ArticleScientific reports2026
Acid leaching process of an ultramafic mine tailing for indirect CO
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experimental Study on Indirect COACS omega · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extraction of divalent metals from ultramafic mine tailings for indirect CO₂ mineralization is a promising strategy for large-scale carbon sequestration. This study investigates the acid leaching process of an ultramafic nickel tailing, rich in magnesium silicates, using two different acids: hydrochloric acid and citric acid. The aim was to evaluate the leaching efficiency of key metals, including magnesium, calcium, and iron, under varying operational conditions. These conditions included acid concentration (0.5 to 2 mol/L), solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratio (0.01 to 0.5 g/mL), temperature (25 to 65 °C), and multi-stage leaching. The experimental results show that both acids are effective in leaching the target metals, but with differing efficiencies. HCl, being a strong acid, exhibited higher leaching efficiency, particularly for Mg and Fe, due to its complete dissociation and greater ability to break down the mineral structure. Citric acid, a weaker organic acid, demonstrated more moderate leaching efficiency, especially for Mg, with a relatively lower impact from increased acid concentrations. The efficiency of metal extraction in both systems decreased with higher S/L ratios, likely due to reduced surface area for leaching, and the formation of more viscous slurries that hindered the movement of the leachant. Temperature had a distinct effect on the two acid systems. In the HCl system, increasing temperature resulted in a decrease in leaching efficiency for some elements like manganese, nickel, and sulfur, likely due to precipitation or changes in the solubility of certain metal species. In contrast, in the citric acid system, elevated temperatures improved the leaching efficiency for elements such as Mg, Fe, and Mn, enhancing the complexation and solubility of metals. However, temperature had minimal effect on other elements that do not readily form stable complexes with citric acid. The findings highlight that both HCl and citric acid can be effectively used for the acid leaching step in indirect CO₂ mineralization, with HCl providing higher extraction efficiencies for faster leaching and broader applicability to various metals, while citric acid offers a more environmentally friendly, less corrosive alternative. The results provide valuable insights into optimizing the leaching conditions to improve the overall efficiency of indirect mineral carbonation, which could contribute to more sustainable mining practices and enhanced CO₂ sequestration technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.