4.7 Article

Structural effects of neutral organophosphorus extractants on solvent extraction of rare-earth elements from aqueous and non-aqueous nitrate solutions

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117711

关键词

Ethylene glycol; Organic solvents; Rare earths; Solvent extraction; Solvometallurgy

资金

  1. Senior FWO Postdoctoral Fellowship [181203/12ZI920N]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [694078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The extraction efficiency of rare-earth elements is related to the basicity of the extractant molecules; extractants with longer alkyl chains exhibit higher metal extraction efficiencies; extraction from ethylene glycol solutions is more effective than from aqueous solutions.
A series of neutral organophosphorus extractants, comprising phosphine oxides, phosphinates, phosphonates and phosphates with linear and branched alkyl chains have been synthesized. Together with some similar commercial extractants, the performance of these new compounds in the extraction of Nd(III) and Dy(III) from both aqueous nitrate and non-aqueous ethylene glycol nitrate solutions was investigated. It was observed that: (1) the order of extraction efficiency of the rare-earth elements is the same as the basicity (electronegativity) of the extractant molecules: phosphine oxide > phosphinate > phosphonate > phosphate; (2) the same type of extractants with longer alkyl chains show higher metal extraction efficiencies, and branched chains hamper the extraction; (3) extraction from ethylene glycol solutions give higher separation factors for all types of neutral organophosphorus extractants than the corresponding aqueous solutions; and finally (4) phosphinates and phosphonates are more promising extractants than phosphine oxides and phosphates for separation of Nd(III) and Dy(III) by solvent extraction from ethylene glycol solutions. These results are useful for the development of more efficient and more selective new extractants and separation processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据