recycling

Review
Trends in Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Ashes:
A Review
Gjergj Dodbiba 1, * and Toyohisa Fujita 2

1 Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
2 Guangxi Key Laboratory of Processing for Non-Ferrous Metals and Featured Materials, School of Resources,
Environment and Materials, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
* Correspondence: dodbiba@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract: The demand for novel, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly rare earth element and
yttrium (REY) sources is essential. The recovery of REY and other valuable components from coal fly
ash (CFA) may result in securing alternative resources, decreased disposal costs, and environmental
protection, all of which may have positive effects. However, research on the recovery of REY from
CFA is underway, and it is still necessary to assess its viability from an economic and environmental
standpoint. The authors have reviewed some of the most recent advances in extracting rare earth
elements from CFA. However, most techniques reported for the treatment of CFA are still at the
laboratory scale. Nevertheless, there are several pathways for industrial-scale applications. Therefore,
CFA treatment and the extraction of valuable products from it have considerable potential for
reducing both its carbon footprint and environmental burden.

Keywords: rare earth elements and yttrium (REY); fly ash (FA); bottom ash (BA); coal

1. Introduction
Coal is a fuel predominantly used for the generation of electricity, which accounts
for over 39 percent of the world’s energy output [1–3]. Significant amounts of coal are
also used in metallurgical processes, cement manufacturing, gasification, etc. Coal is also
Citation: Dodbiba, G.; Fujita, T. used as a precursor for activated carbon and several other industrial chemicals [3]. The
Trends in Extraction of Rare Earth conventional technologies employed for coal utilization produce a vast mass volume of
Elements from Coal Ashes: A Review. coal combustion by-products (known as coal ash, CA) that, if left untreated, may pose
Recycling 2023, 8, 17. https://doi.org/ hazards to the environment, and generate an extra burden on the environment and econ-
10.3390/recycling8010017 omy [3]. Thus, the recycling and proper disposal of coal ash in an environmentally safe
Academic Editor: Michele John manner are essential [4,5]. During coal combustion, the carbon and several other elements
may be oxidized or volatilized. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of the mineral is
Received: 28 November 2022 converted into a residue (i.e., coal ash), consisting of the non-combustible mineral matter
Revised: 4 January 2023
originally present in the coal and, to a lower extent, the partly combusted coal or the
Accepted: 23 January 2023
non-combusted coal [5,6].
Published: 30 January 2023
Coal ash may be categorized into three main fractions: fly ash (FA), bottom ash (BA),
and slag [5,6]. Slag and bottom ash (i.e., coal residues accumulated in the furnace) are
flushed out regularly utilizing air or water. On the other hand, fly ash is the fraction of coal
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
ash that is fine, in terms of particle size, to be drawn into the flue gas and removed from the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. combustion unit. Fly ash particles are commonly formed by the melting of mineral matter
This article is an open access article or by the partial combustion of coal [5].
distributed under the terms and Depending on the coal’s origin, the ash may contain several rare earth elements and
conditions of the Creative Commons yttrium (REY), and other valuable metals at various concentrations. When coal is used for
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// power generation, the REYs are mainly concentrated in fly ash and bottom ash due to the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ absence of volatile matter [7–9]. Several reports have indicated that fly ash contains most of
4.0/). the rare earth elements, the concentrations of which are higher than that of the original coal;

Recycling 2023, 8, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling8010017 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/recycling

Recycling 2023, 8, 17 2 of 18

thereby, the REY concentration is about eight- to ten-fold higher [10–15]. The reported REY
concentration in coal ashes on an oxide basis is up to 1.85% [7–9,14,16,17]. Furthermore,
the relatively high REY concentration in the coal ashes after coal combustion may result
from REY’s low volatility [18].
In Japan, for instance, 10 Mt of coal ash is generated annually [19]. Generally speaking, fly
ash is about 75% of coal ash produced from coal combustion. Several millions of tons of coal ash
have been landfilled, regardless of the large quantities of REY resources they contain [5,17,20–24].
With the increasing global production of FA, there is a need for its recycling and
utilization [25–27]. Furthermore, the extraction of REY from these unconventional resources
could be the way to secure a domestic supply of these critical materials [10,28].

2. Coal Fly Ash

Coal fly ash (CFA) will be categorized as corrosive waste if left untreated because it
releases leachate with a pH lower than 2.5 or greater than 12 when discharged to a disposal
pond. It will also be graded as a harmful substance if the corrosion rate on steel reaches
0.64 mm per year [5]. Additionally, unburned carbon is considered harmful if FA is used as
an additive to cement without any prior treatment [26,27]. Moreover, FA is regarded as an
alternative source of REY [4,10,28]. Therefore, the treatment of fly ash for recovering REY
will produce a REY-rich product for further use.

2.1. Properties of Coal Fly Ash

Fly ash is composed of fine particles with variable mineralogy consisting mainly of
an amorphous glassy matter [5]. About 65 to 90% of the fly ash particles are smaller than
0.010 mm in size, depending on the type of furnace used for combustion and the removal
system [5]. Studies have indicated that the sizes of FA particles from bituminous or anthracite
coals are smaller than 0.075 mm (i.e., very similar to the particle size of silt). In contrast, FA
sub-bituminous or lignite particle size is larger than other types (i.e., larger than 0.075 mm) [29].
Fly ashes have a specific gravity ranging from 2100 to 2600 kg/m3 [5]. The color of
FA varies from dark brown to light grey, depending on the amount of unburned carbon
after coal combustion. Lignite, or sub-bituminous FA, is greyish in color because it usually
contains smaller amounts of carbon and traces of calcium. By contrast, bituminous and
anthracite FAs possess higher carbon residues, and appear darker [29]. Typically, the darker
the color of the fly ash sample, the higher its carbon content; similarly, the lighter the color,
the lower the carbon content.

2.1.1. Mineralogy of Coal Fly Ash

The mineralogy of coal fly ash has been mainly studied by X-ray powder diffrac-
tion [5,30]. Quartz, mullite, goethite, gypsum, calcite, chlorite, anhydrite, hematite, and
magnetite have been found in fly ash samples. It has also been reported that quartz and
mullite were more concentrated in the coarser size fractions of fly ash, whereas goethite
and gypsum were more concentrated in the finer size fractions. The main mineral phase of
fly ash is an amorphous aluminosilicate glassy phase (around 58–69 wt.%), accompanied
by mullite, quartz, calcium oxide, gypsum, or iron oxides [5,22,27]. Thus, coal fly ash is
generally categorized into three phases: (1) glass, (2) mullite-quartzite, and (3) magnetic
spinel [29,31].

2.1.2. Chemical Composition of Coal Fly Ash

Fly ash’s chemical composition is highly variable. It is related to compositional differ-
ences in the coal deposits and the individual power plants’ operating characteristics [5,31].
Several authors have analyzed fly ashes from various sources to estimate REY contents [32–35].
The concentration of REY in FA is estimated at 445 ppm on average [18,25,36,37].
Generally, the REY concentration in fly ash samples is higher in finer particle size
fractions [18]. For instance, Dai et al. [33] investigated six different size fractions from
+120 mesh to −500 mesh (i.e., 25 to 125 µm) of FA. They found that the REY concentrations
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 3 of 18

in FA are higher in the finer size fraction than in the coarser ones. Similarly, Pan et al. [35]
analyzed the effect of particle size. They found that the REY concentration increased with a
decrease in particle size.
To identify the REY phases in FA, Pan et al. [38] employed a scanning electron micro-
scope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer (SEM-EDS). They also conducted a
particle size analysis and a sequential chemical extraction procedure (SCEP). The SCEP re-
sults identified the content of REY in various species or forms and suggested the following
order: ion-exchangeable form < metal oxides < acid-soluble < organic or sulfide < silicate-
aluminate. In addition, the SEM-EDS analysis pointed out that REYs in the FA were
associated with Al and P.
Later, Pan et al. [35] devised a four-step extraction procedure to classify the chemical
species into five forms: (1) the ion-exchangeable form, (2) the acid-soluble form, (3) metal
oxides form, (4) the organic or sulfide form, and (5) the silico-aluminosilicate form. They
found that the silico-aluminosilicate was the main REY specie, which accounted for 80% of the
material. In other words, the REY content strongly correlated with the content of silicon and
aluminum [35]. Moreover, the results of another seven-step sequential extraction procedure
suggested that 86.1% of the total REYs were associated with the fly ash’s glassy phase. In
contrast, the remaining REYs were mainly present in the organic and sulfides phase (8.3%),
the exchangeable phase (3.7%), and the carbonates phase (1.5%), respectively [39].
Kolker et al. [40] also analyzed the occurrence of rare earth species in fly ash from
coal combustion. They suggested that REY in the glass phase, the most abundant con-
stituent of coal fly ash, should be targeted for extraction and concentration. Stuckman
et al. (2018), on the other hand, used X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and X-ray absorption near
edge structure (XANES) to characterize distributions of several REY elements, as well
as cerium (Ce) oxidation states and Ce binding environments in 11 samples of coal and
coal combustion by-products (CCBs), collected from various sites. The analyses revealed
that the REY in the studied samples was dispersed throughout the aluminosilicate glass
phase as micro-particles in large glass grain, or as independent trace phases. Moreover, Liu
et al. [41] used spectroscopic, acid leaching, sequential extraction, and extraction methods
to characterize and quantify REY species and distribution in CFAs. They identified various
phases containing REYs, including REY oxides, REY phosphates, apatite, zircon, and the
REY-bearing glass phase. They suggested that REYs occur as discrete particles, as particles
encapsulated in the glass phase, or as particles dispersed throughout the glass phase [41].
The concentration of rare earth element data for the 42 ash samples collected from
seven US states, totaling 158 million tonnes of fly ash, was reported by Huang et al. [7,42].
Although all the ash samples came from the same coal basin, the results showed that rare
earth element concentrations ranged from 156 to 590 ppm. Therefore, the rare earth element
resource in these ashes was estimated to be between 74,000 and 106,000 t [7].

2.2. Rare Earth Elements and Yttrium

Often, rare earth elements and yttrium (REY) are referred to as the “seeds of tech-
nology” because of their uses in high-strength permanent magnets, superconductors,
automotive catalytic converters, fiber optics, lasers, etc. [17,43]. As the number of REY
applications has multiplied over the past several decades, the demand for REYs has also
increased due to their excellent magnetic, electrical, and optical properties [9,44].
International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines rare earth
elements as a group of 17 elements comprising 15 lanthanides (i.e., Z 57 through 71) plus
yttrium (Y) and scandium (Sc). Furthermore, rare earth elements are divided into two
groups according to their atomic weights: heavy rare earth elements (HREE), which are
composed of elements from gadolinium (atomic weight 157.25) to lutetium (atomic weight
174.97) with yttrium, and light rare earth elements (LREE), which are composed of elements
from lanthanum (atomic weight 138.91) to europium (atomic weight 151.96) [8,45,46].
HREE-containing minerals are found in xenotime (YPO4 ), gadolinite ((Ce,La,Nd,Y)2
FeBe2 Si2 O10 ), samarskite ((YFe3+ Fe2+ U,Th,Ca)2 (Nb,Ta)2 O8 ), euxenite ((Y,Ca,Ce,U,Th)
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 4 of 18

(Nb,Ta,Ti)2 O6 ), fergusonite (REY,NbO4 ), yttrotantalite ((Y,U,Fe++ )(Ta,Nb)O4 ), yttrotungstite

(YW2 O6 (OH)3 ), and yttrialite ((Y,Th)2 Si2 O7 ). LREE-containing minerals, on the other hand,
include bastnaesite ((La,Ce,Y)CO3 F), monazite ((Ce,La,Th)PO4 ), allanite ((Ce,Ca,Y,La)2
(Al,Fe+3 )3 (SiO4 )3 (OH)), ancylite (Sr(Ce,La)(CO3 )2 (OH)·H2 O), cerite ((Ce,La,Ca)9 (Mg,Fe3+ )
(SiO4 )6 (SiO3 OH)(OH)3 ), cerianite ((Ce,Th)O2 ), fluocerite ((Ce,La)F3 ), lanthanite ((REY)2
(CO3 )3 ·8(H2 O)), loparite ((Ce,Na,Ca)(Ti,Nb)O3 ), parisite (Ca(Ce,La)2 (CO3 )3 F2 ), and still-
wellite ((Ce,La,Ca)BSiO5 ). Generally speaking, monazite, bastnasite, xenotime, and rare-
earth ion-adsorption clays are the main ores mined to ensure the world production
of REY [7,42].
As China, Brazil, Vietnam, Russia, and India account for over 89% of the estimated
global reserves, the REY reserves are not evenly distributed worldwide [18]. Nowadays,
China is responsible for more than 85% of the global production of REY. As a result, many
countries are continuously dealing with the supply risks of REY, which are considered
as “critical materials” [7,21]. The global production of REY, on the other hand, is about
130,000 tonnes of rare-earth oxide equivalent content per year [47,48], and the annual
growth of REY demand has been projected at a rate of 3.7–8.6% [21].
REYs are among the most critical of the critical elements, despite their importance to
modern technology and society [49], because the discrepancy between the market demand
and the proven reserves for REY ores is a significant issue. This issue is known as the so-
called Balance Problem [50–52]. Furthermore, in a report published in 2020, the European
Commission defined a group of materials that “are most important economically and have
a high supply risk”, [53]. This group of materials is known as “critical raw materials” and
includes 15 lanthanides plus yttrium and scandium.
The recovery of REY from conventional ores is a multi-step process that requires sig-
nificant capital investments, consumes relatively high energy, generates massive undesired
tailings, and has unintended environmental consequences [3]. Furthermore, as REY is
hardly found in high concentrations, conventional mining methods are inadequate. This
unusual nature of REY-containing ores, coupled with their growing demand, has necessi-
tated the development of advanced techniques for recovering REYs from both traditional
and non-conventional sources [18,49].
The possibility of REY supply shortages has sparked a surge in interest in exploring
and mining deep-sea mineral resources [54,55]. For example, in 2013, mud containing
over 5000 ppm total REY was discovered in the deep sea near Minamitorishima Island,
Japan. In the most promising area, the resource amount was estimated to be up to 1.2 Mt of
rare-earth oxide, which accounts for 56, 62, 47, and 32 years of annual global demand for
Dy, Y, Eu, and Tb, respectively. Moreover, Takaya [55] used a hydrocyclone separator to
treat deep-sea mud and recover biogenic calcium phosphate particles with a relatively high
content of REY (i.e., up to 22,000 ppm).

2.2.1. Recovery of REY from Ores

Several methods have been suggested for recovering REYs from monazite, bastnasite, or
xenotime minerals, including gravity separation, flotation, etc. [56]. Moreover, several other
methods, such as precipitation, solid–liquid extraction, liquid–liquid extraction, supercritical
extraction, electro-winning, and electro-refining, to name a few, have been reported for
the concentration of REYs from relatively low-grade ores [17,44,45,57]. Other more recent
methods that have been proposed include (1) microwave irradiation after adding carbon
powder, followed by physical separations, and (2) roasting and pretreatment by NaOH
aqueous solution, to name a few [9]. However, conventional separation techniques such as
flotation, gravity, electrostatic, and magnetic separation techniques have been commonly used
to treat industrial REY minerals (i.e., monazite, bastnaesite, and xenotime) [58,59].

2.2.2. Recycling of REY

The issue of risk supply can at least partly be overcome by recycling. Despite this,
only about 1% of the REYs are recycled from end-of-life products [48,60]. The complexity
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 5 of 18

of the waste materials to be recycled (such as permanent magnets, electronic equipment,

etc.), the difficulty of separating the individual REYs from one another to yield pure
single elements, and the relatively small amount of REYs used in end-products ranges,
which ranges from a few mg to several kg, are some of the significant barriers to recycling
these elements [11,18,48,50,51,61].
Generally speaking, unconventional REY-containing resources, including coal and
coal by-products, contain REYs. However, the concentrations of REYs in these resources are
sometimes several orders of magnitude lower than that of REY ores. Thus, the extraction
of REYs from these materials is challenging [21]. Binnemans et al. [50,51] discussed the
processing and recovery of REY from end-of-life materials, reviewing both pyrometal-
lurgical and hydrometallurgical methods. Binnemans et al. [50,51] also suggested that
although REY recovery from scrap magnets is important, the recycling process of rare earth
magnets is complicated. Thus, the decisions about the commercialization of the proposed
recycling flowsheets can only be made after a detailed Life Cycle Assessment has been
performed [50,51]. On the other hand, Pan et al. [35] considered coal ash a viable alternative
source for REYs. As a result, the recovery of REYs from coal ash has gained a lot of attention
in recent years [17,62].

2.3. Capture and Disposal of Coal Fly Ash

Generally speaking, fly ash is captured from flue gases using various devices to reduce
the particles’ atmospheric emissions and collect them for disposal. Four fly ash control
systems are available: fabric filters, mechanical collectors, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators [5]. Wet sluicing to on-site ash ponds is the standard method of fly ash
disposal. Additionally, four basic methods for the disposal of fly ash are used: (1) cement
additives; (2) asphalt mixtures; (3) soil modifiers in agriculture; and (4) disposal in mines,
basins, or landfills [5]. However, the use of coal ash as an additive to the concrete mixture
is the most popular one.

3. Physical Processing of Coal Fly Ash

Several methods for recovering REYs from coal fly ash have been introduced [2].

3.1. Air Classification

Air classification is a method of separating solid particles according to their size,
represented by particle equivalent diameter and density [63,64]. Lanzerstorfer [65,66] inves-
tigated the concentration of various components in the fly ash as a function of the particle
size. To achieve this, the fly ash was split into particle size fractions by air classification
before chemical analysis. Generally, a typical cyclone employed for air classification uses a
centrifugal force. A mixture of particles dispersed in the air enters a cylindrical chamber
to separate coarse particles from the air stream. Under centrifugal forces, coarse particles
move to the inner wall of the chamber, slide down the inner wall, and exit the cyclone
from the bottom. On the other hand, lower-mass finer particles exit with air from the inner
core, known as a vortex finder [6]. Lanzerstorfer [65,66] found that all REYs were enriched
by 1.05 to 1.65 times in the finest size fraction. In contrast, all REY content decreased
(between 0.63 and 0.78 times) in the coarsest size fraction and the second finest size fraction
(i.e., between 0.58 and 0.92 times). In particular, the LREEs (i.e., La, Ce, Pr, Nd, and Sm)
were enriched by a factor of 1.19 to 1.35 in the second-largest size fraction, even though
the concentrations of the other REYs were identical to those in fly ash. They, therefore,
concluded that air classification is a simple pre-processing step for recovering REY-enriched
fractions from coal fly ash [65,66].

3.2. Wet Gravity Separation

The gravity separation technique is usually considered the most cost-effective benefi-
ciation method and therefore is commonly used for coal washing and mineral beneficia-
tion [18,67,68]. However, its separation efficiency partly depends on the particle size, where
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 6 of 18

sufficiently coarse particles move following Newton’s law in a viscous medium such as
water, air, or heavy liquids [18]. The most widely used gravity separators employed for the
concentration of fine-size particles are hydrocyclones, shaking tables, spiral concentrators,
or conical separators [18].
In the case of dense medium separation, the process was carried out by using heavy
organic liquids, such as tribromomethane (CHBr3 , density of 2.89 g/cm3 ), dibromomethane
(CH2 Br2 , density of 2.5 g/cm3 ), and trichloromethane (CHCl3 , density of 1.49 g/cm3 ), which
can also be mixed to obtain liquids with a wider range of specific gravity (SG) values such
as 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, or 2.8 g/cm3 [18]. For instance, a float-sink process was performed on
a fly ash sample at a cut-point density of 1.8 SG. The sink fraction contained more REYs
(i.e., 521 ppm) than the float fraction (i.e., 376 ppm). Other researchers have carried out
several densimetric analyses of two different fly ash samples and found that maximum REY
contents occurred in the medium density fractions (i.e., 2.71–2.95 SG and 2.45–2.71 SG) [12].

3.3. Flotation
Flotation is a complex physicochemical process that has long been used as a sep-
aration technique in mineral processing (including REY beneficiation) and coal wash-
ing [6,18,69–76]. With a loss-on-ignition (LOI) value of 61% and carbon recovery of 62%,
column flotation was reported to be an effective method for the collection of carbon con-
centrates, with 90% of the ash reporting to the tails with LOI values of less than 8%, [77].
Froth flotation is also employed to concentrate rare earth ores as it can treat a wide range
of fine particles [56]. On the other hand, coal fly ash flotation was conducted using diesel
fuel as a collector and methylisobutylcarbinol (MIBC) as a frother. Using a size fraction of
+ 40–71 µm, after a flotation time of 240 s, about 99% of unburned carbon was recovered. In
addition, it was reported that the carbon content of the concentrate reached 19.8 wt.% [27].

3.4. Magnetic Separation

Coal fly ash was enriched by separating the magnetite and unburned carbon using
flotation and magnetic separation methods [27]. Before froth flotation, the dry magnetic
separation of CFA, using a roll-type dry separator (magnetic intensity of 0.26 T), produced
a magnetite concentrate with a magnetite content of about 10.48 wt.%, which was further
increased by using a wet magnetic separator [27].
The distribution of REY in the CFA as a function of magnetic susceptibility, density,
and particle size was also studied to better understand the pre-concentration of REY before
the leaching process [12]. They found that classifying fly ash particles by their density to
various density fractions increased the REY content in fractions with a density up to 2.6
(i.e., reaching the highest content). Then, the REY content decreased for fractions with a
density greater than 2.6. The results suggested that REYs were primarily embedded in the
middle-density fractions, especially in the ones with a density similar to that of quartz,
which indicated that REYs are scattered throughout the glassy phase of fly ash particles [40].
Nevertheless, the distribution of REY content among various density fractions is not as
relevant as in the case of distribution among different sizes or magnetic fractions [12]. In
addition, it was reported that the content of REY was relatively higher for particles with
relatively low magnetic susceptibility [12].

3.5. Multi-Step Physical Separation

With a few exceptions, the treatment of almost all discovered rare-earth ore deposits
includes comminution for mineral liberation from gangue materials before the subsequent
separation process [18]. Consequently, conventional physical separation processes have been
extensively used for recovering REY minerals from REY ore deposits. Physical separation
methods employed for recovering REY include particle size classification, gravity separation,
magnetic separation, and flotation, which are usually used in combination [18,26,75–79].
The pre-concentration of REY and the removal of impurities, such as unburned car-
bon and ferric oxides, using physical separation techniques before leaching, are of inter-
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 7 of 18

est [39,40,79]. The pretreatment method of mechanical grinding was employed to recover
major elements from coal fly ash, which increased leaching efficiency [9]. By taking advan-
tage of their differences in physical characteristics such as density, particle size, magnetism,
and surface hydrophobicity, coal fly ash particles can be classified into different fractions.
The overall recovery process will be more economically feasible if REYs are extracted from
certain fractions that are comparatively more enriched in REYs rather than treating the
bulk ash material. REYs in fly ash are more concentrated in the finer size fractions than in
the entire bulk material [12].
Zhang et al. [75] evaluated the partitioning of rare earth elements as a function of
the differences in density, magnetic, and hydrophobic surface properties. The density
separation of coarse particles (0.6 mm × 0.15 mm) was investigated by employing a
riffle table concentrator. Magnetic separation was evaluated using wet high-intensity
magnetic separation, and froth flotation was employed for separating particles based on
their hydrophobic properties. Based on their findings, Zhang et al. [75] suggested that,
except for flotation, REY’s physical beneficiation from fly ash was complex. They also
indicated that the liberation of REY-containing species is a prerequisite, along with the
rejection of extraneous material that dilutes the concentrate grade [75,76].
Lin et al. [79] also examined the efficiency of physical separation techniques to enrich
REYs from coal by-products. Particle size classification and magnetic or sink–float separa-
tions were employed for the treatment of coal ash. It was found that the samples behaved
differently to the classification of particles by size. Relatively higher REY concentrations
were found in the finer size fractions for all the ash samples. For all ash samples, the results
of magnetic separation indicated that REYs are enriched in non-magnetic fractions. All sam-
ples responded similarly to sink–float separation. They also found that density separation
showed the highest REY enrichment and recommended a combination of these methods.
Similarly, the technical feasibility of REY recovery from CFA was then studied by
conducting various physical separation methods followed by acid leaching. As size clas-
sification and magnetic separation processes were the most effective physical separation
processes for REY recovery, combining both processes was utilized to pre-concentrate REYs
before the leaching process [12]. REYs are concentrated in fractions of fine particle size,
non-magnetic, and mid-density. REYs of coal fly ash were enriched from 782 mg/g to
1025 mg/g using combined physical separation processes [12].
Based on these results, the authors hypothesize that the best way to maximize the
recovery and grade of the REYs-containing products is to remove contaminants before
leaching, which in turn will reduce acid usage and lower the environmental burden of
the operation. Furthermore, the removal can be carried out after examining the key CFA
characteristics, such as density, magnetic susceptibility, and particle size, which may be
utilized to separate the target constituents.

4. Chemical Processing of Coal Fly Ash

4.1. Leaching
REYs are known to be soluble in an acidic solvent [19]. Thus, leaching techniques have
been widely used in REY extraction from both low-grade and high-grade ores. Roasting
with or without additives followed by leaching has been studied to enrich REYs from
several ores, including monazite, bastnasite, and xenotime. H2 SO4 , HCl, or HNO3 are
generally used to leach REYs from ores [18]. Acid leaching is also employed to process
resources in which the REYs have no specific mineral species, or the particle size of the rare
earth minerals is ultra-fine (<25 µm).
Zhang et al. [80] performed several acid-leaching tests on three samples collected
from a coalfield. First, their leaching kinetics were examined to evaluate the leachabilities
of REYs, phosphorous, and some other elements, such as calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), and
aluminum (Al). All the tests were performed at 75 ◦ C using 1 M H2 SO4 , HNO3 , or HCl.
Up to 65% of LREEs were found to be leached during the first five minutes of the leaching
process, and by prolonging the reaction time to 120 min, recoveries were raised to almost
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 8 of 18

75%. Moreover, acid leaching using inorganic acids such as H2 SO4 has been widely utilized
to recover REYs from red mud, phosphors, phosphoric acid by-products (e.g., calcium
sulfate sludges), deep-sea nodules, nickel-metal hydride batteries, etc. [58,59]. Nevertheless,
Rozelle et al. [81] reported that significant REY amounts were extracted from various coal
by-products using aqueous ammonium sulfate as a lixiviant.
The main ways in which REYs occur in coal are inorganically bonded, which is ad-
vantageous for wet leaching. Moreover, in coal combustion, the organic matter is almost
completely burned [25]. Direct acid-leaching was therefore considered a standard method
for extracting REYs from coal fly ash. Several methods have been developed using hy-
drochloric acid to extract the REYs [82], sulfuric acid, and nitric acid [14]; nevertheless,
among them, hydrochloric acid ensured the highest leaching efficiency (71%) [9]. Tuan
et al. [3] investigated the acid leaching of bottom ash with a pulp density of 100 g/L under
different conditions, aiming to enhance the REY (focus on Y, Nd, and Dy) leaching efficiency
and reduce the amount of reagent used. The variables included the reagent’s type, the
reagent’s concentration, residence time, and temperature. They used three different leach-
ing reagents, namely, H2 SO4 , HCl, and HNO3 (although HNO3 is considered corrosive).
Then, they investigated the influence of each agent on the leaching capacity, as well as
the effects of concentration, time, and temperature. Tuan et al. [3] found that all three
acids had a similar impact on the leaching process. The optimum leaching conditions of
concentration, time, and temperature were 2 mol/L HCl, 12 h, and 80 ◦ C, respectively. At
optimal conditions, the extraction of yttrium, neodymium, and dysprosium were 62.1%,
55.5%, and 65.2%, respectively [3]. Cao et al. [82] collected CFA samples from a Power
Plant in the Guizhou Province of China, where the REY content is 489 ppm. Then they
used HCl as the primary leaching reagent to evaluate the effect of different parameters on
the leaching efficiency of REYs from CFA. The results showed that, except for the stirring
speed, all other parameters (i.e., the temperature, acid concentration, liquid-solid ratio, and
reaction time) significantly influenced the leaching efficiency of REYs. Under the conditions
of an HCl concentration of 3 M, a liquid-solid ratio of 10 (v/m), a temperature of 60 ◦ C, a
stirring speed of 200 rpm, and a leaching time of 120 min, leaching efficiencies of 71.9%,
66.0%, and 61.9% were obtained for La, Ce, and Nd, respectively, [82]. Additionally, the
leaching of La from CFA was more straightforward than the one of Ce and Nd. Kumari
et al. [4] used 4 mol/L HCl at 90 ◦ C for 2 h and a pulp density of 50 g/L to dissolve REMs.
Subsequently, the selective precipitation of REMs from unused acid in the leach liquor
was carried out at pH 1.67. Kashiwakura et al. [19], on the other hand, investigated the
dissolution behavior of REY contents in coal fly ash particles and their dissolution behavior
in H2 SO4 (95 wt.%) solvents. The solutions were mixed for 2 h at 30 ◦ C, 60 ◦ C, and 80 ◦ C,
respectively. It was found that the dissolution rates of REYs increased with the temperature
of the H2 SO4 solvent.
Generally speaking, temperature plays a significant role in activating any chemical
reaction. Therefore, Kumari et al. [83] conducted experiments to dissolve REYs at varying
temperatures between 25 and 90 ◦ C. The percentage leaching of both light and heavy REYs
increased with an increase in temperature from 25 to 90 ◦ C using 4 mol/L HCl for 2 h and a
pulp density of 100 g/L. Thus, 90 ◦ C temperature was selected for maximum REY extraction.
Ponou et al. [17] observed that REYs such as Er, La, Pr, Ce, and Y were dissolved together
with several base metals (Li, Fe, Cu, and Al) using HCl, the concentration of which varied
from 0.25 to 10 mol/L. Moreover, Pan et al. [12] recovered REYs from CFA by integrated
physical separation and acid leaching. The acid leaching process was optimized through
the Taguchi three-level experimental design for different parameters. After optimization,
the product of physical separation was leached at optimum conditions, and as a result,
79.85% leaching efficiency was obtained [12].
Ionic solvents, including ionic liquids (ILs) and deep-eutectic solvents (DESs), have
drawn a lot of attention because they provide an alternative to traditional methods for
recovering metal [84]. The leaching and extraction operations are carried out by these
systems acting as reactive agents. Karan et al. [11] employed two types of deep eutectic
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 9 of 18

solvents (DES) for leaching REYs from CFA generated from a coal-fired thermal power
plant in India. In other words, CFAs containing 0.22% REYs were subject to two different
combinations of DES, namely, choline chloride (ChCl) with lactic acid (LA) and ChCl
with para toluene sulphonic acid monohydrate (pTSA). Next, the REYs in the leach liquor
were precipitated using oxalic acid dihydrate, sodium fluoride, and sodium sulfate from
the liquor diluted with demineralized (DM) water. They found that both DES systems
gave leachability of 85–95% of REYs from the CFA. In addition, the dissolution of rare
earth oxides (REOs) from bauxite residue has been studied using ionic liquid betainium
bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (HbetTf2N) [85]. They found that the temperature and
the retention time are key parameters, reporting that increased temperatures and retention
time provide higher REY extraction, up to 70–85%.
Taggart et al. [86] conducted the roasting and leaching of CFA samples from major
U.S. coal basins to extract REYs. They studied the effects of additive/ash ratio, roasting
temperature, and leachate pH on REY extraction using a variety of chemical additives,
including NaOH, Na2 O2 , CaO, Na2 CO3 , CaSO4 , and (NH4 )2 SO4 . The pH of the acid-
leaching solution significantly influenced the extraction efficiency as REY recovery was
reduced considerably when the acid concentration was reduced to 1–2 mol/L HNO3
solutions. The extraction of REYs was also limited by lowering the roasting temperature
of the roasting additive. They found that NaOH roasting recovered >90% of REY and
suggested that the sintering temperature of 450 ◦ C, which was below the melting points
of the selected additives, may have been a contributing factor. Yakaboylu et al. [87], on
the other hand, proposed a pretreatment method that uses microwaves to enhance the
extraction of rare-earth elements from CFA. As carbon materials are effective microwave
absorbers and can be quickly heated by microwave irradiation, a carbon source was initially
mixed with CFA. The mixture was then subjected to 2 kW of microwave radiation for
2–10 min in an argon atmosphere. Both compositional and microstructural alterations were
produced by rapid heating rates, high temperatures (820–1350 ◦ C), and sharp temperature
shifts. After a 10 min microwave pretreatment, it was observed that the leaching efficiency
of the REYs increased from 21.7 to 54.9–83.4% when using a 1 M HNO3 solution. The most
essential rare-earth elements (i.e., Nd, Y, Dy, Eu, Tb, Ce, and La) had a leaching efficiency
of about 93%. Additionally, it was shown that the leaching efficiency improved as the
irradiation time increased [87].
Nevertheless, REY recovery from CFA through acid leaching is challenging as these
elements are in the predominant glassy aluminosilicate phase, requiring strong acidic
conditions. King et al. [88] looked into how REY leached out of fly ash and other coal
combustion ashes. On several kinds of coal fly ash samples, aqueous acid and alkaline
leaching were used with varying leaching parameters, such as extractant type (HCl or
NaOH), extractant concentration, leachate-to-ash ratio, and dosage of CaO added during
the leaching process. They found that the extraction efficiency varied by ash type within
specific methods. Manurung et al. [89], on the other hand, used acetic acid as a leaching
agent. As the REY’s mineralization was in the form of siliceous minerals, silicate diges-
tion was conducted using sodium hydroxide 8 M with a solid-to-liquid ratio of 25% to
decompose the siliceous mineral. Further, the REY-bound siliceous mineral was changed to
REY(OH)3 . The recovery of Ce, Dy, La, Nd, Y, and Yb leached was 20.58%, 43.53%, 17.38%,
40.96%, 18.45%, and 32.74%, respectively, while keeping the temperature constant at 90 ◦ C,
pH 1.74, and leaching time of 120 min [89].
There is no commercialized technique for leaching REYs from coal ash [18]. Many
factors affect REY leaching from coal ash. The mineralogy of the coal ash, encapsulation
characteristics, particle size, and the presence of complex minerals are some of the technical
factors that need to be considered. Economic factors for leaching on larger scales are cost,
leaching efficiency, and environmental impact. When choosing the final technique for
leaching REYs from coal ash, these criteria should be considered carefully.
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 10 of 18

4.2. Recovery from Leachates: Extraction or Adsorption

After leaching, the next stage is to extract the REYs from the aqueous leachate solution.
There are three main conventional extraction methods: solvent extraction, ion exchange,
and adsorption, among which solvent extraction is the most widely used worldwide [28].
However, the operational parameters and the type of organic extractants used significantly
affect the efficiency and selectivity of solvent extraction. The main extractants used in REY
separation processes are tributyl phosphate (TBP), tricaprylylmethyl ammonium chloride,
di-(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (D2EHPA), and mono-2-ethylhexyl ester, to name a
few [28]. Using an extractant such as di-(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid, rare earth cations
are selectively transferred into the organic phase in a solvent extraction process (D2EHPA).
Impurities, transferred to the organic phase together with REYs, can then be stripped
out using a strong acidic solution (e.g., 5 M HCl). The roasting of rare earth precipitates
obtained from the stripping solution will produce final solid products containing more
than 99.99% of each rare earth oxide [59].
Solvent extraction is generally associated with a complicated flowsheet. By combining
selective reduction with the vacuum distillation of halides, Uda et al. [90] developed a
method for separating rare earth elements. The differences in the redox potential and vapor
pressure of rare earth compounds in different oxidation states can provide better oppor-
tunities for designing a suitable separation process, especially when compared with the
process that uses only incremental variations of chemical properties for a given oxidation
state [90]. Das et al. [91] investigated the economic viability of REY extraction from coal ash
using supercritical extraction. Additionally, they developed a model by combining material
flow analysis, process economics, scale-up models, sensitivity analysis, and combinatorial
scenario approaches. The output obtained from the supercritical process was a mixture
of REY nitrates. Metallothermic reduction processes were then used to extract rare earth
elements at high temperatures (>1000 ◦ C) under vacuum conditions using inert gas. The
extraction efficiency of different REYs varied between 7% and 99%.
Solvent extraction involves a large amount of solvents to be treated over continuous
and repeated steps. Alternatively, liquid membrane technology (LM) has the benefits
of relatively high performance and selectivity, as well as lower energy and operating
costs [59,92]. LM is classified into liquid emulsion membrane (LEM), supported liquid
membrane (SLM), and electrostatic quasi(pseudo) liquid membrane (EQLM) [59,92].
Two liquid membrane processes (namely, liquid emulsion membranes, LEM, and
assisted liquid membranes, SLM) were studied by Smith et al. [93], who compared those with
standard solvent extraction techniques for the selective extraction and concentration of REYs
from coal fly ash leachate. Liquid membrane processes used non-aqueous solvents with
dissolved chelating agents to physically separate the aqueous leachate and acidic stripping
phases while simultaneously recovering REYs. A solution of di(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric
acid dissolved with kerosene or mineral oil and a 5 M nitric acid stripping solution were
used for liquid-based separation. These two liquid membrane processes differ from standard
solvent extraction as both REY extraction and recovery occur in the same step, aiming to
maximize the interfacial area of REY mass transfer while reducing the required volumes of
non-aqueous solvent and chelating agent [93]. Di-2-ethyl-hexylphosphoric acid (DEHPA,
97% purity) of a concentration of 10% (v/v) was dissolved into either kerosene or mineral oil
solvent. DEHPA is a strong metal chelator for REYs that is frequently used for industrial
metal separations and is considered a less hazardous metal carrier. The acid-stripping
solution for all extractions comprised 5 M HNO3 . Leachates were produced by using
sodium hydroxide and heated at 450 ◦ C for 30 min in a muffle furnace and then by leaching
(using 0.11 M HNO3 for 12 h) a fly ash sample, which contained 703 mg/kg total REYs. They
suggested that both LEM and SLM processes demonstrate high separation factors for the
REYs in the presence of other competing metal ion species. Smith et al. [93] also indicated
that the SLM process exhibited higher selectivity for the HREYs, while the conventional
extraction and LEM processes were more suitable for the LREEs. They also developed a
flux-based model of the extraction processes that suggested that the recoveries were limited
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 11 of 18

by REY affinity for the solvent chelator in the SLM. In contrast, the REY separation rates via
LEM were determined by diffusive mass transfer across the liquid membrane [93].
Metal recovery from diluted solutions could be accomplished through biosorption,
which can be economically feasible and environmentally friendly. For example, REY
recovery from CFA solutions was successfully achieved by biosorption [17,94]. The leached
liquor was treated with 450 ◦ C carbonized ginkgo leaves as a biosorbent. Biosorption
processes, carried out at a pH range of 1–9, indicated that pH 3 is suitable for Er and pH 5
for La and Ce biosorption, whereas both Y and Pr remained unaffected [17]. The electrostatic
interaction between rare earth ions and the carbonate groups, which are present on the
surface of the biosorbents, explains the mechanism of the biosorption process. Additionally,
Park et al. [95] investigated the efficiency of biosorption for extracting REYs from leachates
of fly ashes from coal from the Powder River Basin (PRB). They compared an Escherichia
coli strain and an Arthrobacter nicotianae bacterium and found that 80% of the total REYs
were adsorbed from the lignite leachate.
On the other hand, Mondal et al. [96] dissolved several coal fly ash samples from differ-
ent power plants by using the HNO3 acid-digestion method and fusing in a NaOH + NaNO3
mixture at 600 ◦ C, then treated the resulting mass by using a hydrothermal treatment. As a
result, the total rare earth content was 300 to 500 mg/kg. Adsorption of the rare earth from
matrix elements was then carried out employing XAD-7 resin impregnated with TEHDGA
(N,N,N 0 ,N 0 -tetrakis-2-ethyldiglycolamide). With the use of 0.01 M HNO3 , loaded REYs
were then eluted [96].

4.3. Precipitation
The selective precipitation method is achieved based on the different solubility products
of the complexes formed by REY and other contaminants with precipitants such as oxalic
acid H2 C2 O4 , ammonium hydroxide NH4 OH, and sodium sulfate Na2 SO4 . Chi and Xu [97]
studied oxalic acid’s efficiency in recovering REYs from the leachates of weathered clays. It
was found that REY recovery by precipitation was achieved through the excessive use of
oxalic acid (i.e., pH for precipitation about 2), with an H2 C2 O4 to REY2 O3 mole ratio greater
than a stoichiometric requirement of 1.5. Rare earth elements can be precipitated as oxalates
using oxalic acid in a weakly acidic medium (pH 1–4), whereas many other metal species
(e.g., iron, aluminum, titanium, and zirconium) can remain in solutions as soluble oxalate
complexes [97]. In acidic environments with sodium sulfate, rare earth species may also be
precipitated in the form of sodium double sulfate hydrates (i.e., NaREY(SO4 )2 ·xH2 O).

5. Main Flowsheets
A method for REY enrichment from coal fly ash was proposed by Lin et al. [39].
The author combined hydrothermal alkaline treatment with physical separations, such
as magnetic and particle size separation. It was reported that ash dissolving in NaOH
solution was significantly influenced by the concentration of NaOH, the solid-to-liquid ratio,
the temperature, and the length of time of the reaction. They reported that the optimal
hydrothermal treatment condition for maximal ash dissolution was determined to be: 5 M
NaOH, a solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:20, 100 ◦ C, and 120 min. They also suggested that grinding
could enhance ash dissolution. A 10-cycle NaOH hydrothermal treatment resulted in
the removal of nearly two-thirds of the glassy phase. Through the use of both physical
separation and heat treatment, REYs were enriched by 170 percent (from 325 to 877 mg/kg).
To extract REYs from sulfuric acid leachate derived from an Indian coal fly ash sample
containing 2160 ppm REYs, Anand Rao et al. [98] designed a two-stage solvent extraction
technique. They found that utilizing D2EHPA solvent in concentrations of 12% (v/v) and
40% (v/v), respectively, it was possible to recover around 94% of HREEs in the first stages
and 86% of LREEs values in the second stages of solvent extraction. After that, two loaded
organic streams were to be stripped of their REY values using a 6 mol/L HCl acid solution.
The strip liquors were then neutralized with NaOH solution and subjected to oxalic acid
dihydrate precipitation to produce LREE oxalate containing 17.5% LREEs and HREEs.
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 12 of 18

Additionally, some reports show that the leaching properties of REYs are greatly
improved by the high-temperature pretreatment of coal-based mineral matter in an ox-
idizing environment. Honaker et al. [58] evaluated the beneficial use of the fluidized
bed combustion (FBC) combustion environment to assist in recovering REYs from coal
ashes. Additionally, both fly ash and bottom ash samples were collected from two power
generation plants that use FBC boilers. A 1.4 SG float and 1.4–1.8 SG fraction were calcined
at different temperatures and residence times. Acid leaching experiments, on both the coal
and the FBC ash samples, were carried out using 1.2 M HCl at 75 ◦ C. The coal samples were
pretreated at 600, 750, or 900 ◦ C in an oxidizing atmosphere before leaching to evaluate the
effect of heat treatment on the efficiency of leaching. Next, the REY leaching characteristics
of the calcined samples were compared with those of the FBC ash by-products [58,59]. The
results also showed that the pretreatment at 600 ◦ C for 2 h significantly increased REY
recovery from 20–40 to ca. 80% for all coal sources. The FBC ash samples had similar
REY-leaching characteristics to those of the calcinated coals. Mineralogy analysis showed
that the degree of crystallinity for both the calcinated coal and FBC samples was similar to
the initially associated mineral phase, which provided proof of the advantages of using
the FBC by-products as REY feedstocks over pulverized coal boilers that use temperatures
greater than 1200 ◦ C. They also found that in order to enhance the recovery of REY, the
temperature used in the FBC of coal to generate electricity is optimal, ensuring an effective
pretreatment of the associated mineral phases before leaching. Considering these results, a
conceptual flowsheet that combines FBC technology and its typical combustion conditions
was developed to improve the recovery of REYs from coal-based sources [58,59].
A combination of roasting, leaching, and sulfation processes was investigated to find a
cost-effective technique for the recovery of REY from bottom ash (BA). Ammonium oxalate
(NH4 )2 C2 O4 was used as a leaching reagent; note that simultaneously, this acid’s affinity
may induce the precipitation of REY. Roasting temperature, leaching time, and ammonium
oxalate concentration were the main parameters controlled to optimize the process’s selec-
tivity [62]. Later, Honaker et al. [59] designed an integrated flowsheet consisting of sorting,
grinding, physical separation, acid leaching, solvent extraction, and selective precipitation
to produce REY-containing fractions from various coal-related resources. Roasting as a
pre-leaching treatment significantly improved the leaching rate and REY overall recov-
ery values. Pregnant liquid solutions (PLS) with much higher REY concentrations were
obtained by re-dissolving the precipitates generated from selective precipitation in the
original PLS. REYs were extracted and purified from the solution using solvent extraction
and then precipitated by using oxalic acid, achieving a purity level of more than 90% rare
earth oxides. A pilot plant was built to allow the continuous testing of the circuitry on a
number of different coal-based feedstocks [59].

6. Conclusions
Limited reserves of economically feasible conventional sources and other major in-
fluencing factors, including the demand and supply influenced by the geopolitics of REY
production, have renewed the interest in finding new reliable alternative sources of REYs.
Coal fly ash has therefore been explored as an alternative source of various valuable el-
ements, including REYs. Unburned carbon in coal ash is an indicator of inefficiency in
combustion and an obstacle to ash reuse. Still, it also has potential as a value-added product
in its own right after the beneficiation of the ash. The recovery of REYs and other valuable
components from CFA might provide alternative resources, as well as reduce the disposal
cost and protects the environment, which in turn could result in many benefits [1]:
1. Eliminating the need to open new mines and their associated environmental disruption;
2. Providing a steady supply of critical elements;
3. Avoiding grinding as coal ash has a fine particle size;
4. Minimizing the leaching of toxic elements (e.g., As, Hg, Pb, Se, Tl, and F) and their
contamination to surface and ground waters from tailings;
5. Reducing the environmental burden and the costs of landfilling;
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 13 of 18

6. Lowering the cost of the necessary infrastructure and mining by utilizing a readily
available industrial by-product.
Therefore, many researchers have investigated the recovery of REYs from various un-
conventional sources, such as coal and coal by-products, by applying a series of techniques,
including physical separation and hydrometallurgy, to concentrate REYs.
Recycling 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW The different physical separation methods (i.e., gravity separation, magnetic 14 of 18 separation,

and flotation) could concentrate REY minerals due to their distinct physical and chemical
properties but at lower yields, except for flotation, which proved effective. Thus, a combi-
Hydrocyclone
nation of physical separation processes Water
is usually employed 5–100 μm flowsheet to
in a processing
Shaking table Water
enhance recovery efficiency. The hydrometallurgical extraction of REYs from 60–600 μmsources of coal
by-products, Weton the other hand, has been mostly successful. Therefore, μm
Gravity
Spiral concentrator Water 60–600 current research
primarily focuses on Conical
improving REYconcentrator
extraction Water Figure60–600
processes. 1 μm a conceptual
shows
Separation
Physical for recovering REYs
flowsheet Sink-float separation
from coal ashes. TableWater 55–500
1, on the other μm lists the main
hand,
Separationemployed, indicating the
methods Dense medium
type of concentrator and medium,
Heavy media +500 μm effective range
and the
of particle size. The fine fraction andseparator
coarse fraction of raw CFA will be first classified by size
Magnetic
in order to pre-concentrate andHigh-intensity
enhance the wetefficiency
Airof
orthe subsequent
water +20physical
μm separation.
Separation magnetic
Then, to remove impurities and further separator
preconcentrate REYs, the coarser fraction will be
separated usingFlotation
either wet orFlotation machine
dry physical methods. Water
Similar to the40–71 μm fractions, the
fine-size
Leaching Acid solution −25 μm
preconcentrate obtained through physical separation can next be leached out under prede-
Chemical Solvent Extraction Organic solvents
termined optimal conditions. If economically feasible, the leaching efficiency can be further
Treatment Selective
increased by roasting CFA before leaching. The leachate can then be fed to purification
Precipitants
Precipitation
processes such as solvent extraction, etc., for purification and separation of individual REYs.

Figure
Figure1.1.AAconceptual flowsheet
conceptual for recovering
flowsheet REY from
for recovering REYcoal ashes.
from coal ashes.

In summary, the authors have reviewed only the most recent advances, suggesting
that there is an opportunity to expand CFA’s usefulness. Research on the recovery of REYs
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 14 of 18

Table 1. Main methods employed for recovering REYs from coal ashes, indicating the type of
concentrator and medium, as well as the effective range of particle size.

Concentrator/ Effective
Category Method Medium
Equipment Particle Size
Air Classification Air +100 µm
Hydrocyclone Water 5–100 µm
Shaking table Water 60–600 µm
Spiral concentrator Water 60–600 µm
Wet Gravity Separation Conical concentrator Water 60–600 µm
Physical Separation
Sink-float separation Water 55–500 µm
Dense medium
Heavy media +500 µm
separator
High-intensity wet
Magnetic Separation Air or water +20 µm
magnetic separator
Flotation Flotation machine Water 40–71 µm
Leaching Acid solution −25 µm
Chemical Treatment Solvent Extraction Organic solvents
Selective Precipitation Precipitants

In summary, the authors have reviewed only the most recent advances, suggesting
that there is an opportunity to expand CFA’s usefulness. Research on the recovery of REYs
from CFA is ongoing, and the economic feasibility and environmental impacts remain
to be evaluated. Thus, a detailed cost–benefit analysis and life cycle assessment would
provide valuable insights into the potential commercialization of CFA by-products and
their use. Most techniques reported for the treatment of CFA are still at the laboratory
scale. Nevertheless, there are several pathways for industrial-scale applications. Therefore,
the CFA treatment and extraction of valuable products from it have a great potential for
reducing both the carbon footprint and the environmental burden.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Review, and Editing,

G.D.; Review, T.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors also declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Dai, S.; Finkelman, R.B. Coal as a promising source of critical elements: Progress and future prospects. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2018, 186,
155–164. [CrossRef]
2. Sahoo, P.K.; Kim, K.; Powell, M.A.; Equeenuddin, S.M. Recovery of metals and other beneficial products from coal fly ash: A
sustainable approach for fly ash management. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2016, 3, 267–283. [CrossRef]
3. Tuan, L.; Thenepalli, T.; Chilakala, R.; Vu, H.; Ahn, J.; Kim, J. Leaching Characteristics of Low Concentration Rare Earth Elements
in Korean (Samcheok) CFBC Bottom Ash Samples. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2562. [CrossRef]
4. Kumari, A.; Jha, M.K.; Pathak, D.D. Review on the Processes for the Recovery of Rare Earth Metals (REMs) from Secondary
Resources. In Rare Metal Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 53–65. [CrossRef]
5. Roy, W.R.; Thiery, R.G.; Schuller, R.M.; Subway, J.J. Coal fly ash: A review of the literature and proposed classification system
with emphasis on environmental impacts. Environ. Geol. Notes 1981, 96, EGN-96.
6. Hower, J.C.; Groppo, J.G.; Graham, U.M.; Ward, C.R.; Kostova, I.J.; Maroto-Valer, M.M.; Dai, S. Coal-derived unburned carbons in
fly ash: A review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2017, 179, 11–27. [CrossRef]
7. Huang, Z.; Fan, M.; Tian, H. Rare earth elements of fly ash from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal. J. Rare Earths 2020, 38,
219–226. [CrossRef]
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 15 of 18

8. Seredin, V.V.; Dai, S. Coal deposits as potential alternative sources for lanthanides and yttrium. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2012, 94, 67–93.
[CrossRef]
9. Wen, Z.; Zhou, C.; Pan, J.; Cao, S.; Hu, T.; Ji, W.; Nie, T. Recovery of rare-earth elements from coal fly ash via enhanced leaching.
Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. 2020, 284, 124725. [CrossRef]
10. Binnemans, K.; Jones, P.T.; Blanpain, B.; Van Gerven, T.; Pontikes, Y. Towards zero-waste valorization of rare-earth-containing
industrial process residues: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 17–38. [CrossRef]
11. Karan, R.; Sreenivas, T.; Kumar, M.A.; Singh, D.K. Recovery of rare earth elements from coal flyash using deep eutectic solvents
as leachants and precipitating as oxalate or fluoride. Hydrometallurgy 2022, 214, 105952. [CrossRef]
12. Pan, J.; Nie, T.; Vaziri Hassas, B.; Rezaee, M.; Wen, Z.; Zhou, C. Recovery of rare earth elements from coal fly ash by integrated
physical separation and acid leaching. Chemosphere 2020, 248, 126112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Stuckman, M.Y.; Lopano, C.L.; Granite, E.J. Distribution and speciation of rare earth elements in coal combustion by-products via
synchrotron microscopy and spectroscopy. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2018, 195, 125–138. [CrossRef]
14. Taggart, R.K.; Hower, J.C.; Dwyer, G.S.; Hsu-Kim, H. Trends in the Rare Earth Element Content of U.S.-Based Coal Combustion
Fly Ashes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5919–5926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Zhang, W.; Noble, A.; Yang, X.; Honaker, R. A Comprehensive Review of Rare Earth Elements Recovery from Coal-Related
Materials. Minerals 2020, 10, 451. [CrossRef]
16. Dai, S.; Xie, P.; Ward, C.R.; Yan, X.; Guo, W.; French, D.; Graham, I.T. Anomalies of rare metals in Lopingian super-high-organic-
sulfur coals from the Yishan Coalfield, Guangxi, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 88, 235–250. [CrossRef]
17. Ponou, J.; Dodbiba, G.; Anh, J.W.; Fujita, T. Selective recovery of rare earth elements from aqueous solution obtained from coal
power plant ash. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 3761–3766. [CrossRef]
18. Peiravi, M.; Dehghani, F.; Ackah, L.; Baharlouei, A.; Godbold, J.; Liu, J.; Mohanty, M.; Ghosh, T. A Review of Rare-Earth Elements
Extraction with Emphasis on Non-conventional Sources: Coal and Coal By-products, Iron Ore Tailings, Apatite, and Phosphate
By-products. Min. Metall. Explor. 2020, 38, 1–26. [CrossRef]
19. Kashiwakura, S.; Kumagai, Y.; Kubo, H.; Wagatsuma, K. Dissolution of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Fly Ash Particles in a
Dilute H2SO4 Solvent. Open J. Phys. Chem. 2013, 3, 69–75. [CrossRef]
20. Dvorak, A.J.; Lewis, B.G.; Chee, P.C.; Dettmann, E.H.; Freeman, R.F., III. Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Fish, Wildlife, and
Their Habitats; U.S. Department of Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; p. 260.
21. Huang, Z.; Fan, M.; Tiand, H. Coal and coal by-products: A large and developable unconventional resource for critical materials—
Rare earth elements. J. Rare Earths 2018, 36, 337–338. [CrossRef]
22. Woszuk, A.; Bandura, L.; Franus, W. Fly ash as low cost and environmentally friendly filler and its effect on the properties of
mixed asphalt. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 493–502. [CrossRef]
23. Xing, Y.; Guo, F.; Xu, M.; Gui, X.; Li, H.; Li, G.; Xia, Y.; Han, H. Separation of unburned carbon from coal fly ash: A review. Powder
Technol. 2019, 353, 372–384. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, F.; Pranda, P.; Hlavacek, V. Recovery of fly ash carbon by carbochlorination via phosgene route. Powder Technol. 2003, 131,
206–211. [CrossRef]
25. Franus, W.; Wiatros-Motyka, M.M.; Wdowin, M. Coal fly ash as a resource for rare earth elements. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.
2015, 22, 9464–9474. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Hwang, J.Y.; Sun, X.; Li, Z. Unburned Carbon from Fly Ash for Mercury Adsorption:, I. Separation and Characterization of
Unburned Carbon. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 2002, 1, 39–60. [CrossRef]
27. Valeev, D.; Kunilova, I.; Alpatov, A.; Varnavskaya, A.; Ju, D. Magnetite and Carbon Extraction from Coal Fly Ash Using Magnetic
Separation and Flotation Methods. Minerals 2019, 9, 320. [CrossRef]
28. Peiravi, M.; Ackah, L.; Guru, R.; Mohanty, M.; Liu, J.; Xu, B.; Zhu, X.; Chen, L. Chemical extraction of rare earth elements from
coal ash. Miner. Metall. Process. 2017, 34, 170–177. [CrossRef]
29. Gollakota, A.R.K.; Volli, V.; Shu, C.M. Progressive utilization prospects of coal fly ash: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 672,
951–989. [CrossRef]
30. Dai, S.; Zhao, L.; Peng, S.; Chou, C.-L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Sun, Y. Abundances and distribution of minerals and elements
in high-alumina coal fly ash from the Jungar Power Plant, Inner Mongolia, China. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2010, 81, 320–332. [CrossRef]
31. Hulett, L.D., Jr.; Weinberger, A.J.; Northcutt, K.J.; Ferguson, M. Chemical species in fly ash from coal-burning power plants.
Science 1980, 210, 1356–1358. [CrossRef]
32. Blissett, R.S.; Smalley, N.; Rowson, N.A. An investigation into six coal fly ashes from the United Kingdom and Poland to evaluate
rare earth element content. Fuel 2014, 119, 236–239. [CrossRef]
33. Dai, S.; Zhao, L.; Hower, J.C.; Johnston, M.N.; Song, W.; Wang, P.; Zhang, S. Petrology, Mineralogy, and Chemistry of Size-
Fractioned Fly Ash from the Jungar Power Plant, Inner Mongolia, China, with Emphasis on the Distribution of Rare Earth
Elements. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 1502–1514. [CrossRef]
34. Llorens, J.F.; Fernández-Turiel, J.L.; Querol, X. The fate of trace elements in a large coal-fired power plant. Environ. Geol. 2001, 40,
409–416. [CrossRef]
35. Pan, J.; Zhou, C.; Tang, M.; Cao, S.; Liu, C.; Zhang, N.; Wen, M.; Luo, Y.; Hu, T.; Ji, W. Study on the modes of occurrence of rare
earth elements in coal fly ash by statistics and a sequential chemical extraction procedure. Fuel 2019, 237, 555–565. [CrossRef]
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 16 of 18

36. Hower, J.; Groppo, J.; Henke, K.; Hood, M.; Eble, C.; Honaker, R.; Zhang, W.; Qian, D. Notes on the Potential for the Concentration
of Rare Earth Elements and Yttrium in Coal Combustion Fly Ash. Minerals 2015, 5, 356–366. [CrossRef]
37. Mardon, S.M.; Hower, J.C. Impact of coal properties on coal combustion by-product quality: Examples from a Kentucky power
plant. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2004, 59, 153–169. [CrossRef]
38. Pan, J.; Zhou, C.; Liu, C.; Tang, M.; Cao, S.; Hu, T.; Ji, W.; Luo, Y.; Wen, M.; Zhang, N. Modes of Occurrence of Rare Earth Elements
in Coal Fly Ash: A Case Study. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 9738–9743. [CrossRef]
39. Lin, R.; Stuckman, M.; Howard, B.H.; Bank, T.L.; Roth, E.A.; Macala, M.K.; Lopano, C.; Soong, Y.; Granite, E.J. Application of
sequential extraction and hydrothermal treatment for characterization and enrichment of rare earth elements from coal fly ash.
Fuel 2018, 232, 124–133. [CrossRef]
40. Kolker, A.; Scott, C.; Hower, J.C.; Vazquez, J.A.; Lopano, C.L.; Dai, S. Distribution of rare earth elements in coal combustion fly
ash, determined by SHRIMP-RG ion microprobe. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2017, 184, 1–10. [CrossRef]
41. Liu, P.; Huang, R.; Tang, Y. Comprehensive Understandings of Rare Earth Element (REE) Speciation in Coal Fly Ashes and
Implication for REE Extractability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 5369–5377. [CrossRef]
42. Huang, C.; Wang, Y.; Huang, B.; Dong, Y.; Sun, X. The recovery of rare earth elements from coal combustion products by ionic
liquids. Miner. Eng. 2019, 130, 142–147. [CrossRef]
43. McLellan, B.; Corder, G.; Ali, S. Sustainability of Rare Earths—An Overview of the State of Knowledge. Minerals 2013, 3, 304–317.
[CrossRef]
44. Kim, J.-A.; Dodbiba, G.; Tanimura, Y.; Mitsuhashi, K.; Fukuda, N.; Okaya, K.; Matsuo, S.; Fujita, T. Leaching of Rare-Earth
Elements and Their Adsorption by Using Blue-Green Algae. Mater. Trans. 2011, 52, 1799–1806. [CrossRef]
45. Dutta, T.; Kim, K.H.; Uchimiya, M.; Kwon, E.E.; Jeon, B.H.; Deep, A.; Yun, S.T. Global demand for rare earth resources and
strategies for green mining. Environ. Res. 2016, 150, 182–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Kanazawa, Y.; Kamitani, M. Rare earth minerals and resources in the world. J. Alloys Compd. 2006, 408–412, 1339–1343. [CrossRef]
47. Chen, Z. Global rare earth resources and scenarios of future rare earth industry. J. Rare Earths 2011, 29, 1–6. [CrossRef]
48. Jowitt, S.M.; Werner, T.T.; Weng, Z.; Mudd, G.M. Recycling of the rare earth elements. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2018, 13,
1–7. [CrossRef]
49. (DOE). U.S.D.o.E. 2010. 2010 Critical Materials Strategy. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/2010-critical-
materials-strategy (accessed on 30 October 2022).
50. Binnemans, K.; Jones, P.T.; Blanpain, B.; Van Gerven, T.; Yang, Y.; Walton, A.; Buchert, M. Recycling of rare earths: A critical
review. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 1–22. [CrossRef]
51. Binnemans, K.; Jones, P.T.; Van Acker, K.; Blanpain, B.; Mishra, B.; Apelian, D. Rare-Earth Economics: The Balance Problem. JOM
2013, 65, 846–848. [CrossRef]
52. Falconnet, P. The economics of rare earths. J. Less Common Met. 1985, 111, 9–15. [CrossRef]
53. European Commission. Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards Greater Security and Sustainability; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
54. Kato, Y.; Fujinaga, K.; Nakamura, K.; Takaya, Y.; Kitamura, K.; Ohta, J.; Toda, R.; Nakashima, T.; Iwamori, H. Deep-sea mud in the
Pacific Ocean as a potential resource for rare-earth elements. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 535–539. [CrossRef]
55. Takaya, Y.; Yasukawa, K.; Kawasaki, T.; Fujinaga, K.; Ohta, J.; Usui, Y.; Nakamura, K.; Kimura, J.I.; Chang, Q.; Hamada, M.; et al.
The tremendous potential of deep-sea mud as a source of rare-earth elements. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5763. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Jordens, A.; Cheng, Y.P.; Waters, K.E. A review of the beneficiation of rare earth element bearing minerals. Miner. Eng. 2013, 41,
97–114. [CrossRef]
57. Fray, D.J. Chemical Engineering: Separating Rare Earth Elements. Science 2000, 289, 2295–2296. [CrossRef]
58. Honaker, R.Q.; Zhang, W.; Werner, J. Acid Leaching of Rare Earth Elements from Coal and Coal Ash: Implications for Using
Fluidized Bed Combustion To Assist in the Recovery of Critical Materials. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 5971–5980. [CrossRef]
59. Honaker, R.Q.; Zhang, W.; Werner, J.; Noble, A.; Luttrell, G.H.; Yoon, R.H. Enhancement of a Process Flowsheet for Recovering
and Concentrating Critical Materials from Bituminous Coal Sources. Min. Metall. Explor. 2019, 37, 3–20. [CrossRef]
60. Alonso, E.; Sherman, A.M.; Wallington, T.J.; Everson, M.P.; Field, F.R.; Roth, R.; Kirchain, R.E. Evaluating rare earth element
availability: A case with revolutionary demand from clean technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3406–3414. [CrossRef]
61. Eggert, R.; Wadia, C.; Anderson, C.; Bauer, D.; Fields, F.; Meinert, L.; Taylor, P. Rare Earths: Market Disruption, Innovation, and
Global Supply Chains. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 199–222. [CrossRef]
62. Ponou, J.; Garrouste, M.; Dodbiba, G.; Fujita, T.; Ahn, J.-W. Sulfation–Roasting–Leaching–Precipitation Processes for Selective
Recovery of Erbium from Bottom Ash. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3461. [CrossRef]
63. Rumpf, H. Particle Technology; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1990.
64. Shapiro, M.; Galperin, V. Air classification of solid particles: A review. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2005, 44, 279–285.
[CrossRef]
65. Lanzerstorfer, C. Fly ash from coal combustion: Dependence of the concentration of various elements on the particle size. Fuel
2018, 228, 263–271. [CrossRef]
66. Lanzerstorfer, C. Pre-processing of coal combustion fly ash by classification for enrichment of rare earth elements. Energy Rep.
2018, 4, 660–663. [CrossRef]
67. Falconer, A. Gravity separation: Old technique/new methods. Phys. Sep. Sci. Eng. 1970, 12, 31–48. [CrossRef]
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 17 of 18

68. Manser, R.J.; Barley, R.W.; Wills, B.A. The shaking table concentrator—The influence of operating conditions and table parameters on
mineral separation—The development of a mathematical model for normal operating conditions. Miner. Eng. 1991, 4, 369–381. [CrossRef]
69. Dey, S. Enhancement in hydrophobicity of low-rank coal by surfactants—A critical overview. Fuel Process. Technol. 2012, 94,
151–158. [CrossRef]
70. Drzymala, J.; Gorke, J.T.; Wheelock, T.D. A Flotation Collector for the Separation of Unburned Carbon from Fly Ash. Coal Prep.
2005, 25, 67–80. [CrossRef]
71. Eisele, T.C.; Kawatra, S.K. Use of froth flotation to remove unburned carbon from fly ash. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 2002,
23, 1–10. [CrossRef]
72. Harris, T.; Wheelock, T.D. Process Conditions for the Separation of Carbon from Fly Ash by Froth Flotation. Int. J. Coal Prep. Util.
2008, 28, 133–152. [CrossRef]
73. Sivamohan, R. The problem of recovering very fine particles in mineral processing—A review. Int. J. Miner. Process. 1990, 28,
247–288. [CrossRef]
74. Walker, A.; Wheelock, T.D. Separation of Carbon from Fly Ash Using Froth Flotation. Coal Prep. 2006, 26, 235–250. [CrossRef]
75. Zhang, W.; Groppo, J.; Honaker, R. Ash Beneficiation for REE Recovery. In Proceedings of the World of Coal Ash (WOCA)
Conference, Nasvhille, TN, USA, 5–7 May 2015.
76. Zhang, W.; Rezaee, M.; Bhagavatula, A.; Li, Y.; Groppo, J.; Honaker, R. A Review of the Occurrence and Promising Recovery
Methods of Rare Earth Elements from Coal and Coal By-Products. Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. 2015, 35, 295–330. [CrossRef]
77. Gray, M.L.; Champagne, K.J.; Soong, Y.; Killmeyer, R.P.; Maroto-Valer, M.M.; Andrésen, J.M.; Ciocco, M.V.; Zandhuis, P.H. Physical
cleaning of high carbon fly ash. Fuel Process. Technol. 2002, 76, 11–21. [CrossRef]
78. Ashworth, R.A.; Rodriguez, L.A.; Padila, A.A.; Spake, N.B.; Bery, W.W.; Schmeda, R.A. Method for the Recovery of Minerals and
Production of By-Products from Coal Ash. U.S. Patent 4652433A, 24 March 1987.
79. Lin, R.; Howard, B.H.; Roth, E.A.; Bank, T.L.; Granite, E.J.; Soong, Y. Enrichment of rare earth elements from coal and coal
by-products by physical separations. Fuel 2017, 200, 506–520. [CrossRef]
80. Zhang, W.; Noble, A. Mineralogy characterization and recovery of rare earth elements from the roof and floor materials of the
Guxu coalfield. Fuel 2020, 270, 117533. [CrossRef]
81. Rozelle, P.L.; Khadilkar, A.B.; Pulati, N.; Soundarrajan, N.; Klima, M.S.; Mosser, M.M.; Miller, C.E.; Pisupati, S.V. A Study on
Removal of Rare Earth Elements from, U.S. Coal Byproducts by Ion Exchange. Metall. Mater. Trans. E 2016, 3, 6–17.
82. Cao, S.; Zhou, C.; Pan, J.; Liu, C.; Tang, M.; Ji, W.; Hu, T.; Zhang, N. Study on Influence Factors of Leaching of Rare Earth Elements
from Coal Fly Ash. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 8000–8005. [CrossRef]
83. Kumari, A.; Parween, R.; Chakravarty, S.; Parmar, K.; Pathak, D.D.; Lee, J.-C.; Jha, M.K. Novel approach to recover rare earth
metals (REMs) from Indian coal bottom ash. Hydrometallurgy 2019, 187, 1–7. [CrossRef]
84. Arrachart, G.; Couturier, J.; Dourdain, S.; Levard, C.; Pellet-Rostaing, S. Recovery of rare earth elements (REE) using ionic solvents.
Processes 2021, 9, 1202. [CrossRef]
85. Davris, P.; Balomenos, E.; Panias, D.; Paspaliaris, I. Selective Leaching of Rare Earth Elements from Bauxite Residue (Red Mud),
Using a Functionalized Hydrophobic Ionic Liquid. Hydrometallurgy 2016, 164, 125–135. [CrossRef]
86. Taggart, R.K.; Hower, J.C.; Hsu-Kim, H. Effects of roasting additives and leaching parameters on the extraction of rare earth
elements from coal fly ash. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2018, 196, 106–114. [CrossRef]
87. Yakaboylu, G.A.; Baker, D.; Wayda, B.; Sabolsky, K.; Zondlo, J.W.; Shekhawat, D.; Wildfire, C.; Sabolsky, E.M. Microwave-Assisted
Pretreatment of Coal Fly Ash for Enrichment and Enhanced Extraction of Rare-Earth Elements. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 12083–12095.
[CrossRef]
88. King, J.F.; Taggart, R.K.; Smith, R.C.; Hower, J.C.; Hsu-Kim, H. Aqueous acid and alkaline extraction of rare earth elements from
coal combustion ash. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2018, 195, 75–83. [CrossRef]
89. Manurung, H.; Rosita, W.; Bendiyasa, I.M.; Prasetya, A.; Anggara, F.; Astuti, W.; Djuanda, D.R.; Petrus, H.T.B.M. Recovery of rare
earth elements and yttrium from non-magnetic coal fly ash using acetic acid solution. Met. Indones. 2020, 42, 35–42. [CrossRef]
90. Uda, T.; Jacob, K.T.; Hirasawa, M. Technique for enhanced rare earth separation. Science 2000, 289, 2326–2329. [CrossRef]
91. Das, S.; Gaustad, G.; Sekar, A.; Williams, E. Techno-economic analysis of supercritical extraction of rare earth elements from coal
ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 539–551. [CrossRef]
92. Yaftian, M.R.; Burgard, M.; Dieleman, C.B.; Matt, D. Rare-earth metal-ion separation using a supported liquid membrane
mediated by a narrow rim phosphorylated calix [4]arene. J. Membr. Sci. 1998, 144, 57–64. [CrossRef]
93. Smith, R.C.; Taggart, R.K.; Hower, J.C.; Wiesner, M.R.; Hsu-Kim, H. Selective Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Fly Ash
Leachates Using Liquid Membrane Processes. Environ. Sci Technol. 2019, 53, 4490–4499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Jyothi, R.K.; Thenepalli, T.; Ahn, J.W.; Parhi, P.K.; Chung, K.W.; Lee, J.-Y. Review of rare earth elements recovery from secondary
resources for clean energy technologies: Grand opportunities to create wealth from waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122048.
[CrossRef]
95. Park, D.; Middleton, A.; Smith, R.; Deblonde, G.; Laudal, D.; Theaker, N.; Hsu-Kim, H.; Jiao, Y. A biosorption-based approach for
selective extraction of rare earth elements T from coal byproducts. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 241, 116726. [CrossRef]
96. Mondal, S.; Ghar, A.; Satpati, A.K.; Sinharoy, P.; Singh, D.K.; Sharma, J.N.; Sreenivas, T.; Kain, V. Recovery of rare earth elements
from coal fly ash using TEHDGA impregnated resin. Hydrometallurgy 2019, 185, 93–101. [CrossRef]
Recycling 2023, 8, 17 18 of 18

97. Chi, R.; Xu, Z. A solution chemistry approach to the study of rare earth element precipitation by oxalic acid. Metall. Mater. Trans.
B 1999, 30, 189–195. [CrossRef]
98. Anand Rao, K.; Ram, K.; Madhu Babu, J.; Rama Devi, G.; Sreenivas, T. Development of process scheme for recovery of rare earths
from leachate of coal flyash. Clean. Chem. Eng. 2022, 4, 100078.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.