Mini review Topical Sections

Microbial mobilization of rare earth elements (REE) from mineral solids—A mini review

  • In the light of an expected supply shortage of rare earth elements (REE) measures have to be undertaken for an efficient use in all kinds of technical, medical, and agricultural applications as well as—in particular—in REE recycling from post-use goods and waste materials. Biologically- based methods might offer an alternative and supplement to physico-chemical techniques for REE recovery and recycling. A wide variety of physiologically distinct microbial groups have the potential to be applied for REE bioleaching form solid matrices. This source is largely untapped until today. Depending of the type of organism, the technical process (including a series of influencing factors), the solid to be treated, and the target element, leaching efficiencies of 80 to 90% can be achieved. Bioleaching of REEs can help in reducing the supply risk and market dependency. Additionally, the application of bioleaching techniques for the treatment of solid wastes might contribute to the conversion towards a more sustainable and environmental friendly economy.

    Citation: Fabienne Barmettler, Claudio Castelberg, Carlotta Fabbri, Helmut Brandl. Microbial mobilization of rare earth elements (REE) from mineral solids—A mini review[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(2): 190-204. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.2.190

    Related Papers:

    [1] M. Azizur Rahman . Development of bioleaching: proteomics and genomics approach in metals extraction process. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 332-339. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.332
    [2] Jasenka Sremac, Marija Bošnjak, Karmen Fio Firi, Ana Šimičević, Šimun Aščić . Marine microfossils: Tiny archives of ocean changes through deep time. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 644-673. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024030
    [3] Vladimir S. Cheptsov, Elena A. Vorobyova, George A. Osipov, Natalia A. Manucharova, Lubov’ M. Polyanskaya, Mikhail V. Gorlenko, Anatoli K. Pavlov, Marina S. Rosanova, Vladimir N. Lomasov . Microbial activity in Martian analog soils after ionizing radiation: implications for the preservation of subsurface life on Mars. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 541-562. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.541
    [4] Malin Bomberg, Mari Raulio, Sirpa Jylhä, Carsten W. Mueller, Carmen Höschen, Pauliina Rajala, Lotta Purkamo, Riikka Kietäväinen, Lasse Ahonen, Merja Itävaara . CO2 and carbonate as substrate for the activation of the microbial community in 180 m deep bedrock fracture fluid of Outokumpu Deep Drill Hole, Finland. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 846-871. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.846
    [5] Jordan Brown, Corona Chen, Melania Fernández, Deborah Carr . Urban endoliths: incidental microbial communities occurring inside concrete. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 277-312. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023016
    [6] Zeling Xu, Shuzhen Chen, Weiyan Wu, Yongqi Wen, Huiluo Cao . Type I CRISPR-Cas-mediated microbial gene editing and regulation. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(4): 780-800. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023040
    [7] Nilde Antonella Di Benedetto, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Daniela Campaniello, Mariagrazia Pia Cataldi, Antonio Bevilacqua, Milena Sinigaglia, Zina Flagella . The role of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in improving nitrogen use efficiency for sustainable crop production: a focus on wheat. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 413-434. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.413
    [8] Thomas Rohrlack . Low temperatures can promote cyanobacterial bloom formation by providing refuge from microbial antagonists. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 304-318. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.304
    [9] Thomas Rohrlack . Hypolimnetic assimilation of ammonium by the nuisance alga Gonyostomum semen. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(2): 92-105. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020006
    [10] M Alegría Serna-Barrera, Claudia Bas-Bellver, Lucía Seguí, Noelia Betoret, Cristina Barrera . Exploring fermentation with lactic acid bacteria as a pretreatment for enhancing antioxidant potential in broccoli stem powders. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 255-272. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024013
  • In the light of an expected supply shortage of rare earth elements (REE) measures have to be undertaken for an efficient use in all kinds of technical, medical, and agricultural applications as well as—in particular—in REE recycling from post-use goods and waste materials. Biologically- based methods might offer an alternative and supplement to physico-chemical techniques for REE recovery and recycling. A wide variety of physiologically distinct microbial groups have the potential to be applied for REE bioleaching form solid matrices. This source is largely untapped until today. Depending of the type of organism, the technical process (including a series of influencing factors), the solid to be treated, and the target element, leaching efficiencies of 80 to 90% can be achieved. Bioleaching of REEs can help in reducing the supply risk and market dependency. Additionally, the application of bioleaching techniques for the treatment of solid wastes might contribute to the conversion towards a more sustainable and environmental friendly economy.


    1. Rare Earth Elements as Resource

    Rare earth elements [REE; lanthanides, atomic numbers 57 to 70 usually excluding promethium (61) due to its instable isotopes, and including also scandium (21) and yttrium (39)] have unique chemical and physical properties and are indispensable for a huge variety of technical application fields. They are often referred to as the “seeds of technology” since they are an important part of many electronical devices such as smartphones, computers, TV sets, and many more [1,2]. Especially in the fast-growing energy sector where REE are used for e.g., catalytic converters, fluorescent phosphors, rechargeable batteries, and permanent magnet in wind turbines, REEs can contribute in the view of many to a greener economy [3]. However, geogenic REE mineral resources are not infinite and limited as much as fossil resources. This might lead in the future to REE shortages and increased market prices. Therefore, measures have soon to be taken to circumvent these constraints thereby mainly focusing on efficient REE use in technical applications as well as on increased recycling efforts [4].

    Even though REE are not “rare” per se in the Earth crust, they are very difficult to mine and to purify [2]. Mining also causes environmental problems, because of water pollution, high energy consumption, and radioactive by-products (such as e.g., thorium), which generate radioactive waste [5]. The market of REE gets more and more important and is predicted to increase 8 to 12% per year by 2020 [6]. Furthermore, most operational mines are located in China and the market dependency on China (with 86% of the annual global mining production in 2014) is huge [2,7,8]. Also in the future, China is expected to remain the world’s principal rare earth supplier [5]. Worldwide, there is a growing interest to recycle REE from waste to scale down the supply risk. Nevertheless, current rates of recycling REEs by physico-chemical techniques are in many cases below 1% compared to iron and steel which are recycled with rates between 70% to 90%, one of the highest among industrially-used metals [9]. This is mainly due to technological difficulties and, until recently, low prices, and the lack of incentives. The technological issue can be explained by the rather low amounts and different forms of REE in goods. This makes it very difficult to establish a general approach for REE recycling. Rather, the development of product specific recycling schemes is recommended [10]. In addition, due to the small quantities in a wide variety of technical devices and medical applications, REE dissipation after disposal of goods is very critical and REE are irrevocably lost in the environment as e.g., in the case of cerium as additive of diesel or gadolinium used as contrasting agent in magnetic resonance imaging [2,11].


    2. Microbe-REE-interactions

    In the last decade, several studies have been published addressing the interactions of microorganisms and REE including both REE mobilization from solids through metabolic reactions and REE immobilization from liquids mainly through sorption by biomass as well as the role of REE in bacterial growth. As example, adsorption onto the cell envelope of Gram-positive and Gram negative bacteria were examined, particularly adsorption behavior of europium to Halobacterium salinarum, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Bacillus subtilis [12,13]. Recently published work demonstrated sorption of REE (dysprosium in this case) a by the fungal strain Penidiella sp. T9 [14]. Dysprosium biosorption took place even at pH values as low as 2.5. When cells of Roseobacter sp. AzwK-3b were pre-protonated at this pH with nitric acid, heavy REE such as thulium, ytterbium , and lutetium were adsorbed to a higher degree as compared to light-group REE [15]. Summaries on REE biosorption are given in several recent review articles [16,17,18,19].

    Microbially mediated mobilization of elements occurs mainly via acidolysis, redoxolysis, and complexolyis [20,21]. Acidolysis (also termed proton-induced solubilization) means the exchange and replacement of elements by from mineral surfaces by protons. Mobilization by reductive or oxidative reactions is described by the term redoxolysis whereas complexolysis is characterized by the reaction of complexing agents with mineral surfaces (also termed ligand-induced solubilization) [20]. These general mechanisms apply for all solid matrices, also those containing REE. However, it has still to be elaborated why microorganisms mobilize REE and what their ecological advantage from this interaction is. At the moment, only a very limited number of reports is available [22,23,24,25,26,27] and there is a big lack in studies on the mechanistic interactions between microorganisms and REE since the focus so far has been mainly on microbe-metal-interactions of commodity metals [21]. Microbes might mobilize REE either by pure coincidence through their metabolic reactions or by a true need for these elements. Recent studies demonstrated that some microbes are strictly growth-dependent on the presence of REE, because they act as essential cofactors for some of the microbe’s key enzymes. Methylacidiphilumfumariolicum cultivated on methane showed positively correlated growth with the different concentrations of cerium [19]. In addition, lanthanum, neodymium, and praseodymium supported growth to a high extent, whereas samarium, europium, and gadolinium were less favorable, but still supportive [19]. It remains to be investigated in future studies, if these findings can be generalized and REE promote growth of other microorganisms as well. Even more as it is discussed in this study that laboratory glassware might contain REE in trace amounts (originating from silicates used in fabrication or additionally supplied during production). REE might be mobilized and released into the medium by cultivation under acidic conditions [19].

    In comparison to calcium, the addition of lanthanum and cerium increased the activity of methanol dehydrogenase in Methylobacterium radiotolerans, M. fujisawaense, and M. zatmanii by a factor of four to six suggesting the induction of latent genes [24]. Mutant strains of Methylobacterium extorquens showed a REE-dependent growth behavior [26]. Concentrations of lanthanum as low as 2.5 nM stimulated growth on methanol in comparison to the addition of only calcium due to the increased activity of a lanthanide-dependent methanol dehydrogenase. Due to this fact, it has been suggested that methylotrophic microorganisms might find an application in REE biomining and recycling [26]. How effective the organisms are in the recovery of REE, however, remains to be investigated. Also the metabolism of non-methylotrophic microorganisms such as Bradyrhizobium is influenced by REE [27]. Mainly cerium, lanthanum, and praseodymium stimulated the formation of extracellular polymeric substances, but not bacterial growth.


    3. Biological Mobilization of REE from Solids

    Biohydrometallurgical technologies offer an alternative to physico-chemically based methods of REE recycling (Table 1). These technologies—termed “bioleaching” —are well-known in the mining industry and especially suited at low elemental concentrations in the materials of interest where conventional techniques for metal recovery cannot be economically performed [20,28]. In this context, bioleaching of REE was investigated regarding the recovery from spent industrial catalysts and luminescent powder originating from cathode ray tubes (CRT). A heterogenic culture of sulfur oxidizing Acidithiobacilllus ferrooxidans, A. thiooxidans, and Leptospirillum ferrooxidans was grown at 30 °C and a pH of 2. The recovery rate after 16 days for yttrium from the CRT powder was 70% [29]. Leaching efficiencies were tested in the presence and absence of ferric iron, since the addition of Fe2+ was assumed to enhance bacterial resistance to high levels of metals. Experiments showed that the presence of such elements suppressed bacterial growth, resulting in lower leaching efficiency. As in many bioleaching approaches, there is a negative dose-response relationship regarding pulp density [30]. This negative effect of high powder dose was also observed when treating CRT powder suggesting either a certain toxicity of the dissolved metals [29] and/or a mechanical stress on the microorganisms.

    Early bioleaching experiments to mobilize REE form solid minerals were published in the late 1980 and beginning of 1990ies [31,32,33]. Zircon containing Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu (in total 7.3 g REE per kg) was leached in suspensions of 10 g/l by Acetobacter methanolicus and Acidithiobacillus (formerly Thiobacillus)ferrooxidans resulting after experimental optimization in total REE mobilization efficiencies of 62.1% and 79.6%, respectively [31]. Zircon was first ground to a grain size of about 60 μm. Using unground zircon and applying the same experimental conditions resulted in a remarkable decrease of leaching efficiency. Only about 18% of the REE were solubilized. Mainly gluconic acid formed by the microorganisms was responsible for the leaching process [7]. Cell-free assays with gluconic acid as lixiviant showed leaching efficiencies of only 4%, thus indicating that microbial metabolic activity plays an important role in bioleaching. During microbial leaching a differentiation between light and heavy REE took place. There was a preference of mobilizing light REE rather than heavy REE. In contrast, the reaction of zircon with gluconic acid in the absence of the microorganism showed no differentiation [31]. The treatment of phosphorus furnace slag (containing in total 7 g REE per kg) by Acetobacter methanolicus gave REE rates of up to 70% [7,34].

    A more detailed study on REE extraction from zircon resulted in mobilization efficiencies of approximately 80% with extraction rates of 1.1 mg per hour using Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and 67% at a rate of 1.4 mg per hour applying Acetobacter methanolicus, respectively [33]. However, there were distinct mechanistic differences regarding recovery efficiencies between autotrophic A. ferrooxidans and heterotrophic A. methanolicus. Most of mobilized REE were adsorbed by the biomass of A. ferrooxidans and only a minor portion was present in the cultivation fluid. Using praseodymium as a model compound, it has been demonstrated that sorption onto Acidithiobacillus biomass took place within minutes [33]. In contrast, higher amounts of REE were found in the cultivations fluids of A. methanolicus indicating that biosorption was less pronounced. For both A. ferrooxidans and A. methanolicus, leaching efficiencies (sum of REE present in the biomass and the supernatant) decreased with increasing REE atomic numbers resulting in maximum recoveries of 91.6% (for La) and 89.4% (for Pr and Nd), respectively [33].

    Also anaerobic microorganisms have been applied for the mobilization REE from solid materials. Yttrium was mobilized from phosphogypsum (a by-product originating from fertilizer production) in a fixed-bed reactor by sulfate-reducing Desulfovibrio desulfuricans with efficiencies of almost 80% [32].

    Gibbsite samples (4.9 g of REE per kg) in the shale beds of Um Bogma formation in South-Western Sinai (Egypt) was processed through a bioleaching procedure where cultures of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans were pumped through a column (1.2 m in height) filled with 1 kg of mineral [35]. Additionally, factors influencing leaching efficiency such as incubation period (1 to7 days), sulfur addition (0.1% to 0.5%), and mineral pre-treatment (sterilized or non-sterilized) was investigated. Mobilization showed a gradual increase with increasing reaction time and reached an optimum after 6 days. Further prolongation of the incubation time did not improve efficiency. Sulfur addition was observed to increase the bacterial acid formation and, therefore, positively influencing the leaching efficiency. On the other hand, pre-sterilization of the mineral decreased the leaching efficiency compared to the non-sterilized material probably due to the elimination of the endogenous microflora during sterilization. By optimization, total REE mobilization resulted in 67.6%.

    Table 1. Overview of biological REE mobilization from solid matrices. B=bacteria, F=fungi, Y=yeast; RT=room temperature; nd= not determined.
    Matrix REE Organism (strain) Type Carbon source Leaching agent (acid) Process Time (d) Temp. ( °C) pH max. leaching efficiency (%) Ref.
    Ash-slag waste Sc, Y, La, Nd, Sm, Gd acidophilic chemolithoautotrophs B CO2 sulfuric batch 10 45 0.9-2 7.4-59.5 [38]
    Ash-slag waste Sc, Y, La, Nd, Sm, Gd acidophilic chemolithoautotrophs B CO2 sulfuric batch 10 45 1.8-2.6 15-30 [42]
    Carbonaceous shales nd Aspergillus niger Aspergillus flavus Aspergillus terreus Aspergillus ficuum Penicillium aeruginosa Penicillium cyclopium Penicillium diversum Penicillium oxalicum F sucrose citric, oxalic batch cell free 7 nd 30 nd 4.2-6.4 nd 18-86 11-45 [40]
    Fluorescent powder from CRT Y Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans Leptospirillum ferrooxidans (mixed culture) B CO2 sulfuric batch 16 30 nd 70 [29]
    Gibbsite nd Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans B CO2 sulfuric column nd 30 1.8 67.6 [35]
    Monazite Ce, La, Nd, Pr Aspergillus niger (ATCC1015) F glucose, fructose, sucrose, xylose, starch citric, gluconic, oxalic, succinic batch cell-free 6 2 25-28 25-28 2.1-2.2 2.3-2.5 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 [41]
    Monazite Ce, La, Nd, Pr Aspergillus terreus (ML3-1) F glucose, fructose, sucrose, xylose, starch itaconic, succinic batch cell-free 6 2 25-28 25-28 2.1-2.2 2.5-2.7 1.7-2.4 0.8-1.6 [41]
    Monazite Ce, La, Nd, Pr Paecilomyces sp. (WE3-F) F glucose, fructose, sucrose, xylose, starch acetic, gluconic, succinic batch cell-free 6 2 25-28 25-28 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.1 1.5-3 0.8-1.5 [41]
    Monazite nd Aspergillus ficuum F glucose, lactose, maltose, starch, sucrose citric, oxalic batch cell free 9 1 30 3.0 4.4 75.4 55.0 [43]
    Monazite nd Pseudomonas aeruginosa B glucose, lactose, maltose, starch, sucrose 2-ketogluconic batch cell free 8 1 35 6.0 7.7 63.5 47.7 [43]
    Phosphogypsum Y Desulfovibrio desulfuricans B lactate (in whey) nd column nd 32 6.7-7 77 [32]
    Quartz conglomerate Y, Ce, Pr, La, Nd, Yb, Dy, Sa endogenous acidophilic chemolithoautotrophs CO2 sulfuric column 365 nd 3.5 16.3-76.1 [45]
    Red mud La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y, Sc Penicillium tricolor (RM-10) B sucrose oxalic, citric, gluconic batch (one-step) two-step cell-free 50 50 16 30 30 30 2-2.5 3-3.4 3.8-4.2 36-78 18-62 24-62 [36]
    Soil nd Streptomyces sp. B sucrose nd batch 2 30 nd 12-37 [37]
    Th-U-concentrate Y, La, Ce Aspergillus ficuum F nd citric, oxalic cell free 1 RT 3.0 2.5-33 [44]
    Th-U-concentrate Y, La, Ce Pseudomonas aeruginosa B nd siderophores cell free 1 RT 5.3 1.2-5.4 [44]
    Zircon Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu Acidithiobacillus sp. B CO2 sulfuric batch 10 32 1.6 79.6 [31]
    Zircon Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu Acetobacter methanolicus (MB 58) B glucose gluconic batch 10 32 4.0 67.0 [34]
    Zircon Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans B CO2 sulfuric batch 10 32 nd 45-92 [33]
    Zircon Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu Acetobacter methanolicus (IMET B 346) B glucose gluconic batch 10 32 nd 59-89 [33]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Microbial REE mobilization from solid matrices can also be achieved by fungi. Red mud, a waste material from bauxite processing in aluminum mining operations, was treated with Penicillium tricolor [36]. In the study, three different bioleaching processes were performed: One-step bioleaching (fungal growth in the presence of sterilized red mud), two-step bioleaching (pre-cultivation of the microorganisms and in biomass production followed by the addition of sterilized red mud), and finally, cell-free spent medium (cultivation of the microorganisms followed by filtration to obtain cell-free medium, which was then added to sterilized red mud). As part of the study, the effect of red mud pulp density (20, 50, and 100 g/l) was determined. In general, with increasing pulp density, there was an observable decrease in REE leaching efficiencies in all leaching approaches. In the one-step process at a pulp density of 20 g/l, the highest bioleaching efficiency was achieved, whereas at 100 g/l, the two-step bioleaching method exhibits maximum leaching efficiency indicating that the two-step bioleaching process is more suitable for leaching red mud at high pulp densities. Looking at individual REE, leaching efficiency was clearly higher for heavy REE than for the light REE. Overall efficiency generally increased with increasing REE atomic numbers.

    Several species of actinomycetes (among them Streptomyces fungicidicus, S. aureofaciens, S. chibaensis) have been used to mobilize REE from sandy and silty soil samples [37]. In suspensions of 10 g soil per liter (cultivated for 48 hours at 30 °C) REE leaching efficiencies of up to 37% were obtained depending on the strain applied.

    Instead of pure cultures also mixed microbial cultures have been applied recently for REE mobilization. Acidophilic chemolithotrophic microbial communities leached coal-derived ash-slag waste (ASW; containing per ton: 46 g La, 39 g Nd, 31 g Y, 9.4 g Sc, 7.2 g Sm, 6.5 g Gd) collected from heaps of a heat power station [38]. Experiments were carried out in 300 ml airlift percolators which were loaded with ASW, elemental sulfur, and inoculated with 100mL of a mixed bacterial culture of A. ferrooxidans, A. thiooxidans, A. caldus, and Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans. As already shown in earlier experiments [36], a high pulp density resulted in a drastic decrease of REE bioleaching efficiency. Increasing the density from 100 to 330 g per liter, bioleaching efficiency was more than halved [30]. Furthermore, other process parameters such as temperature (25, 28, and 40 °C), adjustment of initial pH (pH 3, pH 2.6, pH 2), and different ratios of ASW to elemental sulfur (1:10, 1:100) were evaluated. Rising the cultivation temperature enhanced the leaching efficiency, especially for Sc, Y, and La, whereas a temperature rise from 28 °C to 45 °C effected the increase 2.2-, 1.7-, and 2.1-fold, respectively. Reducing the amount of sulfur added turned out to have negative effect on the leaching efficiency since the energy substrate was limited and resulted in insufficient amounts of sulfuric acid formation that mainly mediates the bioleaching process. Based on all findings (45 °C cultivating temperature, initial pH 2, ASW/sulfur ratio 1:10) a recovery of scandium, yttrium, and lanthanum of 52.0, 52.6, and 59.5%, respectively, was achieved after ten days of bioleaching. Besides coal ASW also slag from municipal waste incineration has been considered as resource for REE recovery although amounts in the slag are rather low [39].

    Either contact or non-contact bioleaching (termed earlier as direct and indirect bioleaching) might be the underlying leaching mechanism of metal mobilization. Contact leaching describes the direct physical contact between microorganisms and a solid whereas in non-contact leaching the biomass is physically separated from the solid to be treated. Leaching efficiencies of REE from carbonaceous shale powder were tested with several species of Aspergillus and Penicillium [40]. Results showed that contact bioleaching noticeably generated higher REE leaching efficiencies of up to 86% after 7 days than non-contact bioleaching, independent from the fungi tested. Overall, Aspergillus sp. reached higher bioleaching rates than Penicillium sp., thereof A. flavus and A. niger were the most effective ones. In accordance to previous studies [36,38] findings confirm that the amount of REEs mobilized decreases with increasing sample concentrations, because best leaching efficiency was found in suspension of 10 g/l.

    Besides a series of solid REE containing waste materials (as described above), native REE bearing minerals such as monazite have also been studied as a substrate for bioleaching operations [41]. Three fungal species (Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus terreus, and Paecilomyces sp.) were cultivated in differently composed growth media and on various carbon sources. As consequence, a mixture of different organic acids such as acetic, citric, gluconic, itaconic, lactic, oxalic, and succinic acid accumulated in the cultivation fluid. Their presence and concentration depended on the fungal strain used. However, REE leaching rates of approximately 3% were rather low, probably due to the nature and type of the solid material. By comparing original REE content in monazite sand it was be concluded that neodymium, cerium, praseodymium, and lanthanum were all mobilized by the three fungal strains in the same ratio and no preferential bioleaching of a particular REE was observed [41]. However, there are indications that REE might be mobilized from solids such as e.g., ash-slag-waste at different degrees by acidophilic sulfur oxidizers. Scandium, lanthanum, cerium, and praseodymium were mobilized from the original matrix by 15 to 20%, whereas neodymium, yttrium, samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, erbium, and europium showed mobilization rates of 25 to 30% [42]. It remains to be investigated whether this is due to the chemical characteristics of the solid material or due to the metabolic preferences of the microorganisms applied. Interestingly, REE sorption by microbial biomass was not observed under the conditions applied.

    Besides Aspergillus ficuum, monazite has also been biologically treated with a heterotrophic bacterial strain, Pseudomonas aeruginosa [43]. After 9 days at a pulp density of 6 g/l, over 53% of REE were released to the medium. A. ficuum was able to mobilize approximately 75%. Also in this study, it was proven that contact bioleaching yielded in significantly higher leaching rates indicating that the presence of microorganisms is necessary to obtain recoveries as high as possible. In an earlier approach using the same microbial strains lanthanum, cerium, and yttrium were released from a thorium-uranium concentrate [44]. Cell-free supernatants obtained as filtrates after cultivation were amended with REE containing concentrates and left to react for 24 hours. A. ficuum mobilized 2.5, 20, and 33% of yttrium, lanthanum, and cerium, respectively, whereas P. aeruginosa released only 1.2, 4.3, and 5.4%.

    In an effort to simulate heap leaching, a long-term study was carried out over a period of 52 months [45]. In the course of the experiments several factors such as e.g., nutrient addition, ferric iron addition, weekly or monthly flushing were tested for their influence on REE release from conglomerate ore containing approximately 400 mg of REE per kg. Endogenous acidophiles were stimulated by the addition of ferric sulfate at pH 3.5. A maximum of 45% of total REE was released.


    4. Patents on REE Bioleaching

    An overview on a selection of patents covering microbial REE mobilization is presented in Table 2. Interestingly, most of the patents include ashes and slags as well as mining waste in their claims. Other REE containing solids are not considered yet, except luminescent powder originating from fluorescent lamps (DE 102013226042 in Table 2).

    Table 2. Selection of patents covering microbial REE mobilization from different solids.
    Year Title Publication No. Claims
    1987 Microbial leaching rare earth metal- containing phosphate minerals and wastes [original in German] DD 249156 Low cost and low tech process of REE leaching through gluconic acid formed by Acetobacter methanolicus using glucose or glucose-containing waste as carbon source
    1988 Separation of rare earth elements from calcium-containing microbial leaching solutions [original in German] DD 259212 REE leaching through gluconic acid formed by Acetobcater methanolicus using glucose as carbon source
    2012 Method of processing of phosphogypsum [original in Russian] RU 2456358 Cost effective REE extraction by several types of acidophilic microorganisms
    2012 Method of processing phosphogypsum with recovery of rare-earth elements and phosphorus [original in Russian] RU 2457267 Simplified low-cost leaching of REE in vats mediated by a mixed culture of acidophilic sulfur oxidizing microorganisms
    2014 A microorganism capable of leaching rare earth elements, a method for leaching rare earth elements, a microorganism capable of solidifying rare earth elements, and a method for [original in Japanese] WO 2014178360 (see also CA 2911097) Application of mainly Acidithiobacillus albertienis in tank leaching to mobilize rare earths from minerals and wastes, particularly scandium
    2014 Leaching processes for the extraction of rare earths from phosphate- containing rare earth minerals [original in German] DE 102012210941 (see also WO2014000972) REE mobilization from ores in fixed bed reactor using Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and Acidithiobacillus ferroxidans
    2015 Method of leaching of valuable components and rare-earth elements from cinder material [original in Russian] RU 2560627 REE leaching from fly ash slag material by a community of mesophilic chemolithotrophic acidophilic microorganisms through the formation of sulfuric acid when elemental sulfur was supplied
    2015 Activated ionized water and microbial acid improved ionic rare earth in-situ leaching mining method [original in Chinese] CN 105063383 REE leaching from precipitates based on lactic acid bacteria
    2015 Device and method for obtaining 2-and 3-valent metal ions from primary and secondary raw materials with the aid of microbial metabolites [original in German] DE 102013226042 (see also WO2015091256) REE mobilization from phosphors applying Schizophyllum commune in a two- compartment system separated by a dialysis membrane
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A mixture of chemolithotrophic sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms (termed VUR-9 and not described in detail) was applied to mobilize 55 to 70% of REE from phosphogypsum after incubation times of up to 30 days at low pH values of 1.5 to 1.8. (RU 2457267 and RU 2457267 in Table 2). Also a mixed bacterial culture (“S20 bacterial group”) containing mainly Acidithiobacillusalbertiensis (99.72%), but also A. thiooxidans (0.02%), other Acidithiobacillus species (0.15%), and unspecified proteobacteria (0.02%) has been used to recover scandium, dysprosium, neodymium, and praseodymium from low-grade mine waste (WO 2014178360 in Table 2). However, the role and function of the different organisms in REE mobilization remains to be investigated.

    Sulfuric acid generated by A. ferrooxidans and A. thiooxidans is the main mobilization agent for biological treatment of REE-containing phosphate minerals through a heap or column leaching process (DE 102012210991 in Table 2). A moderately thermophilic mixed microbial population community of acidophilic chemolithotrophs mobilized scandium, yttrium, and lanthanum from fly ash-slag at 45 °C (RU 2560627 in Table 2). Alternatively to sulfur-oxidizing autotrophic microorganisms, heterotrophs such as Acetobacter methanolicus, lactic acid bacteria, and fungi (Schizophyllum commune) have also been considered for REE mobilization (DD 249156, CN 105063383, DE 10213266042 in Table 2). Acetobacter methanolicus has been grown on glucose in the presence of waste slag (derived from the processing of phosphate minerals) bringing 80% of REE in solution (DD 249156 in Table 2). Gluconic acid was the main leaching agent DD 259121 in Table 2).


    5. Perspectives of REE Recovery and Recycling

    A promising solid matrix as starting material for a REE recycling is fluorescent powder from spent lamps. It mainly contains three of the five most critical rare earth elements, namely yttrium, europium, and terbium, often in gram quantities per kg of powder [29]. Since the separation and collection of the lamps is already mandatory in many different countries, mainly to remove toxic mercury form the waste, further recycling processes would be applicable. The state of art for REE leaching from lamp phosphors is covered so far mainly through chemical approaches [46]. To be able to recover REEs from lamp phosphors, the phosphor mixture has to be attacked chemically to bring the REEs into solution from where they can be separated by precipitation or solvent extraction. To close product life cycles, REE mobilization following recovery from spent fluorescent lamps seems to have big potential and might contribute to a more sustainable world. Doing so with the aid of microbes makes it a relatively inexpensive approach for industrial waste treatment which is, in addition, flexible enough to be applied for different leachable waste materials. Recent studies of REE mobilization from fluorescent phosphors included besides well-known A. ferrooxidansand A. thiooxidans other bacteria (Komatogateibacter xylinus, Lactobacillus casei, Corynebaterium collunae), yeasts (Yarrowia lipolytica) as well as the tea fungus Kombucha [47,48,49].

    In contrast to chemical leaching which has often a high energy demand to generate high temperatures and produces chemical wastes, bioleaching is supposed to be a much cleaner, efficient, and low cost process to mobilize metals. Although bioleaching of REEs cannot solve all the objectives, it can help to reduce the supply risk and market dependency. In addition, the development of bioleaching methods in general, can contribute to the conversion towards a more sustainable and environmental friendly economy.

    The awareness of potential upcoming supply shortage of REE is also affecting current politics. The European Union (EU) recently launched the European Innovation Partnership (EIP), a program aiming on the reduction of import dependency by improving supply conditions from EU and other sources and by providing resource efficiency and alternative supply [50]. Although bioleaching cannot solve the main objectives of the EIP on its own, it can certainly contribute to the future challenges of the EIP by improving extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials [8].

    Overall, biological leaching is a relatively inexpensive approach for industrial waste treatment and quite flexible in relation to different growth conditions and different leachable wastes. Compared to traditional chemical processes, bioleaching is supposed to be a “green” technology for the recovery of valuable metals from industrial waste to close element cycles. Its applicability for an industrial REE recovery and recycling remains to be accurately evaluated in detail in the near future.


    6. Conclusions

    Natural microbial mechanisms that enable the mobilization of elements or metals from solids are the basis of industrial processes mimicking element cycles in nature. New evolving bioleaching and biorecovery processes involving REE can open new doors for “green” recycling strategies which might contribute to a more sustainable world and can help to reduce supply risks and market dependencies.


    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare no conflict of interest.


    [1] Nuwer R (2014) What is the world’s scarcest material? BBC, London. Available from: www.bbc.com/future/story/20140314-the-worlds-scarcest-material.
    [2] Zepf V, Simmons J, Reller A, et al. (2014) Materials critical to the energy sector - An introduction. 2nd ed. BP p.l.c., London.
    [3] Gibson M, Parkinson I (2011) CIBC report: A rare earth element industry overview. Toronto, Canada. Available from http://de.slideshare.net/RareEarthsRareMetals/cibc-report.
    [4] Matlin SA, Mehta G, Hopf H, et al. (2015) The role of chemistry in inventing a sustainable future. Nature Chem 7: 941–943. doi: 10.1038/nchem.2389
    [5] Castor SB, Hedrick JB (2001) Rare earth elements. J Environ Radioactiv 102: 769–792.
    [6] Kingsnorth DJ (2014) Der globale Markt der Seltenen Erden - Ein Balanceakt. In: Kausch P, Bertau M, Gutzmer J, Matschullat J. (eds.) Strategische Rohstoffe - Risikovorsorge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 97–121 [in German].
    [7] Glombitza F, Reichel S (2014) Metal-containing residues from industry and in the environment: Geobiotechnological urban mining. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 141: 49–107.
    [8] Hennebel T, Boon B, Maes S, et al. (2015) Biotechnologies for critical raw material recovery from primary and secondary sources: R&D priorities and future perspectives. New Biotechnol 32: 121–127. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.08.004
    [9] Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat JP, et al. (2011) Recycling rates of metals – A status report. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
    [10] Binnemans K, Jones PT (2014) Perspectives for the recovery of rare earths from end-of-life fluorescent lamps. J Rare Earths 32: 195–200. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0721(14)60051-X
    [11] Hatje V, Bruland KW, Flegal AR (2016) Increases in anthropogenic gadolinium anomalies and rare earth element concentrations in San Francisco Bay over a 20 year record. Environ Sci Technol 50: 4159–4168. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04322
    [12] Ozaki T, Gillow J, Francis A, et al. (2002) Association of Eu (III) and Cm (III) with Bacillus subtilis and Halobacterium salinarum. J Nucl Sci Technol 39(sup 3): 950–953.
    [13] Ozaki T, Suzuki Y, Nankawa T, et al. (2006) Interactions of rare earth elements with bacteria and organic ligands. J Alloys Compd 408-412: 1334–1338. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2005.04.142
    [14] Horiike T, Yamashita M (2015) A new fungal isolate, Penidiella sp. strain T9, accumulates the rare earth element dysprosium. Appl Environ Microbiol 81: 3062–3068.
    [15] Bonificio WD, Clarke DR (2016) Rare-earth separation using bacteria. Environ Sci Technol Lett 3: 180–184. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00064
    [16] Moriwaki H, Yamamoto H (2013) Interactions of microorganisms with rare earth ions and their utilization for separation and environmental technology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97: 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4519-9
    [17] Das N, Das D (2013) Recovery of rare earth metals through biosorption: An overview. J Rare Earths 31: 933–943. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0721(13)60009-5
    [18] Ilyas S, Lee JC (2014) Biometallurgical recovery of metals from waste electrical and electronical equipment: a review. ChemBioEng Rev 1: 148–169. doi: 10.1002/cben.201400001
    [19] Nancharaiah YV, Venkata Mohan S, Lens PNL (2016) Biological and bioelectrochemical recovery of critical and scarce elements. Trends Biotechnol 34: 137–155. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.11.003
    [20] Brandl H, Faramarzi MA (2006) Microbe-metal-interactions for the biotechnological treatment of metal-containing solid waste. China Particuol 4:93–97.
    [21] Brandl H (2001) Microbial leaching of metals. In: Rehm HJ (ed.) Biotechnology, Vol. 10. Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, 191–224.
    [22] Pol A, Barends TRM, Dietl A, et al. (2014) Rare earth metals are essential for methanotrophic life in volcanic mudpots. Environ Microbiol 16: 255–264. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12249
    [23] Skovran E, Martinez-Gomez NC (2015) Just add lanthanides. Science 348: 862–863. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9091
    [24] Hibi Y, Asai K, Arafuka H, et al. (2011) Molecular structure of La3+-induced methanol dehydrogenase-like protein in Methylobacterium radiotolerans. J Biosci Bioeng 111: 547–549. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.12.017
    [25] Nakagawa T, Mitsui R, Tani A, et al. (2012) A catalytic role of xoxF1 as La3+-dependent methanol dehydrogenase in Methylobacterium extorquens strain AM1. PLOS ONE 7: e50480
    [26] Vu HN, Subuyuj GA, Vijayakumar S, et al. (2016) Lanthanide-dependent regulation of methanol oxidation systems in Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 and their contribution to methanol growth. J Bacteriol 198: 1250–1259. doi: 10.1128/JB.00937-15
    [27] Fitriyanto NA, Nakamura M, Muto S, et al. (2011) Ce3+-induced exopolysaccharide production by Bradyrhizobium sp. MAFF211645. J Biosci Bioeng 111: 146–152. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.09.008
    [28] Zhuang WQ, Fitts JP, Ajo-Franklin CM, et al. (2015) Recovery of critical metals using biometallurgy. Curr Opin Biotechnol 33: 327–335. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.03.019
    [29] Beolchini F, Fonti V, Dell’Anno A, et al. (2012) Assessment of biotechnological strategies for the valorization of metal bearing wastes. Waste Manage 32: 949–956. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.014
    [30] Bossard PP, Bachofen R, Brandl H. (1996) Metal leaching of fly ash from municipal waste incineration by Aspergillus niger. Environ Sci Technol 30: 3066–3070. doi: 10.1021/es960151v
    [31] Becker S, Bullmann M, Dietze HJ, et al. (1986) Mass spectrographic determination of selected chemical elements by microbial leaching of zircon. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 324:37-42 [in German]. doi: 10.1007/BF00469631
    [32] Dudeney AWL, Sbai ML (1993) Bioleaching of rare-earth-bearing phosphogypsum. In: Torma AE, Wey JE, Lakshmanan VL (eds.) Biohydrometallurgical Technologies. The Minerals, Metals, & Materials Society. Jackson Hole, 39–47.
    [33] Glombitza F, Iske U, Bullmann M, et al. (1988) Bacterial leaching of zircon mineral for obtaining trace and Rare Earth Elements (REE). In: Norris PR, Kelly DP (eds.) Biohydrometallurgy. Proceedings of the International Symposium Warwick 1987. Science and Technology Letters, Kew Surrey, UK, 407–418.
    [34] Iske U, Bullmann M, Glombitza F (1987) Organoheterotrophic leaching of resistant materials. Acta Biotechnol 7: 401–407 [in German].
    [35] Ibrahim HA, El-Sheikh EM (2011) Bioleaching treatment of Abu Zeneima uraniferous gibbsite ore material for recovering U, REEs, Al and Zn. Res J Chem Sci 1: 55–66.
    [36] Qu Y, Lian B (2013) Bioleaching of rare earth and radioactive elements from red mud using Penicillium tricolor RM-10. Bioresour Technol 136: 16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.070
    [37] Hewedy MA, Rushdy AA, Kamal NM (2013) Bioleaching of rare earth elements and uranium from Sinai soil, Egypt using actinomycetes. Egypt J Hosp Med 53: 909–917. doi: 10.12816/0001653
    [38] Muravyov MI, Bulaev AG, Melamud VS, et al. (2015) Leaching of rare earth elements from coal ashes using acidophilic chemolithotrophic microbial communities. Mikrobiologiya 84: 216–224.
    [39] Muehe EM, Schmidt C, He J, et al. (2015) Microbially supported recovery of precious metals and rare earth elements from urban household waste incineration slag. Adv Mat Res 1130: 652–655.
    [40] Amin MM, El-Aassy IE, El-Feky MG, et al. (2014) Fungal leaching of rare earth elements from lower carboniferous shales, southwestern Sinai, Egypt. Roman J Biophys 24: 25–41.
    [41] Brisson VL, Zhuang WQ, Alvarez-Cohen L (2015) Bioleaching of rare earths elements from monazite sands. Biotechnol Bioeng 113: 339–348.
    [42] Tsaplina IA, Panyushkina AE, Grigoreva NV, et al. (2015) Growth of acidophilic chemolithotrophic microbial communities and sulfur oxidation in the presence of coal ashes. Microbiology 84: 177–189. doi: 10.1134/S0026261715020174
    [43] Hassanien WAG, Desouky OAN, Hussien SSA (2014) Bioleaching of some rare earth elements from Egyptian monazite using Aspergillus ficuum and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Walailak J Sci Technol 11: 809–823.
    [44] Desouky OA, El-Mougith AA, Hassanien WA, et al. (2011) Extraction of some strategic elements from thorium-uranium concentrate using bioproducts of Aspergillus ficuum and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Arab J Chem [in press].
    [45] Sapsford DJ, Bowell RJ, Geroni JN, et al. (2012) Factors influencing the release rate of uranium, thorium, yttrium, and rare earth elements from low grade ore. Miner Eng 39: 165–172 doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2012.08.002
    [46] Peelman S, Sun ZHI, Sietsma J, et al. (2014) Leaching of rare earth elements: Past and present. Proceedings of the 1st ERES 2014 – International Conference on European Rare Earth Resources (ERES 2014), Milos, Greece, Sept 4–7, 446–456.
    [47] Mey S, Kutschke S, Pollmann K (2015) Microbial leaching of rare earth elements from fluorescent phosphor. Abstracts of the VAAM-Jahrestagung 2014, Dresden, Germany, Oct 5–8, 2014, 78–79.
    [48] Hopfe S, Kutschke S, Möckel R, et al. (2015a) Bioleaching of rare earth elements from fluorescent phosphor with the tea fungus Kombucha. Goldschmidt Abstracts 2015:1307.
    [49] Hopfe S, Kutschke S, Pollmann K, et al. (2015b) Screening of different microorganisms for the biological leaching of rare earth elements from fluorescent phosphor. Proceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies (Newtech 2015), Barcelona, Spain, July 15–17, 2015, 120-1 to 120-2.
    [50] European Commission (2013) Reducing the EU's dependency on raw materials: European Innovation Partnership launched. Press Release Database, Brussels, Belgium. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-92_en.htm.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Arda Işıldar, Eric D. van Hullebusch, Markus Lenz, Gijs Du Laing, Alessandra Marra, Alessandra Cesaro, Sandeep Panda, Ata Akcil, Mehmet Ali Kucuker, Kerstin Kuchta, Biotechnological strategies for the recovery of valuable and critical raw materials from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) – A review, 2019, 362, 03043894, 467, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.08.050
    2. Mária Čížková, Pauline Mezricky, Dana Mezricky, Marian Rucki, Vilém Zachleder, Milada Vítová, Bioaccumulation of Rare Earth Elements from Waste Luminophores in the Red Algae, Galdieria phlegrea, 2020, 1877-2641, 10.1007/s12649-020-01182-3
    3. Xia Kang, Laszlo Csetenyi, Geoffrey Michael Gadd, Monazite transformation into Ce‐ and La‐containing oxalates by Aspergillus niger , 2020, 22, 1462-2912, 1635, 10.1111/1462-2920.14964
    4. Melissa K Corbett, Elizabeth LJ Watkin, Microbial cooperation improves bioleaching recovery rates, 2018, 39, 1324-4272, 50, 10.1071/MA18013
    5. Yang Qu, Hui Li, Xiaoqing Wang, Wenjie Tian, Ben Shi, Minjie Yao, Ying Zhang, Bioleaching of Major, Rare Earth, and Radioactive Elements from Red Mud by using Indigenous Chemoheterotrophic Bacterium Acetobacter sp., 2019, 9, 2075-163X, 67, 10.3390/min9020067
    6. Alexander M. Panichev, Ivan V. Seryodkin, Yuri N. Kalinkin, Raisa A. Makarevich, Tatiana A. Stolyarova, Alexander A. Sergievich, Pavel P. Khoroshikh, Development of the “rare-earth” hypothesis to explain the reasons of geophagy in Teletskoye Lake are kudurs (Gorny Altai, Russia), 2018, 40, 0269-4042, 1299, 10.1007/s10653-017-0056-x
    7. Norma Cecilia Martinez-Gomez, Huong N. Vu, Elizabeth Skovran, Lanthanide Chemistry: From Coordination in Chemical Complexes Shaping Our Technology to Coordination in Enzymes Shaping Bacterial Metabolism, 2016, 55, 0020-1669, 10083, 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b00919
    8. Marcos Y. Voutsinos, Jillian F. Banfield, John W. Moreau, Secondary lanthanide phosphate mineralisation in weathering profiles of I-, S- and A-type granites, 2021, 85, 0026-461X, 82, 10.1180/mgm.2020.90
    9. Matthias Wehrmann, Patrick Billard, Audrey Martin-Meriadec, Asfaw Zegeye, Janosch Klebensberger, Xinning Zhang, Dianne K. Newman, Functional Role of Lanthanides in Enzymatic Activity and Transcriptional Regulation of Pyrroloquinoline Quinone-Dependent Alcohol Dehydrogenases in Pseudomonas putida KT2440, 2017, 8, 2150-7511, 10.1128/mBio.00570-17
    10. Ata Akcil, Nazym Akhmadiyeva, Rinat Abdulvaliyev, Pratima Meshram, Overview On Extraction and Separation of Rare Earth Elements from Red Mud: Focus on Scandium, 2018, 39, 0882-7508, 145, 10.1080/08827508.2017.1288116
    11. Romy Auerbach, Katrin Bokelmann, Stefan Ratering, Rudolf Stauber, Sylvia Schnell, Jörg Zimmermann, Recycling of Florescent Phosphor Powder Y2O3:Eu by Leaching Experiments, 2017, 262, 1662-9779, 596, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.262.596
    12. Limin Zhang, Hailiang Dong, Yan Liu, Liang Bian, Xi Wang, Ziqi Zhou, Ying Huang, Bioleaching of rare earth elements from bastnaesite-bearing rock by actinobacteria, 2018, 483, 00092541, 544, 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.03.023
    13. Vesna Vukojević, Slađana Đurđić, Violeta Stefanović, Jelena Trifković, Dragan Čakmak, Veljko Perović, Jelena Mutić, Scandium, yttrium, and lanthanide contents in soil from Serbia and their accumulation in the mushroom Macrolepiota procera (Scop.) Singer, 2019, 26, 0944-1344, 5422, 10.1007/s11356-018-3982-y
    14. Mariele Canal Bonfante, Jéssica Prats Raspini, Ivan Belo Fernandes, Suélen Fernandes, Lucila M.S. Campos, Orestes Estevam Alarcon, Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in rare earth magnets production: A review on state of the art and SWOT analysis, 2021, 137, 13640321, 110616, 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110616
    15. Yehia Osman, Ahmed Gebreil, Amr M. Mowafy, Tarek I. Anan, Samar M. Hamed, Characterization of Aspergillus niger siderophore that mediates bioleaching of rare earth elements from phosphorites, 2019, 35, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-019-2666-1
    16. Yang Qu, Hui Li, Xiaoqing Wang, Wenjie Tian, Ben Shi, Minjie Yao, Lina Cao, Lingfan Yue, Selective Parameters and Bioleaching Kinetics for Leaching Vanadium from Red Mud Using Aspergillus niger and Penicillium tricolor, 2019, 9, 2075-163X, 697, 10.3390/min9110697
    17. Xia Kang, Laszlo Csetenyi, Geoffrey Michael Gadd, Biotransformation of lanthanum by Aspergillus niger, 2019, 103, 0175-7598, 981, 10.1007/s00253-018-9489-0
    18. Subhabrata Dev, Ankur Sachan, Fahimeh Dehghani, Tathagata Ghosh, Brandon R. Briggs, Srijan Aggarwal, Mechanisms of biological recovery of rare-earth elements from industrial and electronic wastes: A review, 2020, 397, 13858947, 124596, 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124596
    19. Stefanie Hopfe, Katrin Flemming, Falk Lehmann, Robert Möckel, Sabine Kutschke, Katrin Pollmann, Leaching of rare earth elements from fluorescent powder using the tea fungus Kombucha, 2017, 62, 0956053X, 211, 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.02.005
    20. Marja Salo, Oleg Knauf, Jarno Mäkinen, Xiaosheng Yang, Pertti Koukkari, Integrated acid leaching and biological sulfate reduction of phosphogypsum for REE recovery, 2020, 155, 08926875, 106408, 10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106408
    21. Charles S. Cockell, Rosa Santomartino, Kai Finster, Annemiek C. Waajen, Lorna J. Eades, Ralf Moeller, Petra Rettberg, Felix M. Fuchs, Rob Van Houdt, Natalie Leys, Ilse Coninx, Jason Hatton, Luca Parmitano, Jutta Krause, Andrea Koehler, Nicol Caplin, Lobke Zuijderduijn, Alessandro Mariani, Stefano S. Pellari, Fabrizio Carubia, Giacomo Luciani, Michele Balsamo, Valfredo Zolesi, Natasha Nicholson, Claire-Marie Loudon, Jeannine Doswald-Winkler, Magdalena Herová, Bernd Rattenbacher, Jennifer Wadsworth, R. Craig Everroad, René Demets, Space station biomining experiment demonstrates rare earth element extraction in microgravity and Mars gravity, 2020, 11, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-020-19276-w
    22. Alessandra Marra, Alessandra Cesaro, Eldon R. Rene, Vincenzo Belgiorno, Piet N.L. Lens, Bioleaching of metals from WEEE shredding dust, 2018, 210, 03014797, 180, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.066
    23. Leonid Plyatsuk, Magdalena Balintova, Yelizaveta Chernysh, Iryna Ablieieva, Oleksiy Ablieiev, 2020, Chapter 84, 978-3-030-22364-9, 843, 10.1007/978-3-030-22365-6_84
    24. Milada Vítová, Mária Čížková, Vilém Zachleder, 2019, Chapter 6, 978-1-78985-009-3, 10.5772/intechopen.80260
    25. Homayoun Fathollahzadeh, Jacques J. Eksteen, Anna H. Kaksonen, Elizabeth L. J. Watkin, Role of microorganisms in bioleaching of rare earth elements from primary and secondary resources, 2019, 103, 0175-7598, 1043, 10.1007/s00253-018-9526-z
    26. Saskia Bindschedler, Thi Quynh Trang Vu Bouquet, Daniel Job, Edith Joseph, Pilar Junier, 2017, 99, 9780128120507, 53, 10.1016/bs.aambs.2017.02.002
    27. Hongyue Jin, David W. Reed, Vicki S. Thompson, Yoshiko Fujita, Yongqin Jiao, Michael Crain-Zamora, Jacob Fisher, Katherine Scalzone, Mike Griffel, Damon Hartley, John W. Sutherland, Sustainable Bioleaching of Rare Earth Elements from Industrial Waste Materials Using Agricultural Wastes, 2019, 7, 2168-0485, 15311, 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b02584
    28. K.A. Natarajan, 2018, 9780128040225, 305, 10.1016/B978-0-12-804022-5.00011-6
    29. Romy Auerbach, Katrin Bokelmann, Rudolf Stauber, Sylvia Schnell, Stefan Ratering, Arite Werner, Roland Haseneder, Radek Vostal, Martin Bertau, Carsten Gellermann, Bioleaching zum Recycling von Sekundärrohstoffen, 2018, 52, 00092851, 330, 10.1002/ciuz.201800829
    30. Xia Kang, Laszlo Csetenyi, Geoffrey Michael Gadd, Colonization and bioweathering of monazite by Aspergillus niger : solubilization and precipitation of rare earth elements , 2021, 1462-2912, 10.1111/1462-2920.15402
    31. Megan Barnett, Barbara Palumbo-Roe, Simon Gregory, Comparison of Heterotrophic Bioleaching and Ammonium Sulfate Ion Exchange Leaching of Rare Earth Elements from a Madagascan Ion-Adsorption Clay, 2018, 8, 2075-163X, 236, 10.3390/min8060236
    32. Payam Rasoulnia, Robert Barthen, Aino-Maija Lakaniemi, A critical review of bioleaching of rare earth elements: The mechanisms and effect of process parameters, 2021, 51, 1064-3389, 378, 10.1080/10643389.2020.1727718
    33. Romy Auerbach, Stefan Ratering, Katrin Bokelmann, Carsten Gellermann, Thilo Brämer, Renate Baumann, Sylvia Schnell, Bioleaching of valuable and hazardous metals from dry discharged incineration slag. An approach for metal recycling and pollutant elimination, 2019, 232, 03014797, 428, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.028
    34. Ludmila Chistoserdova, Applications of methylotrophs: can single carbon be harnessed for biotechnology?, 2018, 50, 09581669, 189, 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.01.012
    35. Yilin He, Lingya Ma, Xurui Li, Heng Wang, Xiaoliang Liang, Jianxi Zhu, Hongping He, Mobilization and fractionation of rare earth elements during experimental bio-weathering of granites, 2023, 343, 00167037, 384, 10.1016/j.gca.2022.12.027
    36. Alexander Panichev, Nataly Baranovskaya, Ivan Seryodkin, Igor Chekryzhov, Elena Vakh, Tatyana Lutsenko, Olga Patrusheva, Raisa Makarevich, Alexey Kholodov, Kirill Golokhvast, Kudurs (mineral licks) in the Belukha Mountain area, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2022, 15, 1866-7511, 10.1007/s12517-022-10478-8
    37. Jean-Luc Mukaba, Chuks Paul Eze, Omoniyi Pereao, Leslie Felicia Petrik, Rare Earths’ Recovery from Phosphogypsum: An Overview on Direct and Indirect Leaching Techniques, 2021, 11, 2075-163X, 1051, 10.3390/min11101051
    38. A. M. Panichev, N. V. Baranovskaya, I. V. Seryodkin, I. Yu. Chekryzhov, E. A. Vakh, B. R. Soktoev, A. I. Belyanovskaya, R. A. Makarevich, T. N. Lutsenko, N. Yu. Popov, A. V. Ruslan, D. S. Ostapenko, A. V. Vetoshkina, V. V. Aramilev, A. S. Kholodov, K. S. Golokhvast, Landscape REE anomalies and the cause of geophagy in wild animals at kudurs (mineral salt licks) in the Sikhote-Alin (Primorsky Krai, Russia), 2022, 44, 0269-4042, 1137, 10.1007/s10653-021-01014-w
    39. Ayoub Bounaga, Anwar Alsanea, Karim Lyamlouli, Chen Zhou, Youssef Zeroual, Rachid Boulif, Bruce E. Rittmann, Microbial transformations by sulfur bacteria can recover value from phosphogypsum: A global problem and a possible solution, 2022, 57, 07349750, 107949, 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.107949
    40. Camino García‐Balboa, Paloma Martínez‐Alesón García, Victoria López‐Rodas, Eduardo Costas, Beatriz Baselga‐Cervera, Microbial biominers: Sequential bioleaching and biouptake of metals from electronic scraps, 2022, 11, 2045-8827, 10.1002/mbo3.1265
    41. Rashmi Upadhyay, Perumalla Janaki Ramayya, 2023, Chapter 20, 978-3-031-25677-6, 319, 10.1007/978-3-031-25678-3_20
    42. Emmanuel Yaw Owusu-Fordjour, Xinbo Yang, Bioleaching of rare earth elements challenges and opportunities: A critical review, 2023, 11, 22133437, 110413, 10.1016/j.jece.2023.110413
    43. Alessandra Cesaro, 2024, Chapter 4, 978-3-031-43624-6, 67, 10.1007/978-3-031-43625-3_4
    44. S Cebekhulu, A. Gómez-Arias, A. Matu, J Alom, A. Valverde, M. Caraballo, O. Ololade, P. Schneider, J Castillo, Role of indigenous microbial communities in the mobilization of potentially toxic elements and rare-earth elements from alkaline mine waste, 2024, 03043894, 133504, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133504
    45. Sabrina Hedrich, Anja Breuker, Mirko Martin, Axel Schippers, Rare earth elements (bio)leaching from zircon and eudialyte concentrates, 2023, 219, 0304386X, 106068, 10.1016/j.hydromet.2023.106068
    46. Xu Zhang, Ningjie Tan, Seyed Omid Rastegar, Tingyue Gu, 2024, 9781119894339, 321, 10.1002/9781119894360.ch13
    47. Yoshiko Fujita, Dan Park, Margaret Lencka, Andre Anderko, David Reed, Vicki Thompson, Gaurav Das, Ali Eslamimanesh, Yongqin Jiao, 2024, 9781119515036, 251, 10.1002/9781119515005.ch8
    48. Helena Singer, Robin Steudtner, Ignacio Sottorff, Björn Drobot, Arjan Pol, Huub J. M. Op den Camp, Lena J. Daumann, Learning from nature: recovery of rare earth elements by the extremophilic bacterium Methylacidiphilum fumariolicum, 2023, 59, 1359-7345, 9066, 10.1039/D3CC01341C
    49. Tingting Yue, Yuankun Yang, Lunzhen Li, Mingyue Su, Maosheng Wang, Yucheng Liao, Liang Jia, Shu Chen, Application Prospect of Anaerobic Reduction Pathways in Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans for Mine Tailings Disposal: A Review, 2023, 13, 2075-163X, 1192, 10.3390/min13091192
    50. Khyati Joshi, Sara Magdouli, Satinder Kaur Brar, Bioleaching for the recovery of rare earth elements from industrial waste: A sustainable approach, 2025, 215, 09213449, 108129, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108129
    51. Yujian Liang, Zuotan Huang, Qiudong Xiao, Xuan Guan, Xinman Xu, Hongmin Jiang, Yijian Zhong, Zhihong Tu, Dissolution and mechanism of bastnaesite mediated by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, 2025, 10020721, 10.1016/j.jre.2025.03.025
    52. Alexander Paul Fritz, Lena Josefine Daumann, Stefan Schwarzer, Bioleaching of Rare Earth Fluorescent Lamp Phosphors Using Kombucha, 2025, 0021-9584, 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01532
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(10963) PDF downloads(1909) Cited by(52)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog