the different processes that have been
compared. A low acid consumption decreases the
cost. Finally, the level of impurities in the leach
solution is low in this process. Hence, the volume of
generated effluent will also be small.

COST ASPECTS
Indicative cost aspects of the AR-S-Q-L process
are shown in Table I, including the estimated costs
of consumed reagents, energy and values of the
generated products. Similar cost analyses for the Fig. 4. Quantitative flow sheet of the sulfation-roasting-leaching (Su-
other processes (L, S-L, AR-S-L and Su-R-L) were R-L) process.
also performed. The consumption of bauxite residue
is represented as a benefit, and therefore as a
positive value, as the material is a liability to the taken from Alibaba.19 The price of acids and other
company.1 REE prices (as on 23 February 2016) chemicals (as on 23 February 2016) used in the
were taken from the mineral prices website.18 calculation was taken from Alibaba.19 Titanium
Prices that are not available on this website are dioxide and alumina prices were taken from USGS
Comparative Analysis of Processes for Recovery of Rare Earths from Bauxite Residue 2961

Minerals.20,21 The total REEs value except scan-
dium is the sum of the amounts recovered multi-
plied by their respective price. For the Sc2O3
price,two values were considered: (1) the market
price (as on 23 February 2016), and (2) half of the
market price. This was done to evaluate the
decrease in margin if there is a price drop for
Sc2O3 due to the increase in production from the
proposed plants. Hence, two margins were calcu-
lated. Electrical energy was considered for smelting
and natural gas was considered for roasting pro-
cesses. Natural gas and electricity prices (as on 10
May 2016) were taken from the US Energy
Fig. 5. Energy consumption of different processes.
Information Administration.22,23 As mentioned ear-
lier, the residue generated in the process can be
considered for application in building materials.
However, it should be noted that the costs of
smelting, alkali roasting, sulfation, roasting, fur-
ther recovery processes (e.g., solvent extraction, ion
exchange), labor and equipment were not consid-
ered in these preliminary calculations.
Different scenarios were also considered for cost
analysis: (1) recovery of only base metals (BM), (2)
recovery of only scandium, (3) recovery of scandium
and other rare earths (REEs), and (4) recovery of
scandium, other rare earths and base metals
(REEs + BM). These scenarios are shown in Fig. 6.
Scenario 4 is not simply the sum of scenarios 1 and 3
as the titanium can also be recovered from the leach
solutions together with REEs. It is evident from this
figure that the recovery of scandium is very impor-
tant. It can also be seen that only the recovery of
base metals from bauxite residue is not a good
option. However, the combined recovery of base
metals and scandium increases the margin. Recov-
ery of REEs other than scandium does not have
much impact on the margins.
Cost analysis of direct leaching shows a very low
margin. Furthermore, large volumes of effluents are
generated in this process. The margin can be
improved by iron recovery via smelting followed by
slag leaching. However, large volumes of effluents
would be still generated in such an improved
process. Therefore, alumina recovery prior to smelt-
ing can further increase the margin. Finally, the
process can be further improved by quenching
before slag leaching as it helps in dissolving tita-
nium and REEs.

Table I. Preliminary cost analysis of the alkali roasting-smelting-quenching-leaching process (calculation

base is 1 tonne of bauxite residue)

Mass (t) Unit price (US$/t) Value (US$)

Costs
Acid 0.46 200 92
Water 20 1 20
Na2CO3 0.05 150 8
Coke 0.1 150 15
Electrical energy 655 (kWh) 0.06 (USD/kWh) 39
Natural gas 65 (m3) 0.35 (USD/m3) 23
Benefits
Bauxite residue 1 10 10
Al2O3 0.17 400 68
Fe 0.285 300 86
TiO2 0.04 1500 60
Residue 0.29 10 3
Sc2O3 167E 06 4.20E+06 701
Other REEs 740E 06 16
Margin 1 – – 747
Margin 2 – – 396
Margin 1 is based on the Sc2O3 market price as on 23 February 2016, whereas Margin 2 is based on half that price.
2962
Fig. 6. Margin for different scenarios at (a) current scandium oxide
price (as on 23 February 2016), and (b) half of current scandium
price.
The margin in the Su-R-L process is in between
direct L and S-L. However, this margin can be
further improved by increasing the scandium recov-
ery (e.g., by increasing the potential (Eh), which can
avoid the jarosite formation that decreases the loss
of scandium to jarosite and subsequent losses of
scandium to this phase24).
CONCLUSION
Compared to the other investigated processes, the
alkali roasting-smelting-quenching-leaching pro-
cess has a large margin and has several advantages,
like the recovery of major metals together with
REEs and low amounts of effluent generation. This
process can be economically viable if the CAPEX
and additional OPEX (except raw materials, energy
and reagents costs) are within the calculated mar-
gin. Hence, this process could be studied at a pilot
scale, including a detailed techno-economic feasibil-
ity study, in order to assess the economic feasibility
Borra, Blanpain, Pontikes, Binnemans, and Van Gerven
on a large-scale operation. The sulfation-roasting-
leaching process has several advantages, and there-
fore further studies are required to improve the
recovery of scandium. Finally, scandium recovery
from the bauxite residue is essential for any eco-
nomically viable process for recovering REEs and
metals from bauxite residue at the current metal
prices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the DBOF grant from
KU Leuven to CRB and by the Research Platform
for the Advanced Recycling and Reuse of Rare
Earths (IOF-KP RARE3), funded by the Industrial
Research Fund of the KU Leuven.
REFERENCES
1. K. Evans, J. Sustain. Metall. http://link.springer.com/arti
cle/10.1007/s40831 (2016).
2. Y. Pontikes and G.N. Angelopoulos, Resour. Conserv. Re-
cycl. 73, 53 (2013).
3. E. Balomenos, I. Giannopoulou, D. Gerogiorgis, D. Panias,
and I. Paspaliaris, Waste Biomass Valorization 5, 333 (2014).
4. K. Binnemans, P.T. Jones, B. Blanpain, T. Van Gerven,
and Y. Pontikes, J. Clean. Prod. 99, 17 (2015).
5. C.R. Borra, Y. Pontikes, K. Binnemans, and T. Van Gerven,
Miner. Eng. 76, 20 (2015).
6. C.R. Borra, J. Mermans, B. Blanpain, Y. Pontikes, K.
Binnemans, and T. Van Gerven, Miner. Eng. 92, 151
(2016).
7. C.R. Borra, B. Blanpain, Y. Pontikes, K. Binnemans, and T.
Van Gerven, J. Sustain. Metall. 2, 28 (2016).
8. C.R. Borra, Recovery of Rare Earths from Bauxite Residue
(Bauxite Residue) (Ph.D. thesis, KU Leuven, 2016).
9. C.W. Bale, E. Bélisle, P. Chartrand, S.A. Decterov, G.
Eriksson, K. Hack, I.-H. Jung, Y.-B. Kang, J. Melançon, A.D.
Pelton, C. Robelin, and S. Petersen, Calphad 33, 295 (2009).
10. M. Barati, Energy 35, 3731 (2010).
11. S. Biswas, K.D. Peaslee, and S. Lekakh, AFS Trans. 449
(2012).
12. J.C. Ho, S.K. Chou, and T.T. Chandratilleke, Energy 16,
1021 (1991).
13. M. Kirschen, V. Risonarta, and H. Pfeifer, Energy 34, 1065
(2009).
14. H. Pfeifer and M. Kirschen, in 7th Eur. Electr. Steelmak.
Conf. (Venice, Italy, 2002), pp. 1413–1428.
15. P. Hayes, Process Principles in Minerals and Materials
Production, 3rd ed. (Brisbane, QLD: Hayes, 2003).
16. A. Hasanbeigi, M. Arens, and L. Price, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 33, 645 (2014).
17. V.G. Logomerac, Trav. Com. Int. Etude Bauxites Alum.
Alum 15, 279 (1979).
18. Anonymous, Rare Earth Metals. http://mineralprices.com/.
Accessed 23 Feb 2016.
19. Anonymous, http://www.alibaba.com/. Accessed 23 Feb
2016.
20. G.M. Bedinger, Titanium, in USGS 2013 Minerals Year-
book (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2013).
21. E.L. Bray, Bauxite and alumina, in USGS 2015 Mineral
Commodity Summaries (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, 2015).
22. Anonymous, Gross and Net Heating Values for Some
Common Gases. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-
net-heating-values-d_420.html. Accessed 10 May 2016.
23. Anonymous, Electric Power Monthly. https://www.eia.gov/
electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a.
Accessed 10 May 2016.
24. W.P.C. Duyvesteyn, US Patent 20120207656 (2012).