Ores of similar bulk composition can respond very differently to reductive leaching, which complicates Co recovery from Mn–Co laterites. Three goethite-dominated laterites (L1–L3) were leached in concentrated nitric acid at 110 °C with and without Fe 2+ or NO 2 − . Based on a series of characterisations, the ores followed three distinct mechanisms. L1 was matrix-assisted: its nanocrystalline goethite matrix (13–22 nm crystallites) dissolved almost completely, releasing ∼ 76 % of the Co without added reductant. L2 was poorly responsive: Co extraction rose only from ∼ 20 % to 65–70 % with either reductant, and its phyllomanganate reflections persisted. L3 was reductant-responsive: Co extraction rose from ∼ 40 % to 82–85 %, and its phyllomanganate reflections were strongly attenuated. This contrast arose although L2 and L3 had nearly identical surface areas, Fe extraction changed little on reductant addition, and Co K-edge HERFD-XAS showed the same Co(III)-bearing phyllomanganate environment in all three feeds. After leaching, 88–100 % of the residual Co remained in this environment, so incomplete recovery reflects surviving host domains rather than a new Co phase. Mn K-edge XANES showed that the two reductants act by different routes: a reduced Mn(II,III) component (24–36 %) accumulated in every NO 2 − -assisted residue, against 0–15 % in the Fe 2+ -assisted and reductant-free residues. Co recovery is therefore governed by the reactivity of the Fe matrix and the reductive lability of the Mn–Co host, not by bulk composition or surface area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: