Cited by 293Extraction and Separation ProcessesLayered Double Hydroxides Synthesis and ApplicationsChemical Synthesis and Characterization

Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brine with Lithium-Aluminum Layered Double Hydroxide Chloride Sorbents

Open access
Paranthaman, Mariappan Parans, Li, Ling, Luo, Jiaqi, Hoke, Thomas, Ucar, Huseyin, Moyer, Bruce A., Harrison, Stephen·2017·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

We report a three-stage bench-scale column extraction process to selectively extract lithium chloride from geothermal brine. The goal of this research is to develop materials and processing technologies to improve the economics of lithium extraction and production from naturally occurring geothermal and other brines for energy storage applications. A novel sorbent, lithium aluminum layered double hydroxide chloride (LDH), is synthesized and characterized with X-ray powder diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), and thermogravimetric analysis. Each cycle of the column extraction process consists of three steps: (1) loading the sorbent with lithium chloride from brine; (2) intermediate washing to remove unwanted ions; (3) final washing for unloading the lithium chloride ions. Our experimental analysis of eluate vs feed concentrations of Li and competing ions demonstrates that our optimized sorbents can achieve a recovery efficiency of ∼91% and possess excellent Li apparent selectivity of 47.8 compared to Na ions and 212 compared to K ions, respectively in the brine. The present work demonstrates that LDH is an effective sorbent for selective extraction of lithium from brines, thus offering the possibility of effective application of lithium salts in lithium-ion batteries leading to a fundamental shift in the lithium supply chain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.7b03464

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Al-LDH extraction technology demonstrated an approximated percent recovery of 91% and a high selectivity of Li+ compared to competing ions Na+ and K+ at 47.87 and 212 selectivity, respectively.

    “The Al-LDH extraction technology demonstrated an approximated percent recovery of 91% and a high selectivity of Li + compared to competing ions Na + and K + at 47.87 and 212 selectivity, respectively.”

    From A review of technologies for direct lithium extraction from low Li+ concentration aqueous solutions (2022) · cites this paper as Paranthaman et al. (2017)

    The Load Wash Strip section reports lithium recovery approaching 91%, and Table 1 gives selectivity values of 47.8 over Na and 212.0 over K for bed volumes 13–16. The claim’s 47.87 value for Na does not match the reported 47.8. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The aluminum Al-LDH (Li:Al ratio 1:3) sorbent selectively precipitated LiCl from geothermal brine with an initial Li+ concentration of 360 ppm.

    “The aluminum Al-LDH (Li:Al ratio 1:3) sorbent selectively precipitated LiCl from geothermal brine with an initial Li + concentration of 360 ppm.”

    From A review of technologies for direct lithium extraction from low Li+ concentration aqueous solutions (2022) · cites this paper as Paranthaman et al. (2017)

    The Sorbent synthesis section describes a Li:Al = 1:3 LDH, and Bench scale column extraction reports selective LiCl recovery from simulated geothermal brine, with lithium concentration reaching 360 mg/L at breakthrough. But the column setup specifies that the sorbent used had a Li:Al ratio of 1:1.25, not 1:3. The extraction section describes LiCl intercalating into the sorbent, not precipitating. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Paranthaman et al. developed a three-step system using LDHs for the selective extraction of lithium from geothermal brines, achieving a lithium recovery efficiency of up to 91%.

    “Similarly, Paranthaman et al. [175] developed a three-step system using LDHs for the selective extraction of lithium from geothermal brines, achieving a lithium recovery efficiency of up to 91%.”
  • The load-wash-elution cycle of Al-LDH does not produce secondary waste.

    “Additionally, the load-washelution cycle does not produce secondary waste, an important consideration for environmental contamination and land use.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [6]6. Neupane, G.; Wendt, D. S. Assessment of Mineral Resources in Geothermal Brines in the US; Proceedings of 42nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California. , 2017.
  2. [10]10. Chitrakar, R.; Kanoh, H.; Miyai, Y.; Ooi, K., Recovery of Lithium from Seawater Using Manganese Oxide Adsorbent (H1.6Mn1.6O4) Derived from Li1.6Mn1.6O4. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2001, 40 (9), 2054-2058.
  3. [12]12. Chitrakar, R.; Makita, Y.; Ooi, K.; Sonoda, A., Lithium recovery from salt lake brine by H2TiO3. Dalton Transactions 2014, 43 (23), 8933-8939.
  4. [16]16. Cl•H2O Using Synchrotron X-ray and Neutron Powder Diffraction. Chemistry of Materials 1997, 9 (1), 241-247.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paranthaman, M. P., Li, L., Luo, J., Hoke, T., Ucar, H., Moyer, B. A., & Harrison, S.
Affiliations
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • Rakehill Technologies, LLC, Benicia, California 94510, United States
Corresponding author
Paranthaman, Mariappan Parans
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2017-11-09
Volume
51
Issue
22
Pages
13481-13486
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2765205446
Cited by
293
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Layered Double Hydroxides Synthesis and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Chemical Synthesis and Characterization
Keywords
lithium recovery, geothermal brine, lithium aluminum layered double hydroxide, column extraction, selective ion extraction, lithium chloride, lithium-ion batteries, lithium supply chain, brine desalination
MeSH terms
Aluminum, Aluminum Hydroxide, Lithium, Salts, Lithium Chloride

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review