Lithium-mica ore primary resource
Natural lithium-bearing ore containing lithium micas together with other mineral phases. The 2020 curated experiment used crushed ore from Beauvoir, France, supplied by the University of Birmingham and called lepidolite by Sedlakova-Kadukova et al. Its initial XRD pattern was assigned to polylithionite, muscovite and kaolinite in supplementary Figure S2A. These are source-qualified assignments in a heterogeneous feed, not a certified pure polylithionite specimen or quantitative phase proportions. Lepidolite is series terminology, not an unambiguous mineral-species identifier. This extracted geological feed remains a primary resource, distinct from an individual mica species, elemental lithium, a processing waste or a purified lithium product. A separate 2025 experiment used a supplier-provided mixed feed called lepidolite, with mica, albite and quartz assignments and additional celadonite labels in its initial diffraction figure; no mine provenance or quantitative species composition was supplied. The two feeds are separate experiments within this resource category. No criticality designation or industrial deployment is inferred from its lithium content.
Microbial & Biochemical Mechanisms (4)
Medium-dependent acidophile-associated lithium mobilization from mixed ore
bioleaching
Microbial
Associated Organisms:
Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans (NCBITaxon:920), Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans (NCBITaxon:930)
A consortium cultured with sulfur in nutrient-poor acidic medium mobilized lithium from the Beauvoir feed over a prolonged laboratory incubation. The nutrient-rich bacterial treatment showed no lithium bioleaching in the authors' account. Acidification is consistent with an indirect acid-leaching contribution, but the experiment does not resolve each organism's causal role or establish exclusive proton control. Dissolved lithium and altered residue diffraction patterns do not demonstrate an isolated lithium product or selective dissolution of a single mineral species.
Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
The source names A. ferrooxidans SmolnikLC and A. thiooxidans SmolnikF, isolated from Smolnik copper-mine drainage; the taxon IDs identify species, not those strains. Cultures were adapted to ore for two months. Ball-milled feed was sieved below 150 micrometres, with approximately 75% below 100 micrometres, and loaded at 10 g/L. Duplicate 250 mL flasks contained 190 mL medium plus 10 mL adapted inoculum, at 30 degrees C without shaking. Poor medium was sulfuric acid initially at pH 3 with 5 g/L elemental sulfur; ore was added after culture acidification to pH 1.5. Rich medium contained inorganic nutrients, 44.2 g/L FeSO4.7H2O and 4 g/L sulfur. Same-medium uninoculated controls were reported, but pH trajectories were not held equal. Filtered 0.2 micrometre samples were assayed for lithium by AAS. Results and Figure 1B use an endpoint around 336 days, whereas Methods lists day 366 as the final sampling day; an exact reconciled duration is unavailable.
The source names A. ferrooxidans SmolnikLC and A. thiooxidans SmolnikF, isolated from Smolnik copper-mine drainage; the taxon IDs identify species, not those strains. Cultures were adapted to ore for two months. Ball-milled feed was sieved below 150 micrometres, with approximately 75% below 100 micrometres, and loaded at 10 g/L. Duplicate 250 mL flasks contained 190 mL medium plus 10 mL adapted inoculum, at 30 degrees C without shaking. Poor medium was sulfuric acid initially at pH 3 with 5 g/L elemental sulfur; ore was added after culture acidification to pH 1.5. Rich medium contained inorganic nutrients, 44.2 g/L FeSO4.7H2O and 4 g/L sulfur. Same-medium uninoculated controls were reported, but pH trajectories were not held equal. Filtered 0.2 micrometre samples were assayed for lithium by AAS. Results and Figure 1B use an endpoint around 336 days, whereas Methods lists day 366 as the final sampling day; an exact reconciled duration is unavailable.
Curated Evidence Points:
Support
Source:
sedlakova2020
Materials and methods, Bioleaching kinetics, Figure 1 and Figure 4B support a condition-dependent dissolved-lithium result: the poor bacterial medium reached a reported 11 mg/L and a reported 8.8% feed-lithium extraction, while nutrient-rich bacterial medium showed no bioleaching. The authors report no lithium found in uninoculated controls; no analytical detection limit or full control concentration series is supplied, so this is not an exact-zero measurement. These observations support this assay, not a universal advantage of bacterial leaching or nutrient starvation.
Partial
Source:
sedlakova2020
Figure 3 and the pH discussion show unlike culture and control pH histories, without matched-acidity or cell-free spent-medium controls. Sulfuric-acid action and individual bacterial roles are proposed explanations. Figure 2 is a shrinking-core-model fit, not independent proof of a reaction pathway. Its plotted transformed ordinate begins near 0.667, and the paper does not supply a reproducible normalization resolving that offset; no fitted rate constant or claimed 400-fold kinetic gain is adopted here. Methods gives 1.21% elemental Li by AAS, whereas Table 1 gives 3.79% Li2O, approximately 1.76% elemental Li by stoichiometry. That unresolved feed-assay discrepancy prevents treating the reported percentage as an independently verified mass balance; it is retained as the authors' result only.
Partial
Source:
sedlakova2020
Supplementary Figure S2A assigns the initial ore to polylithionite, muscovite and kaolinite. Panel B assigns the bacterial residue to polylithionite, kaolinite and sulfur and omits a muscovite reference pattern, consistent with the authors' description. The panels have different count scales, no quantitative phase analysis and no matched uninoculated residue pattern. Reference labels include non-ideal formulas, and the yeast panel has two different polylithionite-labelled references. Neither the labels nor peak-intensity differences establish pure endmembers, complete phase removal or a mineral-specific lithium yield.
Fungal culture-associated lithium mobilization and biomass association
bioleaching
Microbial
Associated Organisms:
Aspergillus niger (NCBITaxon:5061)
A. niger cultivation on the same Beauvoir mixed ore produced low lithium mobilization, with much of the assayed extracted lithium in the harvested biomass fraction. Hyphae attached to and associated with cleavages in mineral particles. Organic-acid action and mechanical weathering are plausible interpretations, but acid identities, intracellular localization and their individual contributions were not directly established. This is a separate fungal flask assay, not the first stage of a demonstrated sequential recovery process.
Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
The authors identify strain An-S from the acidified Sobov site and report ISB collection number 1674; no strain-level identifier is assigned here. In duplicate 250 mL flasks, 2 g of the same milled ore was added to 200 mL glucose 5 g/L and (NH4)2SO4 0.5 g/L medium, adjusted initially to pH 5.1, with 5 mL of eight-day-old conidial culture. Medium and mineral were autoclaved at 120 degrees C for 20 minutes. Incubation was static at 21 degrees C. Methods lists sampling through day 41 and paired uninoculated media. AAS was used on filtered liquid; harvested biomass was washed, air-dried, incinerated at 500 degrees C for four hours and digested in 2 M HCl. The paper's figures and prose use different endpoint descriptions, so approximately forty-day results are not assigned a fabricated exact common endpoint across organisms.
The authors identify strain An-S from the acidified Sobov site and report ISB collection number 1674; no strain-level identifier is assigned here. In duplicate 250 mL flasks, 2 g of the same milled ore was added to 200 mL glucose 5 g/L and (NH4)2SO4 0.5 g/L medium, adjusted initially to pH 5.1, with 5 mL of eight-day-old conidial culture. Medium and mineral were autoclaved at 120 degrees C for 20 minutes. Incubation was static at 21 degrees C. Methods lists sampling through day 41 and paired uninoculated media. AAS was used on filtered liquid; harvested biomass was washed, air-dried, incinerated at 500 degrees C for four hours and digested in 2 M HCl. The paper's figures and prose use different endpoint descriptions, so approximately forty-day results are not assigned a fabricated exact common endpoint across organisms.
Curated Evidence Points:
Support
Source:
sedlakova2020
Figure 1A, Figure 4 and Li distribution/Bioleaching efficiency report a 0.2% extraction from the feed, combining dissolved and biomass-associated lithium; 77% of that extracted lithium was assigned to the biomass fraction. The 77% is not a fraction of initial ore lithium or an isolated-product yield. Reported uninoculated non-detection and lower culture pH support a culture-associated outcome, subject to the unspecified detection limit and the shared Table 1 versus AAS feed-composition conflict.
Partial
Source:
sedlakova2020
Supplementary Figure S1 shows hyphae on and within apparent particle cleavages. Figure S2C includes source-assigned quartz with mica and kaolinite references, which the text interprets as a changed residue. These images do not quantify mechanical dissolution or prove de novo quartz precipitation; no quantitative mineral mass balance or matched sterile residue XRD is supplied. Figure 3 shows acidification but individual organic acids were not measured. Biomass digestion does not distinguish intracellular lithium from surface-bound lithium or fine mineral carryover; no killed-biomass control or localization assay resolves those alternatives. The proposed fungal-then-bacterial sequence and extraction of lithium from biomass were not demonstrated.
Yeast culture-associated lithium mobilization and biomass partitioning
bioleaching
Microbial
Associated Organisms:
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa (NCBITaxon:5537)
R. mucilaginosa cultivation with the Beauvoir mixed ore yielded lithium in solution and in a harvested biomass fraction. The rich medium promoted greater biomass-associated lithium than the poor medium in the authors' account. Solution decline and biomass digestion support partitioning to harvested material but do not alone prove intracellular bioaccumulation, a specific uptake pathway or isolated lithium recovery. Comparisons with the fungal and bacterial assays are confounded by medium, temperature, agitation and duration.
Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
The source identifies CCY 20-1-36, called R. mucilaginosa and formerly R. rubra; the verified NCBI identifier is at species rank. Five-day precultures were added to 200 mL media with 10 g/L ore in 250 mL flasks. Rich medium contained glucose 20, KH2PO4 5, (NH4)2SO4 5, MgSO4 0.34 and yeast extract 7 g/L; poor medium contained glucose 5 and (NH4)2SO4 0.5 g/L. Media started at pH 5.1 and were autoclaved before inoculation. The source states 21 degrees C and duplicate experiments with uninoculated controls. Methods and figure captions specify shaking at 160 rpm, but Methods also says statically; this conflict is unresolved. Sampling is listed through day 59, while plotted comparisons show shorter series. Supernatant was centrifuged and assayed by AAS; harvested biomass was dried, incinerated and acid-digested for lithium measurement.
The source identifies CCY 20-1-36, called R. mucilaginosa and formerly R. rubra; the verified NCBI identifier is at species rank. Five-day precultures were added to 200 mL media with 10 g/L ore in 250 mL flasks. Rich medium contained glucose 20, KH2PO4 5, (NH4)2SO4 5, MgSO4 0.34 and yeast extract 7 g/L; poor medium contained glucose 5 and (NH4)2SO4 0.5 g/L. Media started at pH 5.1 and were autoclaved before inoculation. The source states 21 degrees C and duplicate experiments with uninoculated controls. Methods and figure captions specify shaking at 160 rpm, but Methods also says statically; this conflict is unresolved. Sampling is listed through day 59, while plotted comparisons show shorter series. Supernatant was centrifuged and assayed by AAS; harvested biomass was dried, incinerated and acid-digested for lithium measurement.
Curated Evidence Points:
Support
Source:
sedlakova2020
Figures 1A and 4 and the Li distribution/Bioleaching efficiency sections report early dissolved lithium, followed by a lower liquid concentration, and a total reported extraction of 1.1% from ore in the rich-medium assay. The reported 92% in biomass is a share of the extracted lithium, not 92% extraction from the feed. The text attributes higher total extraction in rich medium to greater biomass formation; the report does not establish equal-condition superiority over another organism.
Partial
Source:
sedlakova2020
Centrifugation and digestion of a harvested fraction do not distinguish intracellular uptake from surface retention or entrained solids, particularly without killed-biomass controls. Figure 3's yeast curve rises again at its last plotted point, whereas the prose ends its description near pH 3.5; no exact final pH is selected here. Supplementary Figure S2D shows a changed mixed-residue pattern, but unmatched scales, unquantified phase assignments and missing sterile-residue XRD prevent a species-specific transformation claim. The feed-assay and incubation-description conflicts also limit quantitative comparison. Downstream recovery and sequential microbial processing remain proposals rather than performed operations.
Community-associated lithium mobilization from mechanically activated mixed ore
bioleaching
Microbial
An acidophilic microbial community incubated with mechanically activated mixed lithium-mica feed produced higher dissolved-lithium concentrations than the reported abiotic arm, with the pyrite-supplemented culture highest in the source's comparisons. Grinding and acidic chemical leaching also contributed. The evidence supports a laboratory culture-associated result, without resolving organism-specific action, a pure mica-species response or an isolated lithium product. The authors' combined percentage calculation includes a subsequent hydrochloric-acid extraction of residues and is not a direct biological recovery yield.
Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
Li et al. used lepidolite supplied by Central South University, Changsha, with no reported mine provenance; its initial mixed phase assignments do not identify a pure polylithionite or trilithionite. A separate pyrite feed was added to the eutrophic arm. Ore sieved to 38-74 micrometres was milled in stainless-steel equipment at 200 rpm, ball-to-material mass ratio 20:1, for 0-150 minutes. Three parallel 250 mL flasks per group contained 100 mL 9K basal medium initially at pH 2.0, 10 g/L ore, and either 10 g/L added pyrite in eutrophic cultures or no added pyrite in oligotrophic cultures. Washed mid-log community inocula started at 5 x 10^7 cells/mL; incubation was 45 degrees C, 180 rpm for 14 days, with sampling every two days and daily evaporation replacement. The community came from the Dabaoshan sulfide-mining area and was adapted to lepidolite plus pyrite. Its 16S-based labels, including unclassified Leptospirillum and Acidithiobacillus caldus, do not establish authenticated strains or individual causal contributions; no strain or taxon identifier is asserted for this community. Methods describes sterile controls without pyrite, but Figure 2 depicts pyrite in that arm and Figures 9 and S5 label pyrite peaks in its residues. The actual control composition is unresolved.
Li et al. used lepidolite supplied by Central South University, Changsha, with no reported mine provenance; its initial mixed phase assignments do not identify a pure polylithionite or trilithionite. A separate pyrite feed was added to the eutrophic arm. Ore sieved to 38-74 micrometres was milled in stainless-steel equipment at 200 rpm, ball-to-material mass ratio 20:1, for 0-150 minutes. Three parallel 250 mL flasks per group contained 100 mL 9K basal medium initially at pH 2.0, 10 g/L ore, and either 10 g/L added pyrite in eutrophic cultures or no added pyrite in oligotrophic cultures. Washed mid-log community inocula started at 5 x 10^7 cells/mL; incubation was 45 degrees C, 180 rpm for 14 days, with sampling every two days and daily evaporation replacement. The community came from the Dabaoshan sulfide-mining area and was adapted to lepidolite plus pyrite. Its 16S-based labels, including unclassified Leptospirillum and Acidithiobacillus caldus, do not establish authenticated strains or individual causal contributions; no strain or taxon identifier is asserted for this community. Methods describes sterile controls without pyrite, but Figure 2 depicts pyrite in that arm and Figures 9 and S5 label pyrite peaks in its residues. The actual control composition is unresolved.
Curated Evidence Points:
Support
Source:
li2025
Sections 2.2.3-2.2.4, 3.2 and original Figure 6d show direct leachate lithium concentrations increasing with activation, and higher concentrations in the culture arms than the abiotic arm at corresponding activation durations. The pyrite culture is highest in the plotted comparisons. ICP-OES measures total elemental lithium in the sampled solution, not free-ion speciation. Figures 3-5 document changed particle morphology and diffraction after grinding. These comparisons support the measured laboratory response, without a quantified isolated product, industrial deployment or demonstrated process economics.
Partial
Source:
li2025
The sterile-arm pyrite discrepancy between Methods and original Figures 2, 9 and S5 prevents assuming a matched pyrite control. Figure 6a also shows markedly different pH histories: initial pH was shared, but acidity was not held equal. No matched-acidity, killed-cell or cell-free metabolite comparison separates the effects of acidification, live cells and added pyrite. Initial feed XRD Figure 1 includes celadonite labels omitted from its accompanying main-phase list; no quantitative phase analysis resolves which mica supplied the lithium. Sample-withdrawal volumes and a complete sampling mass balance are not supplied.
Partial
Source:
li2025
Sections 2.2.6-2.2.7, Equation 1, Figure 7 and original Figure S1 distinguish the initial leachate from freeze-dried residues treated with 1 M HCl for 24 hours. Equation 1 adds direct solution lithium to the difference between acid-treated culture and sterile residues. HCl can dissolve remaining feed as well as associated material, so that difference does not selectively measure EPS-bound or secondary-mineral lithium. The printed denominator defines feed lithium content in mg/L multiplied by ore mass in grams, a dimensionally inconsistent definition that is not silently corrected here. Section 2.1.2 reports 3.20% Li and 5.05% Al by ICP-MS, whereas Equation 1 attributes feed lithium to XRF and Table S1 contains no Li cell and gives 26.35% Al2O3. These unresolved assay and denominator issues prevent an independently reconstructed extraction percentage.
Partial
Source:
li2025
Section 3.6 and Figure 11 report 11.3%, 20.8% and 24.9% for sterile, oligotrophic and eutrophic arms after 150-minute activation, whereas Conclusions reports 11.3%, 16.75% and 19.24%. No reconciled percentage is adopted. The Figure 7 bars and adjacent prose also differ for acid-treated sterile and oligotrophic residues. Neither those acid-extraction values nor the combined percentages are presented here as direct microbial recovery. The claimed threefold comparison with the 2020 study also uses a 41-day duration that does not describe its prolonged bacterial arm; unlike feeds, conditions and analytical fractions preclude that pooled performance claim.
Partial
Source:
li2025
Figures 8-10, S3-S5 and Tables S2-S3 support cell-associated surfaces, altered mixed residues, community profiles and lithium in an operational thermal extract. Jarosite assignments in eutrophic residues and lithium in the extract do not establish lithium incorporation in a specific mineral lattice, intracellular uptake or a quantitative EPS-binding mechanism. Extraction at 80 degrees C and the source's cell-disruption description do not isolate pure extracellular polymer. Table S3 reports lithium in micrograms per litre, not milligrams per litre. Figure 12 is a proposed mechanism diagram; sequencing shifts, microscopy and FTIR alone do not establish the separate causal steps or a mineral-specific mass balance.
Sources & References
-
sedlakova2020: Sedlakova-Kadukova, Marcincakova, Luptakova, Vojtko, Fujda and Pristas (2020). Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite. Scientific Reports 10:14594. DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-71596-5. Complete eight-page publisher PDF, Materials and methods, Figures 1-4, Table 1 and Results and discussion; original five-page supplementary PDF, Figures S1 and S2A-D.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71596-5 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
mica_nomenclature1998: Rieder et al. (1998). Nomenclature of the micas. Clays and Clay Minerals 46(5):586-595. DOI 10.1346/CCMN.1998.0460513. Table 4, printed page 589, treats lepidolite as a series on or near the trilithionite- polylithionite join; this does not identify the composition of every ore sold or described as lepidolite.
https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1998.0460513 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
ncbi_ferrooxidans: NCBI Taxonomy 920, Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, species-rank identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=920 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
ncbi_thiooxidans: NCBI Taxonomy 930, Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, species-rank identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=930 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
ncbi_niger: NCBI Taxonomy 5061, Aspergillus niger, species-rank identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=5061 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
ncbi_mucilaginosa: NCBI Taxonomy 5537, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, species-rank identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=5537 (accessed 2026-10-12) -
li2025: Li, Wang, Zhang, Liu, Huang, Liu, Liao, Vardanyan, Xia and Wang (2025). Enhanced Leaching of Lepidolite by Acidophilic Microorganisms Under Mechanical Activation. Microorganisms 13(2):415. DOI 10.3390/microorganisms13020415. Complete 23-page publisher PDF, Sections 2-4 and original Figures 1-12; original four-page supplement, Figures S1-S6 and Tables S1-S3, obtained through official PMC Cloud version PMC11858582.1 with deposited object checksums verified.
https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13020415 (accessed 2026-10-12)
Curation History
| Timestamp | Curator | Action | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-12T02:37:16Z |
codex (GPT-6; codex) | CREATE | Created a distinct natural mixed lithium-mica ore resource from complete primary and supplementary evidence, separating three microbial assay arms, preserving control/null/phase/assay conflicts and excluding mineral-specific yields, inherited criticality and industrial claims. |
2026-10-12T03:21:37Z |
codex (GPT-6; codex) | EDIT | Added a separate mechanically activated mixed-feed community assay from complete 2025 primary and supplementary evidence. Preserved direct-solution versus post-HCl fractions, pyrite-control ambiguity, inconsistent percentage and denominator definitions, and phase and community limits without changing the three existing 2020 mechanisms. |
Record source: data/records/lithium-mica-ore.yaml