The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Is zeolite 13X a potential sorbent for direct Li extraction?
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
Specific adsorbent materials with a porous structure and high affinity for lithium enable selective and efficient adsorption of lithium from brines even in the presence of interfering ions, followed by release during desorption.
“Specific adsorbent materials with a porous structure and high affinity for lithium (such as zeolites and clays) enable the selective and efficient adsorption of lithium from brines, even in the presence of interfering ions (e.g., Na + and Mg 2+ ), followed by its release during the desorption phase [37,51,66].”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The Goldschmidt abstract (page not given) reports lithium sorption by zeolite 13X and 94–100% lithium recovery using NaCl or sodium acetate solutions, supporting adsorption and desorption. It also says limited selectivity remains a challenge; it does not establish selective, efficient extraction in the presence of competing ions such as Mg²⁺, or address clays. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredZeolites are robust and stable, with recovery rates of 94-100% when using desorption solutions such as NaCl and CH3COONa.
“Zeolites are robust and stable, with recovery rates of 94-100% when using desorption solutions such as NaCl and CH3COONa.”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The results passage reports 94–100% lithium recovery using NaCl or CH3COONa solutions. It does not support an unqualified claim that zeolites are robust and stable: the study concerns zeolite 13X and reports dissolution under acid treatment and irreversible local lattice changes during lithium sorption. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAcids used in desorption may cause dealumination, reducing durability.
“However, acids used in desorption may cause dealumination, reducing durability [51,81].”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The abstract reports that acid treatment dissolves zeolite 13X, disqualifying acid solutions for desorption. It also reports irreversible local lattice changes from dealumination, but places that dealumination during Li sorption rather than attributing it to acids used in desorption. The durability concern is supported, but the stated mechanism is not. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredZeolite 13X exhibits effective adsorption capacity up to 20.3 mg/g, but improvements in selectivity and regenerability are needed.
“Zeolite 13X exhibits effective adsorption capacity (up to 20.3 mg/g), but improvements in selectivity and regenerability are needed.”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The abstract (no page given) reports a maximum Li sorption capacity of 20.3 mg/g for zeolite 13X powder and identifies limited selectivity as a challenge. It does not say regenerability needs improvement; instead, it reports full reversibility of Li sorption and desorption and 94–100% Li recovery with the specified solutions. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe ED process achieves lithium recovery rates of 94-100%.
“achieving lithium recovery rates of 94-100% [51].”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The paper reports lithium recovery of 94–100% using NaCl or CH₃COONa solutions. It investigates sorption and desorption with zeolite 13X, however, not an ED process, so the recovery figure is supported but its attribution to ED is not. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The study highlighted limitations for large-scale applications of 13X zeolite.
“However, the study also highlighted limitations for large-scale applications.”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The abstract identifies limited selectivity as a challenge that must be resolved before zeolite 13X can be used for future direct lithium extraction. It does not specifically assess large-scale applications, so that part of the claim goes beyond the source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReich et al. evaluated the potential of 13X zeolite as an adsorbent, demonstrating its capacity to adsorb up to 20.3 mg/g of lithium with high selectivity.
“For instance, Reich et al. [51] evaluated the potential of 13X zeolite as an adsorbent, demonstrating its capacity to adsorb up to 20.3 mg/g of lithium with high selectivity.”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The abstract reports a maximum lithium sorption capacity of 20.3 mg/g for 13X powder. It does not support the claim of high selectivity: its concluding passage says that challenges regarding limited selectivity remain. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGeothermal brines, with lithium concentrations of up to 480 mg/L, represent a promising alternative source of lithium, which could be efficiently extracted using A-DLE processes.
“Geothermal brines, with lithium concentrations of up to 480 mg/L, represent a promising alternative source of lithium, which could be efficiently extracted using A-DLE processes [51].”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The unpaginated abstract describes geothermal brines containing 0–480 mg/L Li as a promising alternative resource and reports lithium sorption and recovery using zeolite 13X. It does not establish efficient A-DLE extraction from geothermal brines; it calls the technique a future aim and says limited selectivity remains a challenge. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDLE completes a lithium concentration cycle in less than 24 hours, much faster than solar evaporation, which requires 12 to 18 months.
“DLE technologies, completing a lithium concentration cycle in less than 24 h, are significantly more efficient and less dependent on environmental conditions than solar evaporation, which requires 12 to 18 months [50-52].”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The abstract’s discussion of zeolite 13X reports lithium sorption and recovery results, but gives no duration for a DLE concentration cycle and makes no comparison with solar evaporation. Searches for the stated cycle times and for evaporation or efficiency found no relevant passage. The copy has no section or page labels. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA-DLE technologies reduce water consumption compared to solar evaporation.
“Furthermore, A-DLE technologies reduce water consumption compared to solar evaporation [51]”
From Pathways to Greener Primary Lithium Extraction for a Really Sustainable Energy Transition: Environmental Challenges and Pioneering Innovations (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The Goldschmidt abstract discusses lithium sorption by zeolite 13X and its potential for direct lithium extraction. It does not address water consumption or compare direct extraction with solar evaporation (searched for water use and evaporation). (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ruberti, M. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17010160 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Reich, R., Danisi, R., Kluge, T., Eiche, E., & Kolb, J.
- Venue
- Goldschmidt2023 abstracts
- Publisher
- European Association of Geochemistry
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 1042-7287 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4389563210
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- Goldschmidt Abstracts (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Metals and Alloys › Extraction and Separation Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Chemical Synthesis and Characterization
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Inorganic Chemistry › Zeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
- Keywords
- zeolite 13X, lithium recovery, sorbents, lithium sorption
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
