CMMMech
CMMMech > Primary resource > Ludwigite boron-iron ore

Ludwigite boron-iron ore primary resource

Ludwigite ore denotes a heterogeneous boron-bearing iron ore or its beneficiated boron-iron concentrate, represented here by the mixed geological feed used by Liang et al. (2024). It is not the mineral species ludwigite, elemental boron or iron, a borates commodity specification, or the secondary residue left after processing. The experimental substrate for water leaching was a soda-ash-roasted derivative of that concentrate; its altered composition must not be assigned to the original ore. The paper's Table 2 reports 5.12 wt% B2O3 and 58.23 wt% total iron in this reduced feed, and Figure 9 identifies metallic iron, sodium magnesium silicate, sodium silicate and magnesium-ferrous oxide. Its bulk-feed result cannot establish which individual original boron mineral supplied the dissolved boron. The exact mine/sample identifier and original batch mineral proportions are not established in the inspected 2024 article, which refers to earlier work for the ore characterization. No constituent's criticality designation is transferred to this resource.

Microbial & Biochemical Mechanisms (1)

Water leaching of boron from soda-ash-roasted ore concentrate

separation

Laboratory reduction roasting with sodium carbonate followed by hot-water leaching produced substantial author-reported transfer of boron from the mixed activated feed into the leachate. X-ray diffraction of an evaporated leachate identified sodium metaborate dihydrate together with sodium carbonate monohydrate, supporting soluble borate formation but not a pure isolated-product yield. The fitted diffusion interpretation is not treated as direct proof of an elementary dissolution mechanism, and no mineral-specific extraction percentage is inferred from the bulk-feed outcome.

Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
Sodium carbonate was added at 20% of the boron-iron concentrate mass; pellets were dried, roasted at 1050 degrees C for 60 min, cooled and ground. The 2024 methods do not specify the roast gas composition or flow. Leaching used a laboratory DY-8 autoclave. The reported best result was 93.71% boron leaching after 6 h at 180 degrees C, liquid-to-solid ratio 8 mL/g and representative feed size 52.31 micrometres. The paper calls this an average size while section 3.2.4 defines its representative measurement as D50. Section 3.2.2 explicitly omits the detailed leach procedure and percentage calculation; exact analytical denominator, sampling protocol and replication/uncertainty are therefore not reconstructed here. A prior study's different soda-ash dose or atmosphere is not assumed for this batch. These are abiotic laboratory experiments, with no demonstrated microbial contribution or industrial operation.
Curated Evidence Points:
Section 2.1.3/Figure 3 p. 5 and conclusion 1 p. 15 report 93.71% under the stated conditions; Table 1 p. 11 confirms mL/g for the liquid-to-solid ratios. Table 2 and Figure 9 p. 14 describe the transformed feed, not untreated ore. Figures 1-3 show the temperature, liquid-to-solid and size comparisons, without a reported statistical uncertainty for the selected percentage. This supports the bounded reported leaching outcome, not an independently reconstructed balance.
Figure 4 p. 6 instead uses representative feed size 60.16 micrometres at 180 degrees C, 6 h and 8 mL/g. Its evaporated leachate contains NaBO2·2H2O and Na2CO3·H2O; the residue retains iron, MgO and ferroan forsterite. This separate arm does not establish the product purity or isolated yield for the 52.31-micrometre best-result arm. Figure 5 p. 7 compares different SEM magnifications and a 60-min leach residue, rather than a matched 6-h quantitative porosity measurement.
Source conflicts limit stronger quantitative or kinetic claims. Section 2.1.1 p. 3 reports 72.01% and 72.39% at 40 and 60 degrees C after 6 h, yet then describes boron at 40-80 degrees C as completely unextractable; Figure 1 p. 4 shows substantial nonzero extraction. Sections 2.3.1 and 3.2.1 describe a 0-74-micrometre or fully undersize feed, whereas Figure 3 and Table 1 include a representative size of 92.94 micrometres. Equation 4 p. 9 has a negative outer exponent, but Equation 11 p. 14 and conclusion 3 p. 16 print a positive outer coefficient, which would yield negative leaching fractions for positive parameters and time. The printed final equation is not used for predictions or silently corrected. The reported 8.812 kJ/mol apparent activation energy is a fitted result; it does not independently establish diffusion as the unique rate-controlling process.

Sources & References

  1. liang2024: Liang B, Hu H, Xiao B, Lu Z, Yuan W and Huang Z (2024), Water Leaching Kinetics of Boron from the Alkali-Activated Ludwigite Ore, Molecules 29(4), 826, DOI 10.3390/molecules29040826; PMID 38398578, PMCID PMC10893144. Complete 18-page publisher PDF and Europe PMC full-text XML acquired; the latter is another representation of the same study. Parameter comparisons sections 2.1.1-2.1.3 and Figures 1-3 pp. 3-5; product/residue Figures 4-6 pp. 6-8; fitted model section 2.3 and Table 1 pp. 9-14; reduced feed Table 2/Figure 9 p. 14; methods sections 3.1-3.2 pp. 14-15; conclusions pp. 15-16. Detailed leach calculation is explicitly delegated to the 2017 study DOI 10.1016/j.hydromet.2016.11.004, whose complete original was not acquired.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29040826 (accessed 2026-10-16)

Curation History

Timestamp Curator Action Summary
2026-10-16T00:37:20.423901Z codex (GPT-6; codex) CREATE Created a distinct mixed ludwigite-ore resource owner and bounded abiotic roast-water-leach evidence, preserving product-mixture, analytical-method, particle-size, low-temperature and model limits.

Record source: data/records/ludwigite-ore.yaml