International Journal of Multidisciplinary Futuristic Development

Aluminum Control and Selective Recovery from Ni–Co Laterite Leach Liquors: A Critical Review

Antonio Clareti Pereira1

  1. 1
Version of record

This is an author-deposited copy. The version of record was originally published elsewhere: Originally published in International Journal of Multidisciplinary Futuristic Development, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2026. DOI 10.54660/IJMFD.2026.7.2.122-133 . Original source: https://www.transdisciplinaryjournal.com/archives/year-2026.vol-7.issue-2.

Abstract

Aluminum is simultaneously a process impurity and a potential secondary resource in hydrometallurgical treatment of nickel–cobalt laterites. The principal engineering problem is not simply removing dissolved aluminum but doing so without unacceptable nickel and cobalt losses, excessive neutralizing-agent consumption, or poorly manageable residues. This critical review examines ore mineralogy, acid leaching, aluminum complexation and hydrolysis, hydroxide precipitation, solvent extraction, ion exchange, membrane-assisted separations, and possible aluminum products. A thematic synthesis of a supplied bibliography of 145 records is used to compare thermodynamic feasibility with kinetic and operational constraints; because the compilation contains unverified metadata and heterogeneous evidence, no pooled recovery or cost estimate is claimed. The analysis identifies controlled neutralization as an established reference route whose selectivity depends on feed composition and solids management, while organic and adsorptive alternatives require more rigorous demonstrations with authentic laterite liquors. Aluminum valorization is justified only after specification-driven impurity control and a transparent water, reagent, residue, and energy balance. An integrated decision framework is proposed to guide comparative testing and process design.

Keywords: nickel lateritesaluminum speciationselective precipitationsolvent extractionion exchangeprocess integration

Full text

Text extracted from the article PDF for reading and search. Tables, figures and equations are in the PDF, which remains the authoritative version.

1. Introduction

Nickel–cobalt laterites combine substantial resource potential with heterogeneous mineralogical hosts and demanding impurity control. High-pressure acid leaching (HPAL), atmospheric acid leaching, and heap leaching produce liquors whose compositions depend strongly on the material processed and the dissolution history. Aluminum is an instructive case: substantial dissolution can increase neutralization demand, promote gelatinous precipitates, and entrain valuable metals, while a sufficiently pure isolated aluminum stream may have value. The literature spans mineralogical studies, leaching experiments, impurity neutralization, and downstream recovery but offers much less directly comparable evidence for aluminum-selective product manufacture (Abdollahi et al., 2024; Agatzini-Leonardou et al., 2021; Aiglsperger et al., 2016; Bartzas et al., 2024; Butt et al., 2013; Han et al., 2017) [1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 33]. This review asks which chemistry and unit operations can restrict aluminum transfer into nickel–cobalt products while permitting defensible aluminum valorization. Figure 1 traces ore-host variability, Figure 2 separates aqueous speciation from solids generation, Figure 3 locates prospective separation stages in an integrated circuit, and Figure 4 presents the decision criteria. Tables 1–3 summarize route-specific limitations and evidence requirements; these are frameworks, not new measurements.

Graphical Abstract Note. Original conceptual figure created for this review from the thematic synthesis of the supplied bibliography; no quantitative measurements are represented.

Fig 1 Table 1: Engineering comparison of aluminum-removal mechanisms Route Potential advantage Principal limitation / validation need Staged neutralization Simple integration with acid-leach circuits Co-precipitation, gypsum, and filtration behavior Seeded hydrolysis Potential particle-size control Seed stability and reproducible solid quality Solvent extraction Chemical partitioning without bulk solids formation Fe interference, stripping, entrainment, and organic loss Ion exchange Polishing and modular operation Breakthrough, competitive loading, and regeneration Membrane hybrid Possible fractionation and recycle Fouling, osmotic loading, and long-term stability Note. Original critical synthesis; categorical assessments are conditional and are not numeric performance estimates.

Table 2: Minimum evidence for classification of an Al-bearing stream Classification Evidence gate Consequence Process residue Mass balance and safe management route Disposal or treatment cost Potential co-product Reproducible enrichment and impurity characterization Conditional downstream upgrading Qualified product Buyer-grade chemical and physical specification; market route Defensible revenue sensitivity Note. Original critical synthesis; categorical assessments are conditional and are not numeric performance estimates.

The source bibliography contains 145 selected entries from an earlier compilation of 179 records and was assembled around 13 subject-specific Boolean searches. This is a critical narrative review rather than a systematic review: full-text eligibility, source-level measurements, and all bibliographic identifiers have not been independently confirmed. Accordingly, the comparison distinguishes chemistry-based reasoning from demonstrated performance and avoids pooled recoveries, cost estimates, or industrial-readiness claims. Bibliographic entries retained for provenance but not discussed in the analysis require source-level screening before journal submission.

2. Mineralogy and Geochemical Controls

Limonitic, transitional, and saprolitic zones differ in iron oxyhydroxide and magnesium silicate content, clay abundance, and the distribution of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and accessory elements. Consequently, bulk Al grade does not predict dissolved Al independently of mineral hosts and lixiviant chemistry (Aiglsperger et al., 2016; Butt et al., 2013; Han et al., 2017; Kursunoglu, 2025; Li et al., 2011) [4, 13, 33, 43, 47].

Figure 1 represents the principal interpretive problem: an ore sample described simply as laterite may conceal different Al-host contributions. Mineralogy-resolved deportment and dissolution tests should precede claims of universal neutralization pH or recoverable Al yield.

Note. Original conceptual figure created for this review from the thematic synthesis of the supplied bibliography; no quantitative measurements are represented. Fig 2: Conceptual progression from aluminum aqueous chemistry to solid-phase separation.

Table 3: Required dataset for a meaningful continuous-process comparison Dimension Required measurement Failure mode if omitted Selectivity Al removal and Ni/Co loss on consistent mass basis Misleading recovery claim Solution chemistry Free acid, sulfate/chloride, Fe oxidation state, ionic strength Unreliable speciation prediction Solid handling Particle size, settling, filtration, wash efficiency Understated operating limitation Organic/resin performance Cycling, stripping, breakthrough, contaminant loading Overstated reagent life Utilities and environment Reagent, energy, water, purge, and residues Incomplete OPEX and LCA Product qualification Phase, grade, contaminants, buyer specification Unjustified coproduct credit Note. Original critical synthesis; categorical assessments are conditional and are not numeric performance estimates.

3. Generation of Aluminum-Bearing Leach Liquors

The dissolution of Al varies with acid type, available free acidity, thermal regime, residence time, and the rates of dissolution or secondary-phase formation. HPAL conditions cannot be exchanged directly for those of ambient-pressure, heap, or chloride systems; comparison requires consistent definitions of extraction, solid–liquid ratio, liquor concentration, and reagent inventory (Abdollahi et al., 2024; Agatzini-Leonardou et al., 2021; Bartzas et al., 2024; Carpen et al., 2022; Dash et al., 2025; Garces-Granda et al., 2020; Gultom et al., 2020) [1, 3, 9, 16, 19, 28, 31]. Aluminum deportment must be closed across pregnant solution, residue, washings, and neutralization solids. A defensible process balance distinguishes initial release from subsequent reprecipitation and identifies losses of nickel and cobalt through the same sequence.

4. Aqueous Speciation and Thermodynamic Boundaries

Hydrated Al³⁺ undergoes hydrolysis and participates in sulfate- and chloride-associated equilibria; the predominant dissolved species depends on temperature, activities, ionic strength, acid concentration, and competing ions. Simplified equilibrium plots are useful for framing hypotheses but insufficient to predict actual precipitation in concentrated industrial liquor (Alkarkhi et al., 2012; Schodde et al., 2025; Shi et al., 2021; Su et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2018; de Almeida Silva et al., 2019) [5, 98, 101, 108, 122]. Figure 2 distinguishes complexation, hydrolysis, nucleation, and particle capture. Solubility calculations must be coupled with mixing, local pH, and residence-time effects before they can explain measured selectivity.

For the trivalent hydrolysis limit, Al³⁺ + 3H₂O ⇌ Al(OH)₃(s) + 3H⁺ is a useful schematic relation, not a complete description of polymeric or sulfate-bearing species. Model parameterization should be checked against the actual liquor matrix.

5. Neutralization, Hydrolysis, and Selective Precipitation

Controlled neutralization with calcium carbonate, lime, sodium hydroxide, or magnesium oxide is a relevant process reference. However, apparent aluminum removal cannot by itself establish selectivity because ferric iron, chromium, silica, and precious nickel–cobalt inventory may co-precipitate or be physically entrained (Mubarok et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2025) [63, 124].

The critical operating variables are reagent addition profile, pH gradient, solids loading, seeding, aging, and filterability. Equilibrium-centered comparisons without particle-size and filtration data are incomplete. Table 1 records the essential tradeoffs.

Note. Original conceptual figure created for this review from the thematic synthesis of the supplied bibliography; no quantitative measurements are represented. Fig 3: Indicative integration of impurity removal with nickel and cobalt product purification.

Note. Original conceptual figure created for this review from the thematic synthesis of the supplied bibliography; no quantitative measurements are represented. Fig 4: Linked technical, product-quality, and sustainability criteria for route selection.

Note. Original conceptual figure created for this review from the thematic synthesis of the supplied bibliography; no quantitative measurements are represented. A practical evaluation should link X-ray diffraction, quantitative mineralogy, bulk assays, and timed liquor analyses. This is a methodological recommendation rather than evidence that any particular ore responds uniformly. Fig 5: Conceptual heterogeneity in aluminum-host environments across lateritic profiles.

The chief comparison is therefore not percent Al removed in isolation but the joint outcome of aluminum rejection, nickel and cobalt losses, precipitate filterability, and reagent consumption. If two tests start from different acidities or Fe(III) concentrations, an identical endpoint pH does not imply equal selectivity. Reported operating windows should be interpreted in the context of feed composition and sampling time, not transferred as universal set points. No universal ranking follows from this table: the economically favored route must be determined using actual pregnant-leach-solution assays, continuous solids characterization, and nickel–cobalt accountability.

6. Solvent Extraction and Organic Reagents

Extraction chemistry can potentially separate dissolved aluminum from nickel and cobalt without creating a bulk hydroxide sludge. However, preferential loading cannot be inferred from reagent class alone. Fe(III) competition, sulfate complexation, pH-dependent loading, and organic-phase capacity must be established experimentally with the same laterite leach liquor. A credible claim of aluminum selectivity requires paired aqueous and organic assays for Al, Fe, Ni, and Co, with distribution ratios and phase-volume corrections reported for each metal.

A full SX assessment needs extraction isotherms, pH or acidity dependence, scrubbing and stripping steps, organic regeneration, crud propensity, and multicycle losses. Aluminum-selective SX should not be portrayed as industrially proven for lateritic liquors solely on the basis of metal extraction reported for related feedstocks. For process integration, stripping is as consequential as extraction. A loaded organic phase is not an aluminum product, and metal partitioning across extraction, scrubbing, stripping, and recycle must be reconciled before claiming net aluminum recovery. Without multi-cycle evidence, a solvent formulation is a screening candidate rather than a validated alternative to neutralization.

7. Ion Exchange and Adsorptive Separation

Chelating and conventional ion-exchange resins can be attractive for removal or polishing of selected metal ions, particularly when feed solids have already been eliminated. Comparison of functional groups should include competitive loading with Fe and Mn, breakthrough profiles, acid regeneration, and full resin mass balance (Botelho Junior et al., 2019; Pereira, 2026c) [12, 77].

Resin performance measured on synthetic single-ion solutions provides only screening evidence. Real-liquor trials should assess colloidal fouling, sulfate competition, irreversible adsorption, and recovery of aluminum from regeneration effluent before product-grade claims are made.

8. Membranes and Hybrid Treatment Trains

Nanofiltration, dialysis, electrodialysis, and membrane-assisted extraction are conceptually relevant to sulfate management or metal fractionation, but charge-based transport and concentration polarization complicate extrapolation to strongly acidic multicomponent systems. Membranes are most appropriately considered within hybrid trains after particulate control and with measured permeability, rejection, recovery, cleaning requirements, and membrane life. The absence of a demonstrated closed-loop nickel–cobalt laterite duty must be explicit rather than filled with generic membrane advantages.

9. Aluminum Recovery, Product Quality, and Residue

Management Precipitated aluminum hydroxide, hydrated alumina phases, aluminum sulfate, or related intermediates represent conditional potential products rather than automatic by-products of impurity removal. Residual Fe, Cr, Si, Ni, and Co constrain quality, while reagent-derived calcium or magnesium can alter both phase composition and treatment burden (Bartzas et al., 2021; Caetano et al., 2025; Duman et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2026; Ruan et al., 2024; Savinova et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2016) [10, 14, 21, 51, 93, 94, 96]. Product assessment should be defined backward from a buyer specification, validated solid assay, phase identity, washing and calcination needs, and marketable mass yield. Table 2 separates engineering feasibility from the unsupported assumption that any Al-bearing precipitate is saleable. In particular, a hydroxide-rich filter cake can retain sulfate, gypsum, and sorbed nickel or cobalt. Washing may improve purity but transfer these constituents to a larger effluent volume. Any co-product credit therefore requires a complete upgrading route and analytical verification of the final material, not simply an elevated aluminum concentration in the precipitate.

The product classification may change across different feedstocks; an impurity solid from one operation is not a qualified alumina precursor by nomenclature alone.

10. Integration with Nickel–Cobalt Purification

Figure 3 organizes separation around the metal-product pathway rather than treating aluminum recovery as an independent objective. Early iron management can mitigate downstream contamination, but premature neutralization may also entrain nickel and cobalt. The preferred insertion point therefore depends on upstream acid consumption and downstream mixed-hydroxide, sulfide, or solution-product specifications (Acquah et al., 2026; Astuti et al., 2023; Bana et al., 2025; Berni et al., 2010; Cao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2025; Dickson et al., 2025; Çoban et al., 2024) [2, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20].

The flowsheet is intentionally route-neutral. It does not prescribe a universal sequence of solids and solvent extraction operations; integration requires stream assays, recycle accounting, and decision thresholds for valuable-metal retention.

11. Scale-Up, Sustainability, and Comparative Decision

Criteria A process comparison should normalize the feed-basis, impurity removal efficiency, Ni/Co losses, reagent mass, water demand, energy use, solids generation, and treatment disposition. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic assessment (TEA) can reverse rankings obtained from apparent laboratory extraction alone (Bai et al., 2022; Golroudbary et al., 2023; Wahyono et al., 2024) [7, 29, 119]. Figure 4 brings the decision constraints together. Technology readiness level (TRL) is relevant only when independently supported by evidence of demonstration at the stated feed, operating duration, and scale; a published bench experiment does not establish industrial TRL.

Table 3 offers an evidence-based comparison template, with explicit missing values rather than speculative route yields or costs.

This framework is deliberately qualitative. A comparative score, predicted cost, or TRL designation should be introduced only after measurements and source verification permit it.

12. Research Priorities and Proposed Verification

Framework Priority experiments should begin with compositional and mineralogical characterization of representative laterite feeds and matched solution sampling through leaching and partial neutralization. Next, small-scale factorial comparisons should quantify simultaneous Al rejection and Ni/Co retention over pH, dose, time, and temperature while recording solids characteristics. More selective SX, IX, and membrane options should then be screened against the same real liquor rather than independent synthetic matrices. Subsequent continuous trials must close multistage mass balances, quantify long-term reagent and membrane or resin stability, and recover enough solids for a preliminary product-specification audit. Only after these gates should integrated TEA/LCA and capacity scale-up be credible.

13. Conclusion

The controlling challenge is selective management of aluminum in a matrix that also contains valuable nickel and cobalt and competing iron, silicon, manganese, and other impurities. Dissolution depends on mineralogical host and leach conditions; subsequent aqueous speciation, hydrolysis, and the nucleation and separation of solids determine whether aluminum can be isolated without disproportionate metal losses. Controlled neutralization provides a practical benchmark, although its true performance is defined by solids handling and multimetal retention. Solvent extraction, ion exchange, membranes, and hybrid routes can be useful alternatives within defined service windows, but they require consistent real-liquor and closed-loop evidence before we can infer industrial readiness. Aluminum valorization requires chemistry confirmed by specifications, saleable physical characteristics, and full consideration of reagent, water, energy, and residual streams. Future work should prioritize comparative campaigns with authentic liquors, continuous balances, and transparent product qualification.

Declarations

Funding. This review received no financial support or funding.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict-of-interest declaration to be confirmed by the author.

Data Availability This manuscript presents a qualitative synthesis of the supplied literature list; it reports no original experimental data. Bibliographic metadata and primary-source results require further verification.

Author Contributions Authorship and contribution statement to be confirmed by the author prior to submission.

References

  1. Abdollahi H, Hosseini Nasab M, Yadollahi A. Bioleaching of lateritic nickel ores. In: Biotechnological innovations in the mineral metal industry. 2024. p. 41– 66.
  2. Agatzini-Leonardou S, Oustadakis P, Dimaki D, Zafiratos J, Tsakiridis P, Karidakis T, et al. Heap leaching of Greek low-grade nickel oxide ores by dilute sulphuric acid at a pilot-plant scale. Mater Proc. 2021;5(1):65. doi:10.3390/materproc2021005065 https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2021005065
  3. Aiglsperger T, Proenza JA, Lewis JF, Labrador M, Svojtka M, Rojas-Purón A, et al. Critical metals (REE, Sc, PGE) in Ni laterites from Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Ore Geol Rev. 2016;73:127–47. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.10.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.10.010
  4. Alkarkhi AFM, Yusup Y, Teng TT. Optimal conditions of Al and Fe extraction from laterite soil using D-optimal design. Environmentalist. 2012;32:453–63.
  5. Bai Y, Zhang T, Zhai Y, Jia Y, Ren K, Hong J. Strategies for improving the environmental performance of nickel production in China: insight into a life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage. 2022;312:114949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114949 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114949
  6. Bana IS, Wan W, Shen L. Optimization of high-pressure acid leaching for nickel and cobalt recovery from ultralow-grade laterite ores. JOM. 2025;77(7):5192–
  7. Bartzas G, Komnitsas K. Cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of battery grade nickel sulphate production through high-pressure acid leaching. Sci Total Environ. 2024;952:175902. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175902 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175902
  8. Bartzas G, Tsakiridis PE, Komnitsas K. Nickel industry: heavy metal(loid)s contamination sources, environmental impacts and recent advances on waste valorization. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2021;21:100253. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100253
  9. Berni TV, Pereira AC, Mendes FD. Purification of nickel and cobalt from heap leaching effluents using ion exchange resins. In: Proceedings of the XXV International Mineral Processing Congress; 2010. p. 273–83. Available from: https://www.escavador.com/sobre/8448701/antonio-clareti-pereira
  10. Botelho Junior AB, Vicente AA, Espinosa DCR, Tenorio JAS. Recovery of metals by ion exchange process using chelating resin and sodium dithionite. J Mater Res Technol. 2019;8(5):4464–9. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.07.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.07.059
  11. Butt CRM, Cluzel D. Nickel laterite ore deposits: weathered serpentinites. Elements. 2013;9(2):123–8. doi:10.2113/gselements.9.2.123 https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.9.2.123
  12. Caetano GC, Rodrigues FC, Ostroski IC, de Barros MASD. Low-cost alternative for iron recovery in lateritic nickel production by using ferronickel refining slag and kiln dust for iron precipitation from acid leachate. Hydrometallurgy. 2025;237:106547.
  13. Carpen HL, Giese EC. Enhancement of nickel laterite ore bioleaching by Burkholderia sp. using a factorial design. Appl Water Sci. 2022;12(8):181.
  14. Chen Y, Wu H, Xu B, Zhang W. Selective extraction process of scandium from nickel laterite waste through hydrometallurgy. RSC Adv. 2025;15(3):2250–9. doi:10.1039/D4RA07520J https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RA07520J
  15. 19a. Dash J, Ojha R, Pradhan D. Progress in bioleaching and its mechanism: a short review. Discov Environ. 2025;3(1):238. doi:10.1007/s44274-025-00454-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00454-w
  16. 20a. Dickson OV, Deleau T, Espitalier F, Coquelet C, Lombart J, Accart P. High-pressure acid leaching of laterite ores: effect of acid and solid content on Ni and Co yield under non-isothermal and isothermal conditions. Hydrometallurgy. 2025;238:106576.
  17. 20b. du Plessis CA, Slabbert W, Hallberg KB, Johnson DB. Ferredox: a biohydrometallurgical processing concept for limonitic nickel laterites. Hydrometallurgy. 2011;109(3):221–9.
  18. 22. Fan Q, Yuan S, Wen J, He J. Review on comprehensive utilization of nickel laterite ore. Miner Eng. 2024;218:109044. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2024.109044 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2024.109044
  19. 23. Fan R, Gerson AR. Nickel geochemistry of a Philippine laterite examined by bulk and microprobe synchrotron analyses. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2011;75(21):6400–15. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.08.003
  20. 26. Farrokhpay S, Cathelineau M, Blancher SB, Laugier O, Filippov L. Characterization of Weda Bay nickel laterite ore from Indonesia. J Geochem Explor. 2019;196:270–81. doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.11.002
  21. 27. Gao JM, Yan ZK, Liu J, Zhang M, Guo M. A novel hydrometallurgical approach to recover valuable metals from laterite ore. Hydrometallurgy. 2014;150:161–6.
  22. 29. Golroudbary SR, Kraslawski A, Wilson BP, Lundström M. Assessment of environmental sustainability of nickel required for mobility transition. Front Chem Eng. 2023;4:978842. doi:10.3389/fceng.2022.978842 https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2022.978842
  23. 31. Gultom T, Sianipar A. High pressure acid leaching: a newly introduced technology in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;413(1):012015. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/413/1/012015 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/413/1/012015
  24. 32. Guo XY, Shi WT, Li D, Tian QH. Leaching behavior of metals from limonitic laterite ore by high pressure acid leaching. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2011;21(1):191–5. doi:10.1016/S1003-6326(11)60698- https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(11)60698-
  25. 33. Han H, Sun W, Hu Y, Yue T, Wang L, Liu R, et al. Induced crystallization of goethite precipitate from nickel sulfate solution by limonite seeding. Hydrometallurgy. 2017;174:253–7.
  26. 34. Hariyanto RKS, Tomas da Rocha L, Kim SJ, Jung SM. Influence of alkali salts on extraction of nickel from serpentine-rich ore through sulfation roasting leaching process. J Sustain Metall. 2023;9(4):1636–46.
  27. 35. He F, Ma B, Qiu Z, Wang C, Chen Y, Hu X. Enhanced extraction of nickel from limonitic laterite via improved nitric acid pressure leaching process. Miner Eng. 2023;201:108170. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2023.108170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2023.108170
  28. 36. Hetz SA, Schippers A. Aerobic bioleaching of six Brazilian laterite ores with Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, Sulfobacillus species and Archaea at various conditions. J Sustain Metall. 2025.
  29. 37. Hutton-Ashkenny M, Ibana D, Barnard KR. Reagent selection for recovery of nickel and cobalt from nitric acid nickel laterite leach solutions by solvent extraction. Miner Eng. 2015;77:42–51.
  30. 38. Ichlas ZT, Mubarok MZ, Magnalita A, Vaughan J, Sugiarto AT. Processing mixed nickel cobalt hydroxide precipitate by sulfuric acid leaching followed by selective oxidative precipitation of cobalt and manganese. Hydrometallurgy. 2020;191:105185.
  31. 39. Ilyas S, Srivastava RR, Kim H, Ilyas N, Sattar R. Extraction of nickel and cobalt from a laterite ore using the carbothermic reduction roasting-ammoniacal leaching process. Sep Purif Technol. 2020;232:115971. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115971 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115971
  32. 40. Izkinal A, Liu W, Xu P, Yu D, Guo X, Tian Q. Resource utilization of the residue from the high-pressure acid leaching of nickel laterite for the production of FePO4. J Sustain Metall. 2025.
  33. 41. Kaya Ş, Topkaya YA. High pressure acid leaching of a refractory lateritic nickel ore. Miner Eng. 2011;24(11):1188–97.
  34. 42. Khoo JZ, Haque N, Woodbridge G, McDonald R, Bhattacharya S. A life cycle assessment of a new laterite processing technology. J Clean Prod. 2017;142:1765–
  35. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.111
  36. 43. Kursunoglu S. A review on the recovery of critical metals from mine and mineral processing tailings: recent advances. J Sustain Metall. 2025;11(3):2023–50. doi:10.1007/s40831-025-01126-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-025-01126-y
  37. 44. Kursunoglu S, Kaya M. Hydrometallurgical processing of nickel laterites: a brief overview on the use of solvent extraction and nickel/cobalt project for the separation and purification of nickel and cobalt. Bilimsel Madencilik Dergisi. 2019;58(2):131–44. doi:10.30797/madencilik.580147 https://doi.org/10.30797/madencilik.580147
  38. 45. Kursunoglu S, Ichlas ZT, Kaya M. Leaching method selection for Caldag lateritic nickel ore by the analytic hierarchy process. Hydrometallurgy. 2017;171:179–84.
  39. 46. Lakshmanan VI, Sridhar R, deLaat R, Chen J, Halim MA, Roy R. Extraction of nickel, cobalt and iron from laterite ores by mixed chloride leach process. In: Ni–Co 2013. Springer; 2016. p. 97–106.
  40. 47. Li G, Rao M, Jiang T, Huang Q, Peng Z. Leaching of limonitic laterite ore by acidic thiosulfate solution. Miner Eng. 2011;24(8):859–63.
  41. 48. Li JH, Xiong DL, Chen H, Wang RX, Liang Y. Physicochemical factors affecting leaching of laterite ore in hydrochloric acid. Hydrometallurgy. 2012;129:14–8.
  42. 49. Littlejohn P, Vaughan J. Recovery of nickel and cobalt from laterite leach tailings through resin-in-pulp scavenging and selective ammoniacal elution. Miner Eng. 2013;54:14–20. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.02.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.02.002
  43. 50. Luo J, Li G, Rao M, Peng Z, Zhang Y, Jiang T. Atmospheric leaching characteristics of nickel and iron in limonitic laterite with sulfuric acid in the presence of sodium sulfite. Miner Eng. 2015;78:38–44.
  44. 51. Luo J, Liu S, Sun D, Mang C, Rao M, Li G. Sustainable valorization of lateritic nickel tailings: valuable metals recovery and gas-purifying materials fabrication. Results Eng. 2026;29:108496. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.108496 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.108496
  45. 54. MacCarthy J, Nosrati A, Skinner W, Addai-Mensah J. Atmospheric acid leaching mechanisms and kinetics and rheological studies of a low grade saprolitic nickel laterite ore. Hydrometallurgy. 2016;160:26–37.
  46. 55. Mamyrbayeva KK, Kuandykova AN, Chepushtanova TA, Merkibayev YS. Review on hydrometallurgical processing technology of lateritic nickel ore for the last 20 years in the world. Non-Ferrous Met. 2024;2024(1):13–21. doi:10.17580/nfm.2024.01.03 https://doi.org/10.17580/nfm.2024.01.03
  47. 57. Mano ES, Caner L, Petit S, Chaves AP, Mexias AS. Ni-smectitic ore behaviour during the Caron process. Hydrometallurgy. 2019;186:200–9.
  48. 58. Meng L, Qu J, Guo Q, Xie K, Zhang P, Han L, et al. Recovery of Ni, Co, Mn, and Mg from nickel laterite ores using alkaline oxidation and hydrochloric acid leaching. Sep Purif Technol. 2015;143:80–7. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2015.01.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.01.012
  49. 59. Meshram P, Abhilash PBD. Advanced review on extraction of nickel from primary and secondary sources. Miner Process Extr Metall Rev. 2019;40(3):157–93. doi:10.1080/08827508.2018.1514300 https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2018.1514300
  50. 60. Mishra RK, Rout PC, Sarangi K, Nathsarma KC. Solvent extraction of zinc, manganese, cobalt and nickel from nickel laterite bacterial leach liquor using sodium salts of TOPS-99 and Cyanex 272. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2016;26(1):301–9. doi:10.1016/S1003-6326(16)64119-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(16)64119-5
  51. 61. Mohammed T, Bezuidenhout GA, Oraby EA, Eksteen JJ. Sequential separation of cobalt, copper, and nickel from alkaline glycinate solutions using solvent extraction. J Sustain Metall. 2024;10(4):2455–68.
  52. 62. Msumange DA, Jampaiah D, Tardio J, Nilsson M, Arandiyan H, Bhargava SK. A review of nickel and cobalt from laterite ores: toward sustainable extraction pathways for the battery industry. J Sustain Metall. 2026;12:1038–69. doi:10.1007/s40831-026-01439-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-026-01439-6
  53. 63. Mubarok MZ, Lieberto J. Precipitation of nickel hydroxide from simulated and atmospheric-leach solution of nickel laterite ore. Procedia Earth Planet Sci. 2013;6:457–64. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.2013.01.060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2013.01.060
  54. 64. Mudd GM. Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining: sulfides versus laterites. Ore Geol Rev. 2010;38(1):9–26. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2010.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2010.05.003
  55. 65. Mudd GM, Jowitt SM. A detailed assessment of global nickel resource trends and endowments. Econ Geol. 2014;109(7):1813–41. doi:10.2113/econgeo.109.7.1813 https://doi.org/10.2113/econgeo.109.7.1813
  56. 66. Nasab MH, Noaparast M, Abdollahi H. Selective precipitation of iron from multi-element PLS produced by atmospheric leaching of Ni-Co bearing laterite. Int J Min Geo-Eng. 2022. doi:10.22059/ijmge.2022.307768.594861 https://doi.org/10.22059/ijmge.2022.307768.594861
  57. 67. Nosrati A, Quast K, Xu D, Skinner W, Robinson DJ, Addai-Mensah J. Agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of nickel laterite ores: effect of ore mineralogy and particle size distribution. Hydrometallurgy. 2014;146:29–39. doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.03.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.03.004
  58. 68. Önal MAR, Topkaya YA. Pressure acid leaching of Çaldağ lateritic nickel ore: an alternative to heap leaching. Hydrometallurgy. 2014;142:98–107.
  59. 69. Osali M, Ahani F, Aboutalebi MR, Adeli M, Moghaddam J, Karimi S, et al. Selective extraction of nickel and cobalt from limonitic laterite via optimized sulfation roasting-water leaching and solvent extraction. Minerals. 2026;16(5):431. doi:10.3390/min16050431 https://doi.org/10.3390/min16050431
  60. 70. Oxley A, Barcza N. Hydro–pyro integration in the processing of nickel laterites. Miner Eng. 2013;54:2–13.
  61. 71. Oxley A, Smith ME, Caceres O. Why heap leach nickel laterites? Miner Eng. 2016;88:53–60.
  62. 72. Ozaki Y, Okabe T, Kagawa Y. Current status of resources and supply-demand of nickel, and outlook of hydrometallurgical processes for nickel laterite ore. J MMIJ. 2014;130(4):93–103. doi:10.2473/journalofmmij.130.93 https://doi.org/10.2473/journalofmmij.130.93
  63. 73. Pandey N, Tripathy SK, Patra SK, Jha G. Recent progress in hydrometallurgical processing of nickel lateritic ore. Trans Indian Inst Met. 2023;76(1):11–30.
  64. 74. Park T, Han S, Lee W, Seo J, Roh K. Sustainable production of battery-grade nickel via hydrogen reduction of saprolite. Sci Rep. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-36516-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-36516-z
  65. 80. Pereira AC, Santos JR dos. Critical evaluation of the Gran method for free acidity determination in sulfuric solutions containing interfering ions. Brazilian Applied Science Review. 2025;9:e82339. doi:10.34115/basrv9n2-004 https://doi.org/10.34115/basrv9n2-004
  66. 81. Pereira AC, Berni TV, Marçal E, Pinto L, Santos L. Free acid determination method for nickel laterite leaching effluents. In: Hydroprocess 2012; Santiago, Chile. 2012. Available from: https://www.escavador.com/sobre/8448701/antonio-clareti-pereira
  67. 82. Pereira AC, Santos JR dos, Fonseca RBC. Determination of free acidity in sulfuric liquors using the oxalate method: scope, limitations, and validation. Revista Multidisciplinar do Nordeste Mineiro. 2025;18:1–19. doi:10.61164/1knf6e79 https://doi.org/10.61164/1knf6e79
  68. 83. Petrus HTBM, Putera ADP, Warmada IW, Nurjaman F, Astuti W, Prasetya A. Investigation on saprolitic laterite ore reduction process using palm kernel shell charcoal: kinetics and phase transformation. Int J Technol. 2022;13(3):565–76. doi:10.14716/ijtech.v13i3.4701 https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i3.4701
  69. 84. Pintowantoro S, Muhammad Pasha RA, Abdul F. Gypsum utilization on selective reduction of limonitic laterite nickel. Results Eng. 2021;12:100296. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100296 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100296
  70. 86. Ribeiro PPM, de Souza LCM, dos Santos ID, Dutra AJB. Selective sulfation of nickel laterite ore. Brazilian Journal of Development. 2022;8(3):16556–70. doi:10.34117/bjdv8n3-069 https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv8n3-069
  71. 87. Ribeiro PPM, dos Santos ID, Dutra AJB. Selective solvent extraction of nickel and cobalt from a Ni lateritic sulfuric solution using synergism caused by LIX860N-IC and Versatic 10. Sep Purif Technol. 2024;332:125757. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125757 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125757
  72. 88. Ribeiro PPM, dos Santos ID, Neumann R, Fernandes A, Dutra AJB. Roasting and leaching behavior of nickel laterite ore. Metall Mater Trans B. 2021;52.
  73. 89. Ribeiro PPM, Neumann R, dos Santos ID, Rezende MC, Radino-Rouse P, Dutra AJB. Nickel carriers in laterite ores and their influence on the mechanism of nickel extraction by sulfation-roasting-leaching process. Miner Eng. 2019;131:90–7.
  74. 91. Roqué-Rosell J, Villanova-de-Benavent C, Proenza JA. The accumulation of Ni in serpentines and garnierites from the Falcondo Ni-laterite deposit elucidated by means of μXAS. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2017;198:48–69. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2016.11.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2016.11.004
  75. 92. Roy S, Moustafa H, Vaidya K, Harvey JP, Fradette L. Improving process granularity of life cycle inventories for battery grade nickel. NPJ Mater Sustain. 2025;3(1):15. doi:10.1038/s44296-025-00059-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-025-00059-7
  76. 93. Ruan W, Zou B. Optimal strategies of critical mineral depletion and recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2024;209:107793. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107793
  77. 94. Savinova E, Evans C, Lèbre É, Stringer M, Azadi M, Valenta RK. Will global cobalt supply meet demand? The geological, mineral processing, production and geographic risk profile of cobalt. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2023;190:106855. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106855
  78. 96. Schmidt T, Buchert M, Schebek L. Investigation of the primary production routes of nickel and cobalt products used for Li-ion batteries. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2016;112:107–22. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.017
  79. 97. Schmitz AM, Pian B, Marecos S, Wu M, Holycross M, Gazel E, et al. High efficiency rare earth element bioleaching with systems biology guided engineering of Gluconobacter oxydans. Commun Biol. 2025;8(1):815.
  80. 98. Schodde R, Guj P. Nickel: a tale of two cities. Geosyst Geoenviron. 2025;4(1):100356. doi:10.1016/j.geogeo.2025.100356 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geogeo.2025.100356
  81. 99. Sellier V, Navratil O, Laceby JP, Allenbach M, Lefèvre I, Evrard O. Reconstructing the impact of nickel mining activities on sediment supply to the rivers and lagoon of South Pacific Islands: lessons from Thio, New Caledonia. Geomorphology. 2021;372:107459. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107459 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107459
  82. 100. Senanayake G, Childs J, Akerstrom BD, Pugaev D. Reductive acid leaching of laterite and metal oxides: a review with new data for Fe(Ni,Co)OOH and a limonitic ore. Hydrometallurgy. 2011;110(1–4):13–32.
  83. 101. Shi M, Min X, Ke Y, Lin Z, Yang Z, Wang S, et al. Recent progress in understanding the mechanism of heavy metals retention by iron (oxyhydr)oxides. Sci Total Environ. 2021;752:141930. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141930
  84. 103. Stankovic S, Schippers A. Bioleaching and chemical leaching of lateritic ore in percolators. Metall Mater Data. 2023;1(2):45–9. doi:10.30544/mmd9 https://doi.org/10.30544/mmd9
  85. 104. Stanković S, Goldmann S, Kraemer D, Ufer K, Schippers A. Bioleaching of a lateritic ore (Piauí, Brazil) in percolators. Hydrometallurgy. 2024;224:106262.
  86. 105. Stanković S, Kamberović Ž, Friedrich B, Stopić SR, Sokić M, Marković B, et al. Options for hydrometallurgical treatment of Ni–Co lateritic ores for sustainable supply of nickel and cobalt for European battery industry from South-Eastern Europe and Turkey. Metals. 2022;12(5):807. doi:10.3390/met12050807 https://doi.org/10.3390/met12050807
  87. 106. Stanković S, Stopić S, Sokić M, Marković B, Friedrich B. Review of the past, present, and future of the hydrometallurgical production of nickel and cobalt from lateritic ores. Metall Mater Eng. 2020;26(2):199–
  88. 107. Stopić S, Friedrich B. Hydrometallurgical processing of nickel lateritic ores. Vojnoteh Glas. 2016;64:1033–47. doi:10.5937/vojtehg64-10592 https://doi.org/10.5937/vojtehg64-10592
  89. 108. Su C, Geng Y, Liu G, Borrion A, Liang J. Emergy-based environmental accounting of China’s nickel production. Ecol Indic. 2024;161:112006. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112006
  90. 109. Su C, Geng Y, van Ewijk S, Borrion A, Zhang C. Uncovering the evolution of the global nickel cycle and trade networks. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2025;215:108164. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108164
  91. 110. Sufriadin WS, Nur I, Ilyas A, Ashari MY. Extraction of nickel and cobalt from Sulawesi limonite ore in nitric acid solution at atmospheric pressure. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;875(1):012053. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/875/1/012053 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/875/1/012053
  92. 111. Suharno B, Ilman NP, Shofi A, Ferdian D, Nurjaman F. Study of low-grade nickel laterite processing using palm shell charcoal as reductant. Mater Sci Forum. 2020;1000:436–46. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1000.436 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1000.436
  93. 112. Tang C, Tukker A, Mogollón JM. The demand and recycling potential for lithium, cobalt, and nickel in the European electric-mobility transition. Environ Res Commun. 2025;7(6):061007. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ade120 https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ade120
  94. 113. Thubakgale CK, Mbaya RK, Kabongo K. A study of atmospheric acid leaching of a South African nickel laterite. Miner Eng. 2013;54:79–81.
  95. 114. Tian H, Pan J, Zhu D, Yang C, Guo Z, Xue Y. Improved beneficiation of nickel and iron from a low-grade saprolite laterite by addition of limonitic laterite ore and CaCO3. J Mater Res Technol. 2020;9(2):2578–
  96. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.12.088 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.12.088
  97. 115. Tian QH, Dong B, Guo XY, Wang QA, Xu ZP, Li D. Valuable metals substance flow analysis in high-pressure acid leaching process of laterites. J Cent South Univ. 2023;30(6):1776–86. doi:10.1007/s11771-023-5356-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-023-5356-y
  98. 116. Tyassena FYP. Study of Fe2+ removal from laterite nickel-ore leaching pregnant solutions: optimization and kinetics. Transit Met Chem. 2025;50(3):301–14.
  99. 117. Ucyildiz A, Girgin I. High pressure sulphuric acid leaching of lateritic nickel ore. Physicochem Probl Miner Process. 2017;53(1):475–88. doi:10.5277/ppmp170137 https://doi.org/10.5277/ppmp170137
  100. 118. Valencia F, Rabbani M, Fahimi A, Vahidi E. Assessing the environmental burden of nickel sulfate for batteries: a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2025;215:108130. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108130
  101. 119. Wahyono Y, Adi Sasongko N, Trench A, Anda M, Hadiyanto H, Aisyah N, et al. Assessing the impact of climate change and water scarcity of ferronickel production in Indonesia: a life cycle assessment approach. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2024;67:103835. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2024.103835 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2024.103835
  102. 120. Wahyono Y, Sasongko NA, Trench A, Anda M, Hadiyanto H, Aisyah N, et al. Evaluating the impacts of environmental and human health of the critical minerals mining and processing industries in Indonesia using life cycle assessment. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. 2024;10:100944. doi:10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100944 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100944
  103. 121. Wang B, Guo Q, Wei G, Zhang P, Qu J, Qi T. Characterization and atmospheric hydrochloric acid leaching of a limonitic laterite from Indonesia. Hydrometallurgy. 2012;129–130:7–13.
  104. 122. Wang K, Li J, McDonald RG, Browner RE. Iron, aluminium and chromium co-removal from atmospheric nickel laterite leach solutions. Miner Eng. 2018;116:35–
  105. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2017.10.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2017.10.019
  106. 123. Wang LY, Lee MS. Separation of Co(II) and Ni(II) from chloride leach solution of nickel laterite ore by solvent extraction with Cyanex 301. Int J Miner Process. 2017;166:45–52. doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2017.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2017.07.004
  107. 124. Wang WW, Liu C, Qin B, Liu ZB, Li XY, Li MC, et al. Comprehensive recovery of valuable metals from laterite via neutralization sludge. Sep Purif Technol. 2025;368:133006. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133006
  108. 126. Wei W, Samuelsson PB, Tilliander A, Gyllenram R, Jönsson PG. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of nickel products. Energies. 2020;13(21):5664. doi:10.3390/en13215664 https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215664
  109. 127. Wen Z, Zhang C, Ji X, Xue Y. Urban mining’s potential to relieve China’s coming resource crisis. J Ind Ecol. 2015;19(6):1091–102. doi:10.1111/jiec.12271 https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12271
  110. 129. Xiao J, Xiong W, Zou K, Chen T, Li H, Wang Z. Extraction of nickel from magnesia–nickel silicate ore. J Sustain Metall. 2021;7(2):642–52. doi:10.1007/s40831-021-00364-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-021-00364-0
  111. 130. Xiong X, Ma B, Li X, Yu J, Shi L, Wang C, et al. Hydrometallurgical process and recovery of valuable elements for limonitic laterite: a review. Chin J Chem Eng. 2024;73:189–201. doi:10.1016/j.cjche.2024.05.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2024.05.011
  112. 131. Xu D, Liu L, Quast K, Addai-Mensah J, Robinson D. Effect of nickel laterite agglomerate properties on their leaching performance. Adv Powder Technol. 2013;24(4):750–6. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2013.03.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.03.013
  113. 132. Xu Z, Wei G, Yu Z, Meng L, Zheng S, Qu J, et al. Removal of Mn(II) from hydrochloric acid leach liquors of nickel laterite ore through microbubble oxidation and acid leaching. Hydrometallurgy. 2022;210:105862.
  114. 134. Xue Y, Zhu D, Pan J, Li G, Lv X. Reduction of carbon footprint through hybrid sintering of low-grade limonitic nickel laterite and chromite ore. J Sustain Metall. 2023;9(2):648–64. doi:10.1007/s40831-023-00676-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-023-00676-3
  115. 135. Zappala LC, Balucan RD, Vaughan J, Steel KM. Development of a nickel extraction-mineral carbonation process: analysis of leaching mechanisms using regenerated acid. Hydrometallurgy. 2020;197:105482.
  116. 136. Zappala L, McDonald R, Pownceby MI. Nickel laterite beneficiation and potential for upgrading using high-temperature methods: a review. Miner Process Extr Metall Rev. 2024;45(7):767–89. doi:10.1080/08827508.2023.2265533 https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2023.2265533
  117. 137. Zeng A, Chen W, Rasmussen KD, Zhu X, Lundhaug M, Müller DB, et al. Battery technology and recycling alone will not save the electric mobility transition from future cobalt shortages. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1341. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29022-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29022-z
  118. 138. Zhang P, Sun L, Wang H, Cui J, Hao J. Surfactant-assisted atmospheric acid leaching of laterite ore for improvement of nickel and cobalt leaching efficiency. J Clean Prod. 2019;228:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.305
  119. 139. Zhang ZF, Zhang WB, Zhang ZG, Chen XF. Nickel extraction from nickel laterites: processes, resources, environment and cost. China Geol. 2025;8(1):187–213. doi:10.31035/cg2024124 https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2024124
  120. 141. Zhou Z, Ma B, Wang C, Chen Y, Zhang W, Huang K. Enrichment of scandium and aluminum from limonitic laterite during the nitric acid pressure leaching process. Hydrometallurgy. 2022;208:105819.
  121. 142. Zhu DQ, Cui Y, Hapugoda S, Vining K, Pan J. Mineralogy and crystal chemistry of a low grade nickel laterite ore. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2012;22(4):907–16. doi:10.1016/S1003-6326(11)61264-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(11)61264-8
  122. 143. Zhu Z, Pranolo Y, Zhang W, Wang W, Cheng CY. Precipitation of impurities from synthetic laterite leach solutions. Hydrometallurgy. 2010;104(1):81–5. How to Cite This Article Pereira AC. Aluminum control and selective recovery from Ni–Co laterite leach liquors: a critical review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Futuristic Development. 2026;7(2):122-133. doi:10.54660/IJMFD.2026.7.2.122-133. Creative Commons (CC) License This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMFD.2026.7.2.122-133

How to cite

BibTeXDownload .bib
RISDownload .ris
EndNoteDownload .enw

Licensed under CC BY 4.0.