Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 321, Issue 3, pp 955–963 | Cite as

Radiological assessment of the bauxite residue valorization chain

  • Andrei GoronovskiEmail author
  • Alan H. Tkaczyk


The behavior of radionuclides in the bauxite residue valorization chain has been analyzed, and accumulation ratios have been measured for secondary residues produced after recovery of valuable metals. Key analysis outcomes are valid specifically for the processes and raw materials in use at the Aluminium of Greece plant and are as follows: the processing of bauxite residue is unlikely to create secondary residues that would be hazardous from the radiological perspective, even if bauxite residue is processed successively multiple times to recover different metals. From a radiological perspective, there are no considerable limitations for the exploitation of specific BR for metal recovery. As some conclusions may be raw material or process dependent, future research could assess the possibility of applying these outcomes to other bauxite plants.


Bauxite residue Residue processing Natural radionuclides Natural radioactivity Gamma-ray spectroscopy 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020/2014–2019) under Grant Agreement No. 636876 (MSCA-ETN REDMUD). This publication reflects only the authors’ view, exempting the Community from any liability. Project website: The authors are grateful to B. Xakalashe, B. Friedrich, C. Bonomi, D. Panias, A. Dilipaltos, C. Cardenia, I. Paspaliaris, R. M. Rivera, T. Van Gerven, and P. T. Wai for providing residue samples and support in this work.

Supplementary material

10967_2019_6676_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)


  1. 1.
    Statiscal data published at the World Aluminium webpage. Accessed 21 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Evans K (2016) The history, challenges, and new developments in the management and use of bauxite residue. J Sustain Metall 2(4):316–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Power G, Gräfe M, Klauber C (2011) Bauxite residue issues: I. Current management, disposal and storage practices. Hydrometallurgy 108(1–2):33–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruyters S, Mertens J, Vassilieva E, Dehandschutter B, Poffijn A, Smolders E (2011) The red mud accident in Ajka (Hungary): plant toxicity and trace metal bioavailability in red mud contaminated soil. Environ Sci Technol 45(4):1616–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkler D, Bidló A, Bolodár-Varga B, Erdő Á, Horváth A (2018) Long-term ecological effects of the red mud disaster in Hungary: regeneration of red mud flooded areas in a contaminated industrial region. Sci Total Environ 644:1292–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frik E (2016) Major tailings dam burst reported in ChinaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raj RR, Pillai EBP, Santhakumar AR (2013) Evaluation and mix design for ternary blended high strength concrete. Proc Eng 51:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joyce PJ, Hertel T, Goronovski A, Tkaczyk AH, Pontikes Y, Björklund A (2018) Identifying hotspots of environmental impact in the development of novel inorganic polymer paving blocks from bauxite residue. Resour Conserv Recycl 138(April):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonomi C, Cardenia C, Yin PTW, Panias D (2016) Review of Technologies in the recovery of iron, aluminium, titanium and rare earth elements from bauxite residue (Red Mud) review of technologies in the recovery of iron, aluminium, titanium and rare earth elements from bauxite residue (Red Mud). In: 3rd international enhanced landfill mining Lisbon, Portugal, vol 4, pp 259–276Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IAEA (2003) Extent of environmental contamination by naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technological options for Mitigation, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Aluminium Institute (2015) Bauxite residue management: best practice. www.european-aluminium
  12. 12.
    Goronovski A, Vind J, Vassiliadou V, Panias D, Tkaczyk AH (2018) Radiological assessment of the Bayer process. Miner Eng 137:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozden B, Brennan C, Landsberger S (2019) Investigation of bauxite residue (red mud) in terms of its environmental risk. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 319(1):339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozden B, Brennan C, Landsberger S (2019) Environmental assessment of red mud by determining natural radionuclides using neutron activation analysis. Environ. Earth Sci. 78(4):114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cost network NORM4Building (2017) Naturally occurring radioactive materials in constructionGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EPA (2002) European waste catalogue and hazardous waste list. EPA, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Parliament (2014) Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom. Off J Eur Commun 13:1–73Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tam P, Yin W, Xakalashe B, Friedrich B, Panias D (2017) Carbothermic reduction of bauxite residue for iron recovery and subsequent aluminium recovery from slag leaching. In: 35th international ICSOBA conference Hamburg, Germany, pp 603–614Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruiz O, Clemente C, Alonso M, Alguacil FJ (2007) Recycling of an electric arc furnace flue dust to obtain high grade ZnO. J Hazard Mater 141(1):33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Araújo JA, Schalch V (2014) Recycling of electric arc furnace (EAF) dust for use in steel making process. J Mater Res Technol 3(3):274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cardenia C, Xakalashe B, Balomenos E, Panias D (2017) Reductive roasting process for the recovery of iron oxides from bauxite residue through rotary kiln furnace and magnetic separation. In: 35th international ICSOBA conference Hamburg, Germany, pp 595–602Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rivera RM, Ounoughene G, Borra CR, Binnemans K, Van Gerven T (2017) Neutralisation of bauxite residue by carbon dioxide prior to acidic leaching for metal recovery. Miner Eng 112(July):92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonomi C, Davris P, Balomenos E, Giannopoulou I (2017) Ionometallurgical leaching process of bauxite residue : a comparison between hydrophilic and hydrophobic ionic liquids. In: 35th international ICSOBA conference Hamburg, Germany, pp 557–564Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IAEA (1987) Preparation and certification of IAEA gamma-ray spectrometry reference materials RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1. Iaea-Rl-148, p 48Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vidmar T (2005) EFFTRAN—a Monte Carlo efficiency transfer code for gamma-ray spectrometry. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip 550(3):603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Currie LA (1968) Limits for qualitative detection and quantitative determination: application to radiochemistry. Anal Chem 40(3):586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Canberra (2006) Genie 2000 spectroscopy software—customization tools. No. 9233653FGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jia G (2013) The radiological impact of 210Pb and 210Po released from the iron- and steel-making plant ILVA in taranto (Italy) on the environment and the public. J Chem. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vind J, Vassiliadou V, Panias D (2017) Distribution of trace elements through the bayer process and its by-products. In: 35th international ICSOBA conference Hamburg, Germany, pp 255–267Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bonomi C, Alexandri A, Vind J, Panagiotopoulou A, Tsakiridis P, Panias D (2018) Scandium and titanium recovery from bauxite residue by direct leaching with a Brønsted acidic ionic liquid. Metals (Basel) 8(10):834CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhysicsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of TechnologyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations