# Rare Earth Elements in Phosphate Ores and Industrial By-Products: Geochemical Behavior, Environmental Risks, and Recovery Potential

Nourhen Omri, Radhia Souissi, Fouad Souissi, Christine Gleyzes, Noureddine Zaaboub, Houyem Abderrazak, Olivier F X Donard, Larbi Rddad

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Nourhen Omri, Radhia Souissi, Fouad Souissi, Christine Gleyzes, Noureddine Zaaboub, et al., Rare Earth Elements in Phosphate Ores and Industrial By-Products: Geochemical Behavior, Environmental Risks, and Recovery Potential. Minerals, 2025, 15 (12), pp.1232. 10.3390/min15121232. hal-05459563

HAL Id: hal-05459563

https://hal.science/hal-05459563v1

Submitted on 15 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Review

# Rare Earth Elements in Phosphate Ores and Industrial By-Products: Geochemical Behavior, Environmental Risks, and Recovery Potential

Nourhen Omri<sup>1,2,3,*</sup> <sup>15</sup>, Radhia Souissi<sup>2</sup>, Fouad Souissi<sup>3</sup>, Christine Gleyzes<sup>4</sup>, Noureddine Zaaboub<sup>5</sup>, Houyem Abderrazak<sup>2</sup>, Olivier F. X. Donard<sup>1</sup> and Larbi Rddad<sup>6,*</sup> <sup>15</sup>

## Abstract

Phosphate rock is a vital natural resource classified by the European Commission as a critical raw material (CRM), extensively mined for its agricultural, industrial, and technological applications. While primarily used in fertilizer production, phosphate deposits also contain significant concentrations of trace metals, notably rare earth elements (REE), which are essential for renewable energy, electronics, and defense technologies. In response to growing demand, the recovery of REE from phosphate ores and processing by-products, particularly phosphogypsum (PG), has gained international attention. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the global phosphate industry, examining production trends, market dynamics, and the environmental implications of phosphate processing. Special focus is placed on the geochemical behavior and mineralogical associations of REE within phosphate ores and industrial residues, namely PG and purification sludge. Although often treated as waste, these by-products represent underexplored secondary resources for REE recovery. Technological advancements in hydrometallurgical, solvometallurgical, and bioleaching methods have demonstrated promising recovery efficiencies, with some pilot-scale studies exceeding 70%-80%. However, large-scale implementation remains limited due to economic, technical, and regulatory constraints. The circular economy framework offers a pathway to enhance resource efficiency and reduce environmental impact. By integrating innovative extraction technologies, strengthening regulatory oversight, and adopting sustainable waste management practices, phosphate-rich countries can transform environmental liabilities into strategic assets. This review concludes by identifying key knowledge gaps and suggesting future research directions to optimize REE recovery from phosphate deposits and associated by-products, contributing to global supply security, economic diversification, and environmental sustainability.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Received: 23 September 2025

Revised: 29 October 2025

Accepted: 8 November 2025

Published: 22 November 2025

**Citation:** Nourhen Omri, N.; Souissi, R.; Souissi, F.; Gleyzes, C.; Zaaboub, N.; Abderrazak, H.; Donard, O.F.X.; Rddad, L. Rare Earth Elements in Phosphate Ores and Industrial By-Products: Geochemical Behavior, Environmental Risks, and Recovery Potential. *Minerals* **2025**, *15*, 1232.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121232

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Institut des Sciences Analytiques et de Physico-Chimie Pour l'Environnement et les Matériaux (IPREM), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour/E2S UPPA, UMR 5254, Helioparc, 2 Avenue Pierre Angot, 64053 Pau, Cedex 09, France; olivier.donard@univ-pau.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Laboratoire des Matériaux Utiles, Institut National de Recherche et d'Analyse Physicochimique, Technopole de Sidi Thabet, Ariana 2020, Tunisia; radhia.souissi@inrap.rnrt.tn (R.S.)</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, Farhat Hached University Campus, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis 2092, Tunisia; foued.souissi@fst.utm.tn</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Ultra Traces Analyses Aquitaine (UT2A), Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, 2 Av. du Président Pierre Angot, 64053 Pau, France; christine.gleyzes@univ-pau.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Institut National des Sciences et Technologies de la Mer (INSTM), Tunis 2025, Tunisia; noureddine.zaaboub@instm.rnrt.tn</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Earth and Planetary Science Division, Physical Science Department, Kingsborough Community College of the City University of New York (CUNY), 2001 Oriental Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11235-2398, USA</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: nourhen.omri@univ-pau.fr (N.O.); lrddad@gmail.com (L.R.)</footnote>
**Keywords:** rare earth elements; phosphate industry; environmental sustainability; circular economy; resource recovery; energy transition

# 1. Introduction

Phosphate rock ranks among the top five most extensively mined ores on earth globally, with an estimated annual production of 240 million tons [1]. It is a vital non-renewable resource that plays an essential role in global food security, industrial applications, and strategic economic planning. The world's supply of phosphate ore is derived predominantly from sedimentary phosphate rock deposits, which constitute around 95% of total production. Approximately 85% of extracted phosphate is utilized primarily in the manufacture of phosphoric acid (PA) and chemical fertilizers [2–4].

Phosphate-based fertilizers are essential for improving soil fertility and increasing crop yields [5,6]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projects that global food production must increase by 70% between 2005 and 2050 to meet the demands of a growing population [7], highlighting the critical dependence on phosphate-based fertilizers. In addition to agriculture, phosphate derivatives, including phosphoric acid and fertilizers, are employed across various industrial sectors such as food additives, animal feed, detergents, and chemical manufacturing [8–10].

Phosphate reserves are geographically concentrated, rendering their supply geographically sensitive. China, Morocco, and the United States together account for over 60% of global production, with Morocco alone possessing approximately 70% of the world's known phosphate reserves [1]. This regional concentration raises concerns regarding supply security, price volatility, and geopolitical tensions.

The phosphate valorization process comprises multiple stages, starting with ore extraction, followed by physical beneficiation techniques such as crushing, grinding, and water washing, aimed at increasing the ore's phosphorus content [11]. The processed product, referred to as marketable phosphate, is subsequently converted into PA and fertilizers using the "wet process" [12,13]. In this method, fluorapatite reacts with sulfuric acid, yielding phosphoric acid and phosphogypsum (PG) as a by-product [14].

The high demand for phosphate fertilizers has resulted in the accumulation of significant PG waste worldwide. For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, approximately five tons of PG are generated [15,16]. Global PG production is estimated at 200–300 million tons annually, yet only 15% is recycled into applications such as construction materials or soil amendments. The remaining 85% is either stockpiled or discharged into marine environments, leading to environmental contamination [17–21]. The environmental hazards associated with PG disposal include the release of heavy metals, naturally occurring radionuclides, and rare earth elements (REE), which result in bioaccumulation in marine organisms and pose potential risks to human health [16,22–28].

In addition to phosphorus, phosphate deposits are enriched in various elements compared to the average shale and other sedimentary rocks, including cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), zinc (Zn), strontium (Sr), Uranium (U), and REE [29–32]. REE are classified by the European Commission as "technology-critical raw materials" due to their strategic importance in high-tech industries and renewable energy technologies, and are designated as critical raw materials (CRMs) [33] characterized by high economic importance and vulnerable supply chains (Figure 1).

As global demand for REE increases, phosphate deposits and their by-products, particularly PG and decadmiation sludge, have gained attention as alternative REE sources. During phosphate processing, up to 85% of REE are transferred to PG, promoting growing
interest in their recovery [34,35]. It is estimated that global phosphate rock production con-
tains nearly 100,000 tons of REE annually [36–38], positioning phosphate-related products
as an underexploited source of these critical elements.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Conceptual relationships between rare earth elements (REE) with very high supply risk and key enabling technologies/fields. Colored arrows indicate where REE are used. Each arrow color links the field (**left**) to its corresponding technologies (**right**); green: Renewable Energy/Batteries/Fuel cells/Wind, blue: Electric vehicles/Traction motors/Robotics, orange: Defense Aerospace/Drones/Information Communication. Visualization created by the authors; information adapted from the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), *Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies and Sectors in the EU: A Foresight Study* (2020) [39].</figcaption></figure>

Several studies have investigated REE in phosphate ores, PG, and contaminated environments, revealing the need for further research into their distribution, traceability, speciation, and recovery potential from phosphate processing streams.

Given the strategic significance of phosphate-derived products and the environmental
challenges posed by PG waste, this review aims to (i) provide a comprehensive overview
of the global phosphate industry, and (ii) examine the geochemical behavior, mineralog-
ical associations, and environmental mobility of REE in phosphate ores and industrial
by-products. By synthesizing the existing literature, this review highlights critical knowl-
edge gaps and outlines future research directions, particularly regarding REE speciation
during phosphate processing, ascertaining that REE can occur in multiple oxidation states,
each with distinct chemical reactivity that strongly influences their speciation, mobility,
and partitioning in geochemical systems. Furthermore, this review emphasizes the need
for deeper investigation into the fate of REE in contaminated environments and for the
development of efficient and sustainable recovery technologies.

**2. Global Overview of the Phosphate Industry**

2.1. *Global Production, Reserves, and Market Dynamics*

Phosphate reserves are unevenly distributed across key producing countries (Figure 2). The United States Geological Survey [1] estimates that global phosphate rock production reached approximately 240 million tons in 2024. The global phosphate industry is highly concentrated, with China, Morocco, and the United States collectively dominating global supply, underscoring its geopolitical significance [8,40].
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Global distribution of phosphate deposits compiled by the authors from publicly available sources. Basemap: Natural Earth (public domain) [41]. Phosphate reserves data: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Mineral Resource Data System (accessed 2025)) [42].</figcaption></figure>

As shown in Figure 3, Morocco holds over 50 billion tons of phosphate rock reserves among these producers, accounting for more than 70% of the global total [1]. This extreme concentration of the reserve within a single country raises concerns about supply security and market volatility, especially in the context of rising global demand for phosphate fertilizers and industrial applications [43]. The dependence on phosphate imports for agricultural productivity exposes nations without domestic phosphate reserves to geopolitical risks and price fluctuations [44].

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Global phosphate rock reserves (A) and production (B). Visualization created by the authors, based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) *Mineral Commodity Summaries* 2025 [1].</figcaption></figure>

The global phosphate market is influenced by multiple factors, including agricultural demand, industrial applications, technological innovation, and international trade policies. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projects that global food production must increase by 70% by the year 2050 [7], directly correlating with rising fertilizer consumption; therefore, forecasts still suggest a 1.8% annual increase in fertilizer demand through 2050 [45].
According to Grand View Research, the phosphate industry is expected to grow steadily, with a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.2% from 2022 to 2030 [46], reaching USD 29.73 billion by 2030, driven by increasing demand from the fertilizer, food, and chemical industries. However, price volatility remains a defining feature of the market, as illustrated by the 2008 price spike, which was driven by biofuel demand, speculative trading, and supply chain disruptions [47].

International trade and supply chain dynamics are also pivotal in shaping the phosphate industry. Morocco, as the largest exporter of phosphate rock, exerts significant influence over global supply networks. Studies on global phosphorus flows highlight the role of trade agreements, export tariffs, and regional demand fluctuations on market stability [36].

## 2.2. *Emerging Trends and Future Prospects*

Several emerging trends are reshaping the future of the global phosphate industry. One major trend is the growing demand for high-efficiency fertilizers, which offer enhanced nutrient content and controlled release, thereby maximizing crop yields while minimizing environmental impact. The rise in organic and bio-based fertilizers is also notable, driven by consumer preferences for sustainable agriculture [48]. The global phosphate industry is undergoing significant consolidation through mergers and acquisitions, as major players seek to expand their market share and secure resource access. Expansion initiatives in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa may transform the global supply landscape, contingent on their success in bringing new production capacity. The phosphate industry stands at a critical juncture, facing challenges related to resource depletion, environmental sustainability, and evolving market dynamics. Nonetheless, technological innovation, sustainability-driven practices, and rising demand across sectors present opportunities for growth and transformation. The industry's ability to navigate these challenges while meeting global demand will be decisive in shaping its future trajectory [44,49].

## 3. Economic Data and Forecasts

According to Technavio (2024), the phosphate rock market is projected to grow to USD 4.91 billion, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.79% from 2023 to 2028 [50]. The phosphate fertilizer market is expected to expand significantly, from USD 51.47 billion in 2024 to USD 73.04 billion in 2028, driven by increasing fertilizer demand, the rise in high-quality meat consumption, and rapid urbanization [50].

Economic forecasts for the phosphate industry remain optimistic. Issaoui et al. (2021) [51] suggest that Tunisia's phosphate production could rise substantially by 2025, contingent on the successful implementation of modernization projects and improved labor relations. This aligns with government-led initiatives to revitalize the phosphate industry, including investments in equipment upgrades and production capacity.

In addition to production forecasts, value addition within the phosphate sector presents significant opportunities. These include expanding phosphoric acid and fertilizer production, enhancing existing processes, and developing technology to recover valuable by-products such as REE and other critical materials [51]. Such value-added products could enhance the economic viability of the phosphate industry and support broader economic diversification in phosphate-rich nations. However, the industry faces serious environmental challenges, particularly related to PG waste [52–60]. Addressing these issues is essential for ensuring long-term sustainability. In countries like Tunisia, where phosphate production has declined in recent years, revitalization efforts must tackle production inefficiencies, labor disputes, and environmental concerns while also adapting to global market shifts and exploring secondary uses of phosphate by-products, especially
in the context of critical element recovery. Given the economic importance of phosphate production, the potential for REE recovery from phosphate by-products warrants further exploration. Understanding the geochemical context of associated REE, including their occurrence, mineralogical associations, and concentration patterns, is essential for developing viable recovery strategies. Therefore, prior to implementing extraction technologies, it is imperative to examine the global distribution, geochemistry, and host phases of REE in phosphate ores and their by-products.

**4. Context and Importance of Rare Earth Elements in Phosphates**

Rare earth elements, as defined by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), consist of the 15 lanthanides along with scandium (Sc) and yttrium (Y). They were first discovered in 1788 [61], remaining largely absent from industrial applications until the mid-20th century, with global annual production and consumption of rare earth oxides (REOs) staying below 5000 tons until the 1960s [61,62]. Since then, REE have become integral to a wide range of technologies, including television screens, petroleum refining, computer systems, and more recently, clean energy and defense applications [33,61,63,64]. Their role in emerging technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and energy-efficient lighting has positioned REE as critical materials in the global energy transition [65–68].

As global demand for REE continues to rise, secondary sources such as phosphate ores and their by-products have gained increasing attention, especially amid geopolitical constraints affecting traditional REE supply chains [69–75]. As projected by Elshkaki (2021) [76], demand for REE in clean technologies may exceed 1000 kilotons by 2050 (Figure 4), promoting renewed interest in phosphate deposits as alternative sources [30,37,70,71,77,78].

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Global demand for REE by element (adapted from Elshkaki (2021) [76]).</figcaption></figure>

Phosphate rocks are increasingly recognized not only for their phosphorus content but also for their enrichment in REE and other critical raw materials, particularly in sedimentary phosphate deposits [30,31,79–82]. Table 1 provides an overview of REE and other critical materials occurring in phosphate deposits from leading phosphate-producing countries.

The presence of REE in phosphates was first described by Altschuler (1967) [83] and Baturin et al. (1972) [84], with subsequent studies confirming their affinity for fluorapatite, the dominant mineral phase in phosphates [85]. REE can substitute for calcium in the
apatite crystal lattice [86–89], and may also occur in accessory minerals such as monazite (CaCeLaNdThPO₄) and xenotime (YPO₄) [90–96].

According to Emsbo et al. (2015) [30], REE concentrations in phosphate ores ranging from 100 to 800 mg/kg are sufficient to consider them as primary sources, especially given the relative ease of extraction compared to other deposit types [97–99]. The wet process used to produce phosphoric acid from phosphate rock, presented in Figure 5, also facilitated REE recovery as sulfuric acid dissolution can extract a significant portion of these elements [100–106]. Studies have demonstrated REE recovery efficiencies of up to 70% using 2 M sulfuric acid, and nearly 100% with dilute H₂SO₄ and HCl in certain U.S. phosphate ores [30,107]. Recent work by Salem et al. (2019) and Jang et al. (2024) showed that decadmiation sludge from phosphoric acid purification containing 1000 to 2000 mg/kg REE can yield up to 90% recovery [98,99].

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Simplified general diagram of the wet-phosphate valorization process. Blue arrows show the main process flow/acid stream; green arrows indicate *Sulfuric acid* and *Cooling pool* inputs; red arrows mark the by-products *Phosphogypsum* and *Decadmiation sludge*.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Concentrations of trace elements and REE in phosphate ores from different regions of the world.</caption><thead><tr><th>Phosphate Deposit</th><th>Trace Elements</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>REE</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO/ (U + Th)</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gafsa Basin, Tunisia</td><td>Cd; Cr; Pb; Sr; Zn; U</td><td>24.25; 175.5; 4.52; 1349.5; 196; 59.7</td><td>La; Ce; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Yb</td><td>51.26; 79.31; 50.14; 9.65; 3.34; 10.7; 6.1; 5.52</td><td>256.7</td><td>--</td><td>Smida et al. (2021) [108]</td></tr><tr><td>Gafsa Basin, Tunisia</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Sc; Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>3.55; 123.5; 84; 123.5; 18.35; 79; 14.85; 3.39; 14.1; 2.02; 13.1; 2.84; 8.34; 1.15; 7.58; 1.19</td><td>600.2</td><td>--</td><td>El Zrelli et al. (2021) [32]</td></tr><tr><td>Gafsa Basin, Tunisia</td><td>Ba; Br; Cd; Cr; Cu; Mo; Ni; Sc; Sr; U; Y; Zn; Zr</td><td>39; 12.41; 34; 238; 9.32; 5.96; 17.9; 3.68; 1788; 30; 99; 228; 41</td><td>La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>74; 108.16; 15.38; 62.58; 13; 2.78; 11.73; 1.8; 10.2; 2.31; 6.76; 0.95; 6.31; 1</td><td>376.6</td><td>--</td><td>Garnit et al. (2017) [109]</td></tr><tr><td>Gafsa Basin, Tunisia</td><td>Cd; Zn; Cr; Cu; Ni; Sr; Sc; Co; Rb; Sb; Cs; Ba; Hf; Ta; Th; U; As; Mo; Zr</td><td>43.68; 337.91; 226.12; 18.05; 25.21; 1501.35; 3.21; 1.69; 7.3; 0.5; 0.48; 57.45; 0.65; 0.24; 7.02; 23.88; 6.07; 14.92; 79.5</td><td>La; Ce; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Yb</td><td>63.49; 101.92; 57.94; 10.7; 3; 12.86; 1.53; 10.43; 5.72</td><td>318.2</td><td>10.30</td><td>Galfati et al. (2010) [110]</td></tr><tr><td>Algeria</td><td>V; Cr; Li; Co; Ni; Cu; Zn; As; Rb; Sr; Zr; Nb; Mo; Cd; Cs; Ba; Hf; Ta; W; Tl; Pb; Th; U</td><td>100.52; 208.89; 5.87; 1.14; 28.56; 14.72; 209.82; 7.18; 4.64; 1834.58; 19.15; 1.81; 2.90; 28.06; 2.32; 57.61; 0.32; 0.16; 0.54; 1.38; 2.14; 5.20; 55.74</td><td>Sc; Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; ΣREE</td><td>3.95; 190.35; 92.05; 78.95; 15.91; 68.81; 12.52; 3.28; 15.49; 2.18; 14.93; 3.38; 10.37; 1.42; 8.12; 1.54; 328.95</td><td>630.3</td><td>10.34</td><td>Kechiched et al. (2020) [111]</td></tr><tr><td>Morocco</td><td>Minor elements (MEs)</td><td>ΣMEs = 3538 mg/kg</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm Yb; Lu</td><td>143; 24.06; 13; 3.63; 17.52; 3.68; 1; 5.14; 0.84; 5.67; 1.3; 4.31; 0.62; 4.2; 0.79</td><td>282.2</td><td>--</td><td>Amine et al. (2019) [112]</td></tr><tr><td>South-West China</td><td>Cr; Zr; Co; Ni; Th; U; V; As; Sb; Mn; Sr</td><td>24; 32; 6; 106; 4; 28; 38.6; 63; 11.4; 599.33; 488.33</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>242.6; 160.6; 121; 30.4; 132; 24.5; 6.4; 29.7; 4; 24.3; 5; 13.13; 1.56; 7.6; 1</td><td>970.6</td><td>30.33</td><td>Zhang et al. (2021) [113]</td></tr><tr><td>South China</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>165.76; 198.77; 407.19; 53.26; 221.32; 39.72; 9.59; 36.32; 5.04; 24.5; 4.29; 11.46; 1.19; 5.88; 0.75</td><td>1426.2</td><td>--</td><td>Xin et al. (2015) [114]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1. Cont.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Phosphate Deposit</th><th>Trace Elements</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>REE</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO/ (U + Th)</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>South China</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm Yb; Lu</td><td>93.23; 33.11; 47.94; 10.48; 49.04; 11.20; 2.81; 12.05; 1.96; 11.43; 2.32; 6.20; 0.72; 3.7; 0.48</td><td>346.8</td><td>--</td><td>Xin et al. (2016) [115]</td></tr><tr><td>South China</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; Y</td><td>164536; 253849; 3355; 115949; 32901; 2975; 25758; 3641; 2003; 4291; 12599; 1803; 9442; 1431; 147387</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>Emsbo et al. (2015) [30]</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Sc; Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>5.82; 110.33; 64.00; 105.14; 6.49; 74.12; 0.00; 8.05; 14.36; 1.73; 12.16; 0.00; 8.50; 3.03; 7.42; 1.19</td><td>503.4</td><td>--</td><td>Liang et al. (2017) [85]</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas, USA</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>207.9; 566.37; 124.11; 790.62; 477.25; 314.96; 582.71; 70; 278.53; 82.77; 82.18; 8.7; 42; 5.91</td><td>4255</td><td>--</td><td>Murthy et al. (2004) [116]</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain Pass, USA</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; Y</td><td>743495; 1042279; 88027; 247033; 18913; 2350; 4701; 351; 765; 90; 136; 46; 46; 27; 2642</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>Long et al. (2012) [117]</td></tr><tr><td>Love Hollow, USA</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; Y</td><td>2009; 443543; 4074; 182148; 369; 8370; 4176; 5494; 32981; 6477; 1715; 1934; 10328; 1215; 242496</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>Emsbo et al. (2015) [30]</td></tr><tr><td>Egypt</td><td>U; Th</td><td>127.26; 22.942</td><td>Sc; Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; ΣREE</td><td>3.71; 46.74; 34.81; 51.75; 6.59; 27.57; 5.12; 1.35; 6.09; 1.02; 5.978; 1.29; 4.21; 0.6; 4.16; 0.76; 151.3</td><td>239</td><td>1.59</td><td>Shahin et al. (2020) [118]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1. Cont.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Phosphate Deposit</th><th>Trace Elements</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>REE</th><th>Average Concentrations (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO (mg/kg)</th><th>TREO/ (U + Th)</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Jordan</td><td>Nb; Rb; Sr; Th; U; V; Zr; Mo; Cu; Pb; Zn; Ni; As; Cd; Sb; Cr; Ba; Co; Ga; Hf</td><td>0.63; 2.32; 1466.27; 0.68; 58.42; 160.11; 16.40; 8.64; 35.86; 1.82; 217.38; 50.80; 9.38; 19.48; 1.25; 170.90; 590.79; 1.58; 1.09; 0.30</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu</td><td>37.4; 13.4; 8.1; 1.91; 8.2; 1.67; 0.44; 2.36; 0.66; 2.12; 0.32; 2.06; 0.36</td><td>96.5</td><td>1.63</td><td>Abed et al. (2016) [119]</td></tr><tr><td>Ba; Cd; Cr; Cs; Cu; Ga; Hf; Mo; Nb; Ni; Rb; Sb; Sc; Se; Sr; Th; Tl; U; V; Zn; Zr</td><td>66.89; 19.18; 190.53; 0.07; 10.24; 0.70; 1.18; 3.68; 0.73; 50.21; 1.39; 0.39; 1.22; 0.81; 340.91; 0.61; 0.07; 24.48; 64.08; 113.84; 50.92</td><td>Y; La; Ce; Pr; Nd; Sm; Eu; Gd; Tb; Dy; Ho; Er; Tm; Yb; Lu; ΣREE</td><td>13.91; 5.59; 6.33; 0.99; 4.03; 0.81; 0.21; 0.98; 0.15; 0.96; 0.24; 0.73; 0.11; 0.70; 0.12; 21.95</td><td>43.6</td><td>1.74</td><td>Amireh et al. (2019) [120]</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>Ba; Zr; Th</td><td>6480; 2450; 103</td><td>La; Ce; Nd; Sm; Eu; Tb; Yb; Lu</td><td>2220; 5310; 1490; 256; 68; 13.0; 14.8; 0.65</td><td>11272.5</td><td>--</td><td>De Oliveira et al. (2007) [121]</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Sc; Y; La; Ce; Nd; Pr; Sm; Sc; Eu; Dy; Gd; Er; Yb; Ho; Tb; Lu</td><td>2.95; 41.95; 32.6; 44.3; 36.85; 8.05; 6.25; 1.9; 7.15; 8.15; 3.1; 2.65; 1.15; 1.35; 0.45</td><td>235.6</td><td>--</td><td>Silva et al. (2019) [122]</td></tr></tbody></table>

N.A.: not analyzed. TREOs are calculated from reported REE concentrations using standard oxide factors and summation: La–Lu as Ln₂O₃, Ce as CeO₂, Y as Y₂O₃. Where some REE were not reported in a source, TREOs reflect a partial sum over available REE. Rows that reported REE tonnage or areal inventories (rather than concentrations) are not converted to ppm and are omitted from the ratio analysis. Evidence pedigree: All entries are derived from peer-reviewed papers.
Sustainable REE development has also focused on recycling from industrial processes and end-of-life products, as well as mining residues and landfills, although most research remains at the academic level due to technical and economic constraints [38,100,123,124]. Additional studies have explored REE recovery from uranium-rich minerals [125–128], fluorite [129], marine sediments [130–135], and phosphate rock [38,73,100,136,137], with the latter considered among the most promising secondary sources.

With approximately 250 million tons of phosphate rock consumed annually, and average REE concentrations of 500 mg/kg, global phosphate deposits may contain 50 million tons of REE, translating to a potential annual yield of ~100,000 tons [97,138]. This underscores the need to purify phosphoric acid, PG, and associated phosphoric acid sludge to recover REE and other valuable elements.

In phosphate ores and their wet-process streams, REE commonly co-occur with naturally occurring radioelements such as uranium (U) and thorium (Th). This co-association has both operational and commercial significance: elevated U and Th concentrations can shift intermediate products above exemption limits, placing them under IAEA Class 7 transport and handling regulations. Such conditions have direct implications for flowsheet design, reagent selection, permitting, logistics, and unit costs [139]. Because the REE grade alone can be an unreliable indicator of technical and regulatory viability, each REE entry is paired with corresponding U and Th (when available), and the screening TREO/(U + Th) ratio is reported. This approach follows best-practice assessments for REE flowsheets, where monazite- and bastnäsite-bearing analogs exhibit contrasting radiological burdens [70,140].

Despite its high impurity content, PG has demonstrated significant economic potential, with studies estimating that 100 million tons of PG could be worth nearly USD 8.937 billion [141]. In Tunisia, particularly at the Gabès fertilizer plant, PG is enriched in REE, base metals (Al, Cu, and Zn), precious metals (Ag), and other strategic elements, including antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), magnesium (Mg), silicon (Si), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), and vanadium (V). El Zrelli et al. (2018) [57] estimated that recovering valuable elements from 5.26 million tons of PG annually could generate ~ USD 39.60 million [57], highlighting the dual benefit of environmental protection and economic contribution.

To contextualize the economic opportunities and commercial implications related to REE recovery from phosphate ores, Table 1 compiles trace element data with a focus on REE, specifically reported TREO grades paired with U and Th concentrations, as well as the screening ratio TREO/(U + Th); here, TREO represents the sum of La–Lu + Y expressed as oxides, while U and Th are listed as elemental concentrations (mg·kg⁻¹). Where U or Th are unavailable, entries are marked N.A. Pairing TREOs with U and Th provides a first-order assessment of radiological burden, potential IAEA Class 7 transport and handling implications, and the process intensity required to produce saleable REE products. Table 2 benchmarks two operating REE mines—Mountain Pass (USA; bastnäsite-dominant carbonatite) and Mount Weld (Australia; monazite-rich regolith over carbonatite)—by reporting TREOs, U, Th, and TREO/(U + Th) values. These sites were selected because they are well-characterized, producing end-members in REE mineralogy and radiological profiles. Bastnäsite systems typically exhibit lower Th (vs. monazite with higher Th), with transparent public data that provide an operationally relevant baseline. Consistent with this contrast, bastnäsite systems typically show lower Th and, thus, higher TREO/(U + Th) (lighter radiological overhead). In contrast, monazite-rich systems carry higher Th, resulting in tighter processing and compliance margins. The availability of transparent public data for both sites provides an operationally relevant baseline. Comparing Tables 1 and 2 thus helps identify phosphate ores closest to commercial viability and those requiring regulatory thresholds. To link the strategic importance of REE in phosphate systems with
their practical recovery pathways, Figure 6 presents a conceptual mass-flow model tracing REE from deposit geology through mining, beneficiation, wet-process phosphoric acid production, and by-products, into environmental compartments and potential recovery nodes. The diagram illuminates (i) the distribution of REE across process streams; (ii) the implications of U-Th co-mobilization on radiological constraints; and (iii) the intervention points for selective leaching, solvent-extraction or ionic-liquid systems, ion exchange, and membrane-assisted separations. This overarching framework lies at the foundation of the comparative screening summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and forms the conceptual basis for the process-selection logic elucidated in Section 8.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Benchmark TREOs vs. U-Th for Mountain Pass and Mountain Weld REE Mines.</caption><thead><tr><th>REE Deposit</th><th>TREO (wt%)</th><th>U (mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Th (mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>TREO/(U + Th)</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mountain Pass (USA)</td><td>9.3</td><td>17</td><td>175.8</td><td>414.1</td><td>Haxel et al. (2002) [142]<br>Park et al. (2023) [143]</td></tr><tr><td>Mount Weld (Australia)</td><td>8.8</td><td>25.4</td><td>659.1</td><td>125.6</td><td>Hellman & Duncan (2018) [144]<br>Lynas Rare Earths (2025) [145]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Where mines report U and Th as oxides, elemental values were computed using standard stoichiometry: $U = U_3O_8 \times 0.8480$ and $Th = ThO_2 \times 0.8788$. TREOs (ppm) are calculated as TREO(wt%) × 10,000. Ratios are then TREO(ppm)/[U(ppm) + Th(ppm)] (elemental basis). Evidence pedigree: All entries are derived from peer-reviewed papers.

When considered collectively, Tables 1 and 2 establish the techno-economic framework for the recovery of REE from phosphate rock. Across phosphate ores, the TREO value is generally modest, while U + Th concentrations are non-negligible. This yields low TREO/(U + Th) ratios, leading to higher radiological overhead (potential Class 7 implications), greater reagent intensity, and tighter permitting margins. Table 2 provides a foundation for these results by anchoring them against two producing end-members with transparent public data. Mountain Pass is characterized by bastnäsite carbonatite with relatively low Th, resulting in higher TREO/(U + Th) ratios and a comparatively lighter radiological burden. Conversely, Mount Weld has a monazite-rich regolith, exhibiting higher Th, producing lower TREO/(U + Th) ratios and a more stringent regulatory compliance envelope. This discrepancy underscores the necessity for distinguishing between phosphate entries in Table 1 that demonstrate commercial viability and those that do not. Ores in this category will require speciation-based flowsheets that prioritize early segregation and stabilization of U/Th, while avoiding the accumulation of radioelements in transportable intermediates. These flowsheets should also be integrated with existing assets to optimize utility use and reduce unit costs.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Conceptual mass-flow model for REE in phosphate systems. REE originate in phosphate minerals (fluorapatite; monazite; xenotime), pass through mining and beneficiation (upgrading to marketable concentrations), and partition during wet-process phosphoric acid (WPA) production into phosphoric acid (PA), phosphogypsum (PG), and purification (decadmiation) sludge. Arrows indicate the dominant REE partitions. Intervention nodes show candidate recovery technologies and integration options. **Arrows:** solid black = main process flow; red = side-stream/by-product and environmental pathways; blue = recovery routes from WPA side streams and PG; gray = outputs to Intermediate REE products; green: Residue management. **Box colors:** dark blue = phosphate deposits; light-green = Residue management; yellow = WPA; pink = WPA side streams and PG; blue: Recovery nodes; gray = Intermediate REE products; green: Residue management. The model also depicts environmental release pathways (e.g., PG stacks, marine discharge), emphasizing the circular recovery.</figcaption></figure>
**5. Rare Earth Elements in Phosphate Deposits and Phosphogypsum: Historical Progress, Global Initiatives, and Challenges**

In phosphate systems, REE primarily occur through isomorphic substitution in fluora-
patite, and, to a lesser extent, in accessory minerals such as monazite and xenotime, which
together influence both grade and extractability [83,84,86–93,96,146].

In sedimentary phosphorites, light REE (LREE) enrichment is common, and Ce and Eu anomalies provide insights into redox conditions and hydrothermal inputs. Negative Ce anomalies typically indicate oxic depositional environments, whereas positive Eu anomalies may indicate hydrothermal activity or detrital feldspar input—factors in REE enrichment and extractability [147–149].

Figure 7 presents an overview of the historical efforts to explore the recovery po-
tential of REE. Historical recovery efforts began in the 1930s with Soviet studies on REE
recovery from phosphoric acid by-products [100,150]. In Romania, hydrochloric acid di-
gestion yielded REO concentrates with ~87.9% purity, though recovery rates (~65%) were
insufficient for commercial viability [37,151,152]. Between 1965 and 1972, Kemira Oy in
Finland demonstrated commercial-scale feasibility [153], while Solvay in South Africa
explored co-extracting uranium and REE from phosphoric acid in the 1970s and 1980s [154].
More recently, Russia and Finland launched joint initiatives to recover REE from PG [155],
culminating in a 2016 industrial-scale proposal by Russia's MISiS National Research and
Technology University [100]. In Tunisia, Hammas-Nasri et al. (2019) achieved 84% REE
recovery from phosphogypsum using a two-step leaching process [156], surpassing the
60.8% reported by Masmoudi-Soussi et al. (2020) [157].

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. History of pilot-scale experiments for REE recovery from phosphates and phosphogypsum.</figcaption></figure>

In the U.S., the Department of Energy has supported REE recovery research on extrac-
tion in Florida as well as the Idaho phosphate operations, aiming to diversify global REE
supply [85,153]. While these pilot studies confirmed technical feasibility, low REE concentrations and the presence of radioactive elements have limited commercial adoption [158].

In phosphate ores, REE occur either in accessory minerals such as monazite [(Ce, La, Nd, Th)PO₄] and xenotime (YPO₄) or by substituting for calcium in apatite [85]. During the wet process, these minerals react with sulfuric acid to form soluble REE sulfates and phosphoric acid, as shown in the following simplified reactions [85]:

$$2(\text{Ce, La, Nd, Th}) \text{PO}_4 + 3\text{H}_2\text{SO}_4 \rightarrow (\text{Ce, La, Nd, Th})_2(\text{SO}_4)_3 + 2\text{H}_3\text{PO}_4 \quad (1)$$

$$2\text{YPO}_4 + 3\text{H}_2\text{SO}_4 \rightarrow \text{Y}_2(\text{SO}_4)_3 + 2\text{H}_3\text{PO}_4 \quad (2)$$

Typical phosphate ores contain 100–800 mg/kg REO, often exceeding concentrations in ion-adsorption clays. Since the wet process already dissolves apatite, REE co-leach and can be recovered from phosphoric acid, purification sludge, and PG [100–103,105,106,159,160]. Pilot studies report ~70% leaching efficiency using 2 M H₂SO₄ [106], near-complete recovery with dilute H₂SO₄/HCl in U.S. ores [30], and 90% recovery from phosphoric-acid purification sludge [98].

During fertilizer production, 70–85% of REE typically partition into PG [69,161–164]. With global PG stocks exceeding 7 billion tons and growing by 150–200 million tons annually [165], the economic potential is significant. REE concentrations in PG range from <100 mg/kg to as much as 60,000 mg/kg [161], with an estimated 21 million tons of REE globally contained in PG [85,166].

The Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute, in collaboration with the Critical Materials Institute, has investigated REE recovery from waste clay, flotation tailings, phosphoric acid, PG, and sludge [159,167]. Researchers found that efficient REE recovery from these streams could increase the availability of critical materials and improve phosphoric acid production [100]. Liang et al. (2017) reported that ~90% of REE were released during leaching, though only ~52.82% entered the leachate under optimized conditions [85]. Al-Thyabat and Zhang (2015) achieved 58.1% REE recovery from cadmiferous sludge [123].

In China, phosphate deposits such as Xinhua phosphates contain up to 611.27 mg/kg REE [168]. In Morocco, REE concentrations of ~228.408 mg/kg have been reported in the Gantour Basin, and the Office Chérifien des Phosphates (OCP) is exploring PG reprocessing partnerships [74,160].

In contrast, Jordan's phosphorites contain lower REE concentrations (1.28–116.74 mg/kg), leading to a focus on uranium extraction [119,120,169]. Russia's Kola phosphorite ore, with up to 1% REE [170], has yielded >85% recovery using sulfuric acid, and pilot-scale production of high-purity cerium carbonate, lanthanum oxide, and neodymium oxide has been demonstrated [161,171–173].

In Tunisia, Gafsa Basin phosphates average at 322 mg/kg REE, with some basins like Sra Ouertane exceeding 1700 mg/kg [32,79,109,174]. Despite this potential, large-scale REE recovery remains limited. Hammas-Nasri et al. (2016) [164] achieved high REE recovery from PG using a two-step leaching method [164]. Nevertheless, environmental pollution, particularly PG discharge into the Gulf of Gabès, remains a major challenge. El Zrelli et al. (2021) [32] emphasized the economic losses from untapped REE, calling for a robust research and development (R&D) and policy framework to transition from pilot studies to commercial-scale operations [32].

Numerous hydrometallurgical, solvometallurgical, and bioleaching techniques have been explored for REE extraction from phosphate ores and processing streams [100,106, 141,161,175–183]. Bioleaching using microorganisms such as *Aspergillus niger* has shown promising results, with extraction efficiencies reaching up to 80% [184]. While several pilot-scale studies have reported recovery rates exceeding 70–80%, the transition to commercial-
scale implementation remains constrained by economic feasibility, radioactivity waste management, and regulatory compliance [28,141,158,185]. Life cycle assessments have also raised concerns about the net environmental benefits, emphasizing the need to balance energy consumption, reagent use, and waste disposal [69].

To support sustainable recovery, researchers increasingly advocate for integrated geochemical investigations to assess the speciation, distribution, and mobility of REE and associated trace metals in phosphate-based materials. Advanced analytical techniques, including synchrotron radiation, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and isotopic tracing, are instrumental in identifying the chemical forms and host phases of REE, as well as co-occurring hazardous elements [168,169]. These insights are critical for developing selective and environmentally responsible extraction strategies, while also informing remediation efforts in contaminated environments.

The evolution of REE recovery from phosphate systems—from early theoretical studies in the Soviet Union to near-commercial pilot plants in several countries—demonstrates the growing recognition of phosphate by-products as strategic secondary resources. Harnessing these underexploited materials could enhance global supply chain resilience while generating additional revenue streams from phosphate-producing regions. However, technical, environmental, and socio-economic challenges persist. High processing costs, the presence of radioactive by-products, and the need for community engagement and transparent governance remain key barriers. Nevertheless, ongoing innovations in extraction technologies, coupled with supportive policies, could transform PG from an environmental liability into a valuable resource, advancing both REE supply security and circular economy objectives.

Given the scale of global phosphate production and the significant REE content in ores and by-products, a detailed understanding of the REE geochemical distribution and mineralogical associations is essential for designing viable and efficient recovery pathways.

# 6. Geochemistry of Rare Earth Elements in Phosphates, Global Distribution, Traceability, and Environmental Impact

## 6.1. *Geochemistry*

The chemical composition of phosphorites, including their REE content, is governed by lithology, depositional environment, and post-depositional processes [172,186]. Variability in the REE concentrations across phosphate deposits reflects the differences in redox conditions, sediment provenance, and diagenetic history. For instance, oxic-marine-shelf phosphorites typically exhibit negative cerium (Ce) anomalies due to oxidative removal of Ce³⁺ from seawater prior to the incorporation into phosphate minerals [147–149]; in contrast, anoxic or suboxic conditions may retain higher Ce content and lack such anomalies [148,149]. Non-marine phosphorites may present flatter REE patterns and weak Ce anomalies. Positive europium (Eu) anomalies often indicate hydrothermal influence or detrital input from Eu-rich feldspars [147,148], and may correlate with higher heavy REE (HREE) proportions. Post-depositional processes such as phosphatization, silicification, or carbonate replacement can further modify REE signatures, offering insights into the ore genesis and beneficiation potential [173].

Marine sedimentary phosphorites are generally enriched in light REE (LREE) due to the preferential incorporation of larger ionic LREE' radii into the fluorapatite lattice [30,147]. In contrast, igneous or weathered phosphate deposits, and some non-marine lacustrine deposits may display more balanced LREE/HREE ratios, especially where xenotime is the dominant host phase [90–96].

Mineralogical controls are critical to REE abundance and extractability. In most sedimentary phosphorites, REE substitute for Ca²⁺ in fluorapatite (Ca₅(PO₄)₃F) [86–89]. Accessory minerals such as monazite ((Ce,La,Nd,Th)PO₄) and xenotime (YPO₄) can locally
dominate the REE budget, particularly in detrital- or igneous-influenced settings [90–96]. REE may also be adsorbed onto Fe–Mn oxyhydroxide or clay minerals, which are more labile and environmentally mobile [147,148]. These mineralogical differences influence both the total REE content and the choice of extraction method.

During phosphate mineral precipitation, REE incorporation is influenced by pH, redox potential, and fluid composition [147,172,186]. Fractionation patterns in phosphorites typically show LREE enrichment, driven by ionic radius effects and aqueous complexation behavior [147]. Negative Ce anomalies are diagnostic of oxic conditions [147–149], while positive Eu anomalies suggest hydrothermal or detrital inputs [148,149].

## 6.2. Global Distribution

Phosphate deposits worldwide exhibit diverse REE concentrations and geochemical signatures, shaped by their depositional and diagenetic histories.

In Tunisia, phosphates from the Gafsa Basin are enriched in LREE, particularly La, Ce, and Nd, with occasional slight positive europium (Eu) and negative cerium anomalies [108–110,187] (Figure 8). These geochemical patterns suggest oxic marine shelf deposition, with minor detrital input [147–149]. Notably, the Sra Ouertane deposit, with REE concentrations exceeding 1700 mg/kg, reflects localized enrichment linked to variations in sedimentary facies and accessory mineral content [79,109]. Fluorapatite dominates as a REE host [86–89], indicating high leachability during wet-process phosphoric acid production, though monazite-rich zones may require more aggressive leaching strategies [90–96].

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Post-Archean Australian Shale (PAAS) normalized REE patterns for phosphate samples compiled from multiple studies. Pink curves: data from Omri (2025) [187]; green curves: data from Wang et al. (2023) [147]; blue curves: values digitized and replotted from Amireh et al. (2019) [120].</figcaption></figure>

In Algeria, phosphate deposits from the Tébessa region contain over 1000 mg/kg, with a clear LREE dominance and slight negative Ce anomalies, consistent with marine sedimentary origins under oxic conditions [147–149]. The association of REE with fluorapatite [86–89] supports the use of acid leaching, although monazite inclusions necessitate radiological safety assessments [90–93,95,96].

In Morocco, Gantour Basin phosphates show moderate REE concentrations (~228 mg/kg) and negative Ce anomalies, indicating well-oxygenated shallow-marine deposition [112,147–149]. The LREE' enrichment and fluorapatite dominance make sulfuric acid leaching feasible, though low ore grades suggest PG valorization may be more economically viable [69,85,98].

In China, southern and southwestern phosphate deposits contain some of the highest global REE concentrations, reaching up to 3000 mg/kg total rare earth oxides (TREOs) [113–
115,168]. Variable Ce anomalies reflect a range of depositional settings [147,149]. The presence of monazite and xenotime contributes to HREE enrichment, requiring selective or multi-stage leaching strategies [74,97,138].

In the United States, Florida's phosphate deposits and by-products (e.g., tailings, PG) are LREE-enriched [85,167], with negative Ce anomalies indicative of oxic marine deposition [147–149]. However, the Mountain Pass region exhibits elevated total REE concentrations and a more balanced LREE/HREE ratio in its primary bastnaesite mineral [117,188–190]. These mineralogical differences dictate processing routes: acid leaching for LREE-rich apatite, and alkaline cracking for HREE-rich ores.

Phosphate deposits in Egypt, particularly those at Abu Tartur, contain low-to-moderate REE concentrations, averaging at ~151 mg/kg. These deposits show LREE enrichment [118] and minor negative Ce anomalies, indicative of an oxic marine depositional environment with limited detrital input [147–149]. The dominance of fluorapatite in these ores suggests compatibility with wet-process phosphoric acid production; however, the relatively low REE grades may limit the economic feasibility of standalone REE recovery [69].

In Jordan, phosphate deposits such as Eshidiya exhibit some of the lowest REE concentrations, typically <100 mg/kg [120,169]. These deposits are characterized by LREE depletion and slight negative Ce anomalies, reflecting oxic marine conditions [147,149], as shown in Figure 8. Given these low grades, direct REE extraction from the ore is unlikely to be viable. Instead, more promising options may include phosphogypsum valorization or co-recovery with uranium [125–128].

In Brazil, phosphate deposits like Tapira show exceptionally high REE concentrations, reaching up to 5000 mg/kg TREOs [31,121,122]. The balanced LREE/HREE ratios observed in these deposits suggest mixed marine and igneous influence [147,172,186]. The occurrence of monazite and xenotime necessitates multi-stage beneficiation steps and leaching processes to recover the full REE spectrum [74,138].

### 6.3. Traceability and Environmental Impact

Understanding the REE traceability during phosphate processing is critical for evaluating both economic potential and environmental risks. During beneficiation and acidulation, REE redistribute across product and waste streams, including phosphoric acid, PG, decadmiation sludge, and contaminated environments [85].

Approximately 15–30% of the total REE dissolve into phosphoric acid, primarily due to their solubility in sulfuric acid solutions [175], while 70–85% of REE are retained in PG, where they substitute for calcium in the CaSO₄·2H₂O crystal lattice [100,191]. Decadmiation sludge, also called acid purification sludge, accumulates REE along with heavy metals and radionuclides such as uranium and thorium [28,158]. These by-products represent valuable secondary sources, but also pose environmental challenges if not properly managed. Improper disposal of PG, particularly in marine environments like the Gulf of Gabès in Tunisia, can lead to leaching of REE and toxic metals into seawater, with documented bioaccumulation in sediments, fish, and shellfish, raising public health concerns [57,192].

Lead isotope and REE fingerprinting techniques have proven effective in tracing contamination sources, distinguishing natural versus anthropogenic inputs, and supporting environmental monitoring efforts [147].

Trace metals and REE in phosphates influence biogeochemical cycles and ecosystem health. While elements like zinc and copper are beneficial at low concentrations, other metals such as cadmium and arsenic are toxic and require strict management to prevent environmental and health risks [193,194].

As discussed in Section 6.1, Ce and Eu anomalies provide valuable insights into depositional and post-depositional processes. Combined with LREE/HREE ratios, these
anomalies help infer REE host phases—whether fluorapatite, amenable to acid leaching, or refractory monazite/xenotime phases requiring more aggressive treatment [83,93,95,96]. These mineralogical and geochemical patterns are central to evaluating both the environmental mobility and economic recovery potential of REE in phosphate systems.

# 7. Environmental and Sustainability Challenges in the Phosphate Industry

The phosphate industry is a vital component of global agriculture and industrial development. However, it faces significant environmental and sustainability challenges. This industry is among the most environmentally impactful sectors, with issues related to resource depletion, waste management, and ecosystem contamination.

Phosphate processing redistributes trace elements and critical metals across various streams, including phosphoric acid and fertilizers, PG, solid wastes, and surrounding environments [28,53,58,195,196]. Among these, PG is the most pressing concern as it contains heavy metals, radionuclides, and REE, and has been shown to contaminate soil, groundwater, and marine ecosystems, posing risks to ecological health and public safety [16,178,197–200].

The mobility and bioavailability of trace metals in the environment are influenced by pH, redox conditions, and organic matter content, which plants uptake and enter into food chains [201–203].

Globally, regions such as Florida (USA), Huelva (Spain), Brazil, China, Morocco, and Tunisia have reported PG-related contamination—including uranium, radium, and other toxic metals [28,192,198,200,204–210]—threatening groundwater, agriculture, and marine life. In Brazil, despite occasional PG use as a soil amendment, its high radionuclide and metal contents continue to endanger coastal ecosystems [211]. Similarly, China and Morocco face growing soil and water contamination linked to PG disposal [200,212–216].

In Tunisia, phosphate by-products have severely impacted the Gulf of Gabès, a biologically rich marine habitat and vital fishing zone [55,59]. Studies have documented the accumulation of heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, strontium, copper, and lead) and radionuclides in marine sediments and marine organisms [28,32,58,197,217,218], posing risks to biodiversity and human health [200,208]. These findings underscore the urgent need for stricter environmental regulations, improved waste management, and alternative PG uses [58,59].

Beyond environmental risks, the phosphate industry faces the challenge of “peak phosphorus”, raising concerns about the long-term availability of high-quality phosphate reserves [6,8,219]. As global demand for phosphate rises, PG production will increase, exacerbating waste-related issues [220–222]. Despite these challenges, many research studies offered a more optimistic perspective: PG could serve as a secondary source of REE, which are critical for clean energy and advanced technologies. Harnessing this potential could transform PG from an environmental liability into a strategic resource, aligning with circular economy goals and promoting sustainable development in phosphate-producing regions.

REE are essential for high-tech industries, prompting research into their recovery from industrial by-products and landfilled residues [71,177,223,224]. PG is emerging as a potential “urban mine” for REE due to its significant volume and the presence of critical elements [69,141,171]. Although REE concentrations in PG are relatively low, the global scale PG production—over 7 billion tons and growing by 150–200 million tons annually [165]—results in a substantial cumulative resource, with ~21 million tons of REE estimated in existing PG dumps [156,164,166]. PG also contains a diverse suite of metals, including Sr, Fe, Y, Ce, Cr, Zn, Cu, Pb, Cd, and U. This diversity enhances the economic potential of PG [225].
A variety of hydrometallurgical and solvometallurgical techniques have been ex-
plored for REE recovery from PG [100,161,178,226]. In Tunisia, Hammas-Nasri et al. (2019)
achieved 84% REE recovery using a two-step process: washing PG with a sodium chloride
solution, followed by sodium carbonate leaching at elevated temperatures [156]. Other
innovative techniques, such as bioleaching with *Aspergillus niger*, have demonstrated extrac-
tion efficiencies of ~74%, indicating their potential for industrial-scale applications [227].
These recovery methods not only diversify revenue streams for the phosphate industry but
also mitigate environmental impacts by reducing the volume and toxicity of PG waste.

In parallel, sustainable practices, including phytoremediation and habitat rehabilita-
tion, are increasingly being implemented in regions affected by phosphate mining [228–230].
Certain plant species can absorb and accumulate heavy metals, thereby restoring contam-
inated ecosystems [231]. Valorization strategies, such as the reuse of PG in construction
materials or as a soil amendment, provide additional opportunities for waste reduction
and resource efficiency [15,199,232–234]. Collectively, these initiatives aim to improve sus-
tainability throughout the phosphate supply chain, ensuring the resilience of the industry
to both resource scarcity and environmental challenges.

Overall, the literature highlights the critical need for effective management of phos-
phate processing by-products. Phosphogypsum, in particular, poses significant environ-
mental hazards, including soil and water contamination and marine ecosystem degradation.
Yet, these same by-products contain valuable materials, especially REE, which could gen-
erate economic value while reducing environmental damage. Achieving this dual goal
requires a comprehensive understanding of the impact of these elements, their source trace-
ability, chemical fate and speciation throughout phosphate processing, and their impact
on contaminated environments. Such knowledge is essential for assessing contamination
risks, informing policy decisions on fertilizer use and waste management, and evaluat-
ing recovery potential. Additionally, linking REE' geochemistry and the host minerals
to extraction methods ensures that recovery strategies are both technically feasible and
economically justified.

For countries like Tunisia, where phosphate resources are abundant but ecosystems are
vulnerable, responsible management of PG and contaminated sites—particularly in marine
environments—can serve as a model for balancing industrial growth with environmental
stewardship. This approach can ensure both the sustainability of the phosphate sector and
effective environmental safety management.

8. Opportunities and Strategies for REE Recovery from Phosphate Ores and Industrial By-Products

The rising demand for REE, coupled with the geopolitical and environmental chal-
lenges of conventional REE sources, has triggered growing interest in secondary re-
sources, particularly phosphate deposits and phosphate processing residues such as
PG [70,71,77,235,236].

Efforts to recover REE from these materials date back to the 1930s, when Soviet re-
searchers explored REE recovery during phosphate rock processing [100]. Since the 1930s,
pilot-scale and near-industrial initiatives have been launched globally to explore REE re-
covery from phosphate processing streams. For example, in the 1960s, Romania developed
a multi-step REE concentration process using hydrochloric acid digestion of phosphate
rock, reaching 87.9% purity but only 65% recovery, insufficient for industrial implementa-
tion [100,152]. Finland's Kemira Oy demonstrated commercial-scale feasibility between
1965 and 1972 [153], and South Africa's Solvay ran co-extraction pilot tests for uranium and
REE from phosphoric acid in the 1970s and 1980s [154,175]. Several countries, including
Russia, Finland, and the United States, have advanced this research through pilot programs
and industrial proposals. Notably, a 2016 Russian initiative proposed an industrial-scale REE recovery route from PG [166], and the U.S. Department of Energy began funding programs to integrate REE extraction into phosphate rock and PG processing [153]. However, despite technical successes, the low REE content of most phosphate materials and the complications of managing radioactive by-products such as uranium and thorium have delayed commercial deployment [158].

In recent years, PG has emerged as a particularly promising secondary resource. With global stocks exceeding 7 billion tons and growing by 200–300 million tons annually, PG may contain up to 21 million tons of REE [156,165,166,237]. In addition to REE, PG contains valuable metals such as strontium (Sr), iron (Fe), yttrium (Y), cerium (Ce), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), vanadium (V), and cadmium (Cd) [232], further enhancing the economic viability of resource recovery.

A wide range of extraction techniques has been explored, including hydrometallurgical (acid leaching and solvent extraction), solvometallurgical, and bioleaching methods. Although pilot trials have achieved recovery rates exceeding 70–80%, full-scale implementation remains constrained by economic feasibility, waste stream management, and radiological safety concerns [28,74,226,238–240]. Case studies from Tunisia and Florida demonstrate that integrating REE recovery into existing phosphate processing workflows can enhance economic returns while reducing environmental impact. Liang et al. (2018) [138] achieved ~61% REE recovery from Florida phosphate flotation tailings using sulfuric acid under optimized leaching conditions. In China, Li et al. (2021) [97] reported recovery rates up to 94.3% from phosphate ore leached with phosphoric acid under optimized parameters (30% $P_2O_5$, L/S = 10:1).

Recent research emphasizes that the geochemical and mineralogical characteristics of phosphate ores are key determinants of recovery efficiency and technology selection. The choice of extraction method must be guided by mineralogical host phases and their REE patterns. For example, fluorapatite, the dominant REE host in many sedimentary phosphates, is typically enriched in LREE and exhibits negative Ce anomalies. These features align with sulfuric acid leaching, already integrated into phosphoric acid production, enabling co-recovery of REE with phosphorus. In contrast, monazite and xenotime, refractory minerals often rich in HREE, require more aggressive treatments such as alkaline cracking, hot acid digestion, or caustic fusion. These minerals are more prevalent in igneous-influenced phosphates such as those in Brazil, Mountain Pass (USA), and parts of China. Adsorbed and amorphous REE-bearing phases, often found in process residues such as PG, are amenable to bioleaching, ion exchange, or weak acid leaching. These approaches are more environmentally sustainable but generally slower. A summary of the relationship between dominant REE' host minerals, their geochemical signatures, and corresponding extraction strategies is presented in Table 3.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Relationship between dominant REE' host mineral, geochemical signature, and optimal extraction approach.</caption><thead><tr><td>Dominant REE Host Mineral</td><td>Typical REE Pattern</td><td>Extraction Approach</td><td>Considerations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fluorapatite</td><td>LREE-enriched; high LREE/HREE; often negative Ce anomaly [83,93,95]</td><td>Sulfuric acid leaching (wet-process), recovery from phosphoric acid, phosphogypsum, or purification sludge [100–106]</td><td>Recovery integrated into fertilizer production; REE co-leach with $P_2O_5$; possible selectivity</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><td>Dominant REE Host Mineral</td><td>Typical REE Pattern</td><td>Extraction Approach</td><td>Considerations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Monazite</td><td>LREE-rich, may show subdued anomalies; high Th/U [93,95,96]</td><td>Hot concentrated acid digestion</td><td>Requires radioelement management; high REE grade but higher processing cost</td></tr><tr><td>Xenotime</td><td>HREE-enriched; flatter REE profile; possible positive Eu anomaly [93,95,96]</td><td>Mixed-acid digestion</td><td>Strategic for HREE; more aggressive reagents needed</td></tr><tr><td>Adsorbed/ amorphous phases</td><td>Low total REE; variable patterns [99,184,203,241]</td><td>Bioleaching, ion exchange, or weak acid leaching [99,184,191,241]</td><td>Environmentally friendlier; slower kinetics; suitable for PG or process waters</td></tr></tbody></table>

Evidence pedigree: All entries are derived from peer-reviewed papers.

Integrating geochemical fingerprinting (e.g., Ce anomalies and LREE/HREE ratios) with mineralogical analysis is essential for designing cost-effective and environmentally responsible recovery routes. For instance, a strong negative Ce anomaly coupled with high LREE content often points to fluorapatite-hosted REE, well-suited to acid leaching. Flatter REE profiles or positive Eu anomalies may instead indicate HREE-rich monazite or xenotime phases, requiring tailored leaching protocols. Selective solvent extraction and ion-exchange resins can further refine REE recovery, especially when designed to target the specific REE distribution of the leachate [73,135,136].

While the concept of “urban mining” REE from phosphate resources is technically viable, its large-scale adoption depends on reducing reagent and energy costs, ensuring regulatory compliance—particularly regarding radioactive co-contaminants—and securing public and stakeholder support. Recent advances in extraction technologies, coupled with policy frameworks promoting circular economy practices, could enable the large-scale transformation of PG from a waste by-product to a strategic asset that supports a more sustainable REE supply chain.

To operationalize the evaluation of recovery opportunities, a decision framework was developed linking ore mineralogy, extraction strategy, energy and reagent requirements, and economics. This framework enables rapid screening of phosphate ores based on REE grade, radiological burden, and process feasibility. Figure 9 presents a schematic summarizing the main decision stages and associated performance indicators derived from recent studies [30,74,97,156].

The decision tree indicates that fluorapatite-hosted REE can be processed with reduced energy and reagent demand compared to monazite or xenotime systems, although with moderate recoveries. Conversely, monazite-bearing phosphates exhibit higher TREO grades. They require energy-intensive cracking processes and radiological control measures due to elevated U and/or Th content. The framework thus assists in identifying favorable candidates for pilot-scale testing and challenging streams where energy or radiological burdens outweigh potential economic returns.
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Decision tree linking phosphate mineralogy to extraction routes, indicative energy and reagent footprints, and economic or radiological limits. Blue arrows trace the decision flow. Light-green boxes indicate ore/mineralogy classes (fluorapatite-dominant, monazite-rich, xenotime). White boxes are process steps/options. The light-gray box summarizes footprint and economics; the final blue box states the outcome.</figcaption></figure>
# 9. Executive Summary

Phosphate deposits and their processing by-products represent a significant yet underutilized secondary source of REE. Globally, phosphate ores contain 0.02–0.3 wt% TREOs, corresponding to 10–30 Mt REEO theoretically available in known reserves. However, only a small percentage of the total mineral content is technically recoverable. Laboratory and pilot studies have reported recovery rates ranging from 40% to 90%, depending on the mineralogy of the material (fluorapatite, monazite, or xenotime). Accounting for beneficiation losses and process efficiency, the technical potential corresponds to roughly 15–25% of the theoretical inventory.

The constraints imposed by environmental and radiological factors further limit the feasibility of this approach. Materials with high U and Th content are unlikely to meet industrial or regulatory limits for large-scale treatment. According to these criteria, only about half of the technically recoverable REE fraction globally is considered environmentally acceptable. This fraction is equivalent to 1–3 million tons of REE (REEO). Predominant environmentally acceptable resources are low-Th fluorapatite ores and phosphogypsum by-products, which can be processed using mild acid or solvent-extraction circuits integrated into existing fertilizer plants. The recovery of these residues could yield 5–10% of future global demand for REE, thereby reducing waste burdens.

In summary, phosphate resources have been demonstrated to possess substantial potential for REE recovery; however, the feasibility of this recovery is contingent upon the implementation of three distinct filters, namely: (1) geological availability, (2) technical extractability, and (3) environmental acceptability.

# 10. Conclusions

The phosphate industry plays a pivotal role in global agriculture while offering a potential secondary source of critical raw materials. However, the commercial production of REE from phosphate ores and phosphate streams has not yet achieved significant scale due to the unfavorable grade–reagent–radioactivity economics at industrial levels. The majority of phosphate ores/PG demonstrate modest TREO values, coupled with quantifiable U and Th, yielding low TREO/(U + Th) ratios. This results in increased reagent consumption per unit REO, the necessity of radiological controls (and, in certain instances, Class 7 logistics for intermediates), and elevated costs associated with effluent treatment and long-term stack stewardship. In comparison, the production of bastnäsite operations involves the pairing of higher TREOs with lower Th, thereby facilitating more straightforward permitting processes and reducing operating intensity.

Environmental constraints are of paramount importance. It is imperative that any flowsheet design avoids the co-mobilization of U/Th and co-occurring metals into process waters. Furthermore, it must prevent their concentration in transportable intermediates and deliver demonstrable, durable risk reduction for very large inventories. In coastal regions such as the Gulf of Gabès in Tunisia, the social license to operate will be contingent upon indisputable evidence that the recovery process mitigates the ecological burden, rather than merely displacing it within the site.

The current market structure further narrows the feasibility of such an outcome. At current prices, Ce and La offer limited standalone value and are often oversupplied. The robustness of a project is typically contingent on Nd-Pr (and, where accessible, Dy-Tb). Processes that extract “bulk TREOs” but lack the capability to upgrade or separate them into marketable products will encounter significant challenges in meeting economic thresholds, particularly in the presence of U/Th overheads.

The question of whether phosphate streams resolve the HREE/LREE issue remains a subject of debate. It has been observed that certain streams demonstrate slightly elevated
Y-group proportions in comparison to their parent ores; however, it is noteworthy that these
streams are predominantly characterized by a dominance of LREE. This could transform
the field of economics by being complemented by advantages such as zero-cost feed (waste
liability), integration with wet-process phosphoric acid assets, and co-remediation.

While there is a promising technological landscape, barriers to entry persist. Selective leaching of CaSO4·2H2O to limit U/Th co-dissolution, task-specific extractants/ionic liquids that favor Nd-Pr at low head grades, membrane-assisted separations to recycle acids/bases, and bioleaching consortia for labile REE pools have shown encouraging pilot-scale results. However, three barrier classes continue to dominate: technical (speciation-aware selectivity in strong acids, reliable U/Th partitioning and immobilization), economic (reagent and energy intensity), and regulatory/social (auditable radiological stewardship across the flowsheet and evidence of net risk reduction).

In Tunisia, for example, where phosphate resources are abundant but ecosystems
are vulnerable, the viable path is speciation-led, integration-first, remediation-positive:
flowsheets are designed around the actual REE hosts and U/Th behavior, embedded
within the existing WPA infrastructure to share utilities and solids handling, and delivering
quantifiable environmental gains (reduced metal/radionuclide flux, stabilized residues). In
circumstances where the Nd-Pr upgrading process is deemed feasible, phosphate regions
possess the potential to transform phosphate streams from a liability into a strategic,
circular asset. Absent such alignment, low TREOs and radiological overheads will keep
most phosphate-derived resources below the threshold for commercial REE production.

**Funding:** This study was supported by the TunTwin project (funded by the H2020 Framework Program from the European Commission under grant No. 952306).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The tabulated entries presented in this review have been sourced from peer-reviewed papers. Well-established public datasets and reports (e.g., USGS, EC/JRC, and IAEA) are cited only in the narrative for sectoral context and are not included in quantitative tables. In the interest of maintaining readability, the in-text citations are not flagged individually. Instead, the evidence pedigree is delineated in this section and in table captions. Consequently, quantitative comparisons are based exclusively on peer-reviewed records, acknowledging reporting bases (oxide vs. elemental) and normalization choices.

**Data Availability Statement:** No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors gratefully acknowledge the "Institut des Sciences Analytiques et de Physico-Chimie pour l'Environnement et les Matériaux (IPREM)" and the "Laboratoire des Matériaux Utiles, Institut National de Recherche et d'Analyse Physicochimique (INRAP)" laboratories for providing a supportive research environment during the preparation of this review.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**References**

1. U.S. Geological Survey. *Mineral Commodity Summaries* 2025; Version 1.2; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2025; p. 212.

2. Pufahl, P.K.; Groat, L.A. Sedimentary and Igneous Phosphate Deposits: Formation and Exploration: An Invited Paper. *Econ. Geol.* **2017**, *112*, 483–516. [CrossRef]

3. Spears, B.M.; Brownlie, W.J.; Cordell, D.; Hermann, L.; Mogollón, J.M. Concerns about Global Phosphorus Demand for Lithium-Iron-Phosphate Batteries in the Light Electric Vehicle Sector. *Commun. Mater.* **2022**, *3*, 14. [CrossRef]

4. Cisse, L.; Mrabet, T. World Phosphate Production: Overview and Prospects. *Phosphorus Res. Bull.* **2004**, *15*, 21–25. [CrossRef]

5. Tahir, M.; Khalid, U.; Ijaz, M.; Shah, G.M.; Naeem, M.A.; Shahid, M.; Mahmood, K.; Ahmad, N.; Kareem, F. Combined Application of Bio-Organic Phosphate and Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria (Bacillus Strain MWT 14) Improve the Performance of Bread Wheat with Low Fertilizer Input under an Arid Climate. *Braz. J. Microbiol.* **2018**, *49*, 15–24. [CrossRef]

6. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.-O.; White, S. The Story of Phosphorus: Global Food Security and Food for Thought. *Glob. Environ. Change* **2009**, *19*, 292–305. [CrossRef]
7. Alexandratos, N. *World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision*; Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN: Rome, Italy, 2012.

8. Scholz, R.W.; Wellmer, F.-W. Approaching a Dynamic View on the Availability of Mineral Resources: What We May Learn from the Case of Phosphorus? *Glob. Environ. Change* **2013**, *23*, 11–27. [CrossRef]

9. Elser, J.; Bennett, E. A Broken Biogeochemical Cycle. *Nature* **2011**, *478*, 29–31. [CrossRef]

10. Weiner, M.L.; Salminen, W.F.; Larson, P.R.; Barter, R.A.; Kranetz, J.L.; Simon, G.S. Toxicological Review of Inorganic Phosphates. *Food Chem. Toxicol.* **2001**, *39*, 759–786. [CrossRef]

11. Gallala, W.; Herchi, F.; Ali, I.B.; Abbassi, L.; Gaied, M.E.; Montacer, M. Beneficiation of Phosphate Solid Coarse Waste from Redayef (Gafsa Mining Basin) by Grinding and Flotation Techniques. *Procedia Eng.* **2016**, *138*, 85–94. [CrossRef]

12. Becker, P. *Phosphates and Phosphoric Acid: Raw Materials, Technology, and Economics of the Wet Process*, 2nd ed.; Revised and Expanded; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 6, ISBN 978-0-8247-7976-4.

13. Awwad, N.S.; El-Nadi, Y.A.; Hamed, M.M. Successive Processes for Purification and Extraction of Phosphoric Acid Produced by Wet Process. *Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif.* **2013**, *74*, 69–74. [CrossRef]

14. Koopman, C.; Witkamp, G.J. Extraction of Lanthanides from the Phosphoric Acid Production Process to Gain a Purified Gypsum and a Valuable Lanthanide By-Product. *Hydrometallurgy* **2000**, *58*, 51–60. [CrossRef]

15. Calderón-Morales, B.R.S.; García-Martínez, A.; Pineda, P.; García-Tenório, R. Valorization of Phosphogypsum in Cement-Based Materials: Limits and Potential in Eco-Efficient Construction. *J. Build. Eng.* **2021**, *44*, 102506. [CrossRef]

16. Tayibi, H.; Choura, M.; López, F.A.; Alguacil, F.J.; López-Delgado, A. Environmental Impact and Management of Phosphogypsum (Review). *J. Environ. Manag.* **2009**, *90*, 2377–2386. [CrossRef]

17. Degirmenci, N.; Okucu, A.; Turabi, A. Application of Phosphogypsum in Soil Stabilization. *Build. Environ.* **2007**, *42*, 3393–3398. [CrossRef]

18. Papastefanou, C.; Stoulos, S.; Ioannidou, A.; Manolopoulou, M. The Application of Phosphogypsum in Agriculture and the Radiological Impact. *J. Environ. Radioact.* **2006**, *89*, 188–198. [CrossRef]

19. Rashad, A.M. Phosphogypsum as a Construction Material. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2017**, *166*, 732–743. [CrossRef]

20. Bouargane, B.; Laaboubi, K.; Biyoune, M.G.; Bakiz, B.; Atbir, A. Effective and Innovative Procedures to Use Phosphogypsum Waste in Different Application Domains: Review of the Environmental, Economic Challenges and Life Cycle Assessment. *J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.* **2023**, *25*, 1288–1308. [CrossRef]

21. Zhang, D.; Luo, H.; Zheng, L.; Wang, K.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Feng, H. Utilization of Waste Phosphogypsum to Prepare Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles and Its Application towards Removal of Fluoride from Aqueous Solution. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2012**, *241–242*, 418–426. [CrossRef]

22. Rutherford, P.M.; Dudas, M.J.; Samek, R.A. Environmental Impacts of Phosphogypsum. *Sci. Total Environ.* **1994**, *149*, 1–38. [CrossRef]

23. Zairi, M.; Rouis, M.J. Impacts Environnementaux Du Stockage Du Phosphogypse à Sfax (Tunisie). *Bull.-Lab. Des. Ponts Et Chaussées* **1999**, *219*, 29–40.

24. Pérez-López, R.; Álvarez-Valero, A.M.; Nieto, J.M. Changes in Mobility of Toxic Elements during the Production of Phosphoric Acid in the Fertilizer Industry of Huelva (SW Spain) and Environmental Impact of Phosphogypsum Wastes. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2007**, *148*, 745–750. [CrossRef]

25. Ajam, L.; Ben Ouezdou, M.; Felfoul, H.S.; Mensi, R.E. Characterization of the Tunisian Phosphogypsum and Its Valorization in Clay Bricks. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2009**, *23*, 3240–3247. [CrossRef]

26. Ajmal, P.Y.; Bhangare, R.C.; Tiwari, M.; Sahu, S.K.; Pandit, G.G. External Gamma Radiation Levels and Natural Radioactivity in Soil around a Phosphate Fertilizer Plant at Mumbai. *J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.* **2014**, *300*, 23–27. [CrossRef]

27. El Afifi, E.M.; Hilal, M.A.; Attallah, M.F.; EL-Reefy, S.A. Characterization of Phosphogypsum Wastes Associated with Phosphoric Acid and Fertilizers Production. *J. Environ. Radioact.* **2009**, *100*, 407–412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

28. El Zrelli, R.B.; Klar, J.K.; Castet, S.; Grégoire, M.; Courjault-Radé, P.; Fabre, S. Spatial Distribution Patterns, Eco-Environmental Risk Assessment, and Human Health Impacts of Uranium and Thorium in Beach Sediments in the Central Gulf of Gabes (Southern Mediterranean Sea). *Sustainability* **2025**, *17*, 1283. [CrossRef]

29. Gulbrandsen, R.A. Chemical Composition of Phosphorites of the Phosphoria Formation. *Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta* **1966**, *30*, 769–778. [CrossRef]

30. Emsbo, P.; McLaughlin, P.I.; Breit, G.N.; Du Bray, E.A.; Koenig, A.E. Rare Earth Elements in Sedimentary Phosphate Deposits: Solution to the Global REE Crisis? *Gondwana Res.* **2015**, *27*, 776–785. [CrossRef]

31. Ramos, S.J.; Dinali, G.S.; De Carvalho, T.S.; Chaves, L.C.; Siqueira, J.O.; Guilherme, L.R.G. Rare Earth Elements in Raw Materials and Products of the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry in South America: Content, Signature, and Crystalline Phases. *J. Geochem. Explor.* **2016**, *168*, 177–186. [CrossRef]
32. El Zrelli, R.; Baliteau, J.Y.; Yacoubi, L.; Castet, S.; Grégoire, M.; Fabre, S.; Sarazin, V.; Daconceicao, L.; Courjault-Radé, P.; Rabaoui, L. Rare Earth Elements Characterization Associated to the Phosphate Fertilizer Plants of Gabes (Tunisia, Central Mediterranean Sea): Geochemical Properties and Behavior, Related Economic Losses, and Potential Hazards. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2021**, *791*, 148268. [CrossRef]

33. Grohol, M.; Veeh, C. European Commission: Directorate-General for Internal Market, I., Entrepreneurship and SMEs. In *Study on the Critical Raw Materials for the EU 2023—Final Report*; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023.

34. Lu, S.-B.; Warmadewanthi, Liu, J.-C. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum Using Subcritical Water Extraction. *Chem. Eng. Process.—Process Intensif.* **2023**, *190*, 109433. [CrossRef]

35. Cánovas, C.R.; Macías, F.; Pérez López, R.; Nieto, J.M. Mobility of Rare Earth Elements, Yttrium and Scandium from a Phosphogypsum Stack: Environmental and Economic Implications. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2018**, *618*, 847–857. [CrossRef]

36. Geissler, B.; Hermann, L.; Mew, M.C.; Steiner, G. Striving Toward a Circular Economy for Phosphorus: The Role of Phosphate Rock Mining. *Minerals* **2018**, *8*, 395. [CrossRef]

37. Rout, S.; Abhilash, Meshram, P.; Zhang, P. A Comprehensive Review on Occurrence and Processing of Phosphate Rock Based Resources- Focus on REEs. *Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev.* **2024**, *45*, 368–388. [CrossRef]

38. Zhang, P. Comprehensive Recovery and Sustainable Development of Phosphate Resources. *Procedia Eng.* **2014**, *83*, 37–51. [CrossRef]

39. Bobba, S.; Carrara, S.; Huisman, J.; Mathieux, F.; Pavel, C.; Europäische Kommission. *Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies and Sectors in the EU: A Foresight Study*; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-15337-5.

40. Cordell, D.; White, S. Life's Bottleneck: Sustaining the World's Phosphorus for a Food Secure Future. *Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.* **2014**, *39*, 161–188. [CrossRef]

41. Natural Earth Free Vector and Raster Map Data 2023. Available online: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-0-countries/ (accessed on 7 November 2025).

42. Mason, G.T.; Arndt, R.E. *U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) 2023*; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2023.

43. Ulrich, A.E.; Frossard, E. On the History of a Reoccurring Concept: Phosphorus Scarcity. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2014**, *490*, 694–707. [CrossRef]

44. Cordell, D.; White, S. Tracking Phosphorus Security: Indicators of Phosphorus Vulnerability in the Global Food System. *Food Secur.* **2015**, *7*, 337–350. [CrossRef]

45. Cooper, J.; Lombardi, R.; Boardman, D.; Carliell-Marquet, C. The Future Distribution and Production of Global Phosphate Rock Reserves. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* **2011**, *57*, 78–86. [CrossRef]

46. Grand View Research. Phosphate-Rock-Market. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-phosphate-rock-market (accessed on 7 November 2025).

47. Khabarov, N.; Obersteiner, M. Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Market and National Policies: A Case Study Revisiting the 2008 Price Peak. *Front. Nutr.* **2017**, *4*, 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

48. Binnemans, K.; Jones, P.T.; Blanpain, B.; Van Gerven, T.; Yang, Y.; Walton, A.; Buchert, M. Recycling of Rare Earths: A Critical Review. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2013**, *51*, 1–22. [CrossRef]

49. Vaccari, D.A.; Powers, S.M.; Liu, X. Demand-Driven Model for Global Phosphate Rock Suggests Paths for Phosphorus Sustainability. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2019**, *53*, 10417–10425. [CrossRef]

50. Technavio. Phosphate Rock Market Analysis—Size and Forecast 2025–2029. Available online: https://www.technavio.com/report/phosphate-rock-market-analysis (accessed on 7 November 2025).

51. Issaoui, R.; Rösch, C.; Woidasky, J.; Schmidt, M.; Viere, T. Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Beneficiated Phosphate Rock Production in Tunisia. *NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum* **2021**, *29*, 107–118. [CrossRef]

52. Jalali, J.; Gaudin, P.; Capiaux, H.; Ammar, E.; Lebeau, T. Fate and Transport of Metal Trace Elements from Phosphogypsum Piles in Tunisia and Their Impact on Soil Bacteria and Wild Plants. *Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.* **2019**, *174*, 12–25. [CrossRef]

53. El Zrelli, R.; Rabaoui, L.; Abda, H.; Daghbouj, N.; Pérez-López, R.; Castet, S.; Aigouy, T.; Bejaoui, N.; Courjault-Radé, P. Characterization of the Role of Phosphogypsum Foam in the Transport of Metals and Radionuclides in the Southern Mediterranean Sea. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2019**, *363*, 258–267. [CrossRef]

54. Ben Amor, R.; Fathallah, S.; Gueddari, M. Impact of Phosphogypsum Waste on the Geochemistry of the Coastal Water of Ghannouche-Gabes (SE of Tunisia). In *Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts*, Vienna, Austria, 19–24 April 2009; p. 7999.

55. El Kateb, A.; Stalder, C.; Rüggeberg, A.; Neururer, C.; Spangenberg, J.E.; Spezzaferri, S. Impact of Industrial Phosphate Waste Discharge on the Marine Environment in the Gulf of Gabes (Tunisia). *PLoS ONE* **2018**, *13*, e0197731. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

56. Mansouri, B.; Gzam, M.; Souid, F.; Telahigue, F.; Chahlaoui, A.; Ouarrak, K.; Kharroubi, A. Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination in Gulf of Gabès Coastland (Southeastern Tunisia): Impact of Chemical Industries and Drift Currents. *Arab. J. Geosci.* **2020**, *13*, 1180. [CrossRef]
57. El Zrelli, R.; Rabaoui, L.; Daghbouj, N.; Abda, H.; Castet, S.; Josse, C.; van Beek, P.; Souhaut, M.; Michel, S.; Bejaoui, N.; et al. Characterization of Phosphate Rock and Phosphogypsum from Gabes Phosphate Fertilizer Factories (SE Tunisia): High Mining Potential and Implications for Environmental Protection. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2018**, *25*, 14690–14702. [CrossRef]

58. El Zrelli, R.; Rabaoui, L.; Ben Alaya, M.; Daghbouj, N.; Castet, S.; Besson, P.; Michel, S.; Bejaoui, N.; Courjault-Radé, P. Seawater Quality Assessment and Identification of Pollution Sources along the Central Coastal Area of Gabes Gulf (SE Tunisia): Evidence of Industrial Impact and Implications for Marine Environment Protection. *Mar. Pollut. Bull.* **2018**, *127*, 445–452. [CrossRef]

59. Ben Amor, R.; Gueddari, M. Major Ion Geochemistry of Ghannouch-Gabes Coastline (at Southeast Tunisia, Mediterranean Sea): Study of the Impact of Phosphogypsum Discharges by Geochemical Modeling and Statistical Analysis. *Environ. Earth Sci.* **2016**, *75*, 851. [CrossRef]

60. Melki, S.; Gueddari, M. Impact Assessment of Phosphogypsum Leachate on Groundwater of Sfax-Agareb (Southeast of Tunisia): Using Geochemical and Isotopic Investigation. *J. Chem. 2018*, *2018*, 1–10. [CrossRef]

61. Zhou, B.; Li, Z.; Chen, C. Global Potential of Rare Earth Resources and Rare Earth Demand from Clean Technologies. *Minerals* **2017**, *7*, 203. [CrossRef]

62. Klinger, J.M. A Historical Geography of Rare Earth Elements: From Discovery to the Atomic Age. *Extr. Ind. Soc.* **2015**, *2*, 572–580. [CrossRef]

63. Meng, D.; Wang, M.; Feng, Z.; Xia, C.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, X. Behavior of Phase Transformation of Baotou Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate during Oxidation Roasting. *J. Rare Earths* **2022**, *40*, 981–987. [CrossRef]

64. Tuncay, G.; Yuksekdag, A.; Mutlu, B.K.; Koyuncu, I. A Review of Greener Approaches for Rare Earth Elements Recovery from Mineral Wastes. *Environ. Pollut.* **2024**, *357*, 124379. [CrossRef]

65. Alonso, E.; Wallington, T.; Sherman, A.; Everson, M.; Field, F.; Roth, R.; Kirchain, R. An Assessment of the Rare Earth Element Content of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. *SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf.* **2012**, *5*, 473–477. [CrossRef]

66. Alonso, E.; Pineault, D.G.; Gambogi, J.; Nassar, N.T. Mapping First to Final Uses for Rare Earth Elements, Globally and in the United States. *J. Ind. Ecol.* **2023**, *27*, 312–322. [CrossRef]

67. Grandell, L.; Lehtilä, A.; Kivinen, M.; Koljonen, T.; Kihlman, S.; Lauri, L.S. Role of Critical Metals in the Future Markets of Clean Energy Technologies. *Renew. Energy* **2016**, *95*, 53–62. [CrossRef]

68. Liu, S.-L.; Fan, H.-R.; Liu, X.; Meng, J.; Butcher, A.R.; Yann, L.; Yang, K.-F.; Li, X.-C. Global Rare Earth Elements Projects: New Developments and Supply Chains. *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2023**, *157*, 105428. [CrossRef]

69. Kulczycka, J.; Kowalski, Z.; Smol, M.; Wirth, H. Evaluation of the Recovery of Rare Earth Elements (REE) from Phosphogypsum Waste—Case Study of the WIZÓW Chemical Plant (Poland). *J. Clean. Prod.* **2016**, *113*, 345–354. [CrossRef]

70. Goodenough, K.M.; Wall, F.; Merriman, D. The Rare Earth Elements: Demand, Global Resources, and Challenges for Resourcing Future Generations. *Nat. Resour. Res.* **2018**, *27*, 201–216. [CrossRef]

71. Gaustad, G.; Williams, E.; Leader, A. Rare Earth Metals from Secondary Sources: Review of Potential Supply from Waste and Byproducts. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* **2021**, *167*, 105213. [CrossRef]

72. Kurkinen, S.; Virolainen, S.; Sainio, T. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum Waste in Resin-in-Leach Process by Eluting with Biodegradable Complexing Agents. *Hydrometallurgy* **2021**, *201*, 105569. [CrossRef]

73. Chen, M.; Graedel, T.E. The Potential for Mining Trace Elements from Phosphate Rock. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2015**, *91*, 337–346. [CrossRef]

74. Lütke, S.F.; Oliveira, M.L.S.; Waechter, S.R.; Silva, L.F.O.; Cadaval, T.R.S.; Duarte, F.A.; Dotto, G.L. Leaching of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum. *Chemosphere* **2022**, *301*, 134661. [CrossRef]

75. Gupta, A.; Williams, E.; Gaustad, G. Forecasting Revenue from Primary and Secondary Sources of Rare Earth Elements. *Resour. Conserv. Recycl.* **2024**, *207*, 107612. [CrossRef]

76. Elshkaki, A. Sustainability of Emerging Energy and Transportation Technologies Is Impacted by the Coexistence of Minerals in Nature. *Commun. Earth Environ.* **2021**, *2*, 186. [CrossRef]

77. Costis, S.; Mueller, K.K.; Blais, J.-F.; Royer-Lavallée, A.; Coudert, L.; Neculita, C.M. Review of Recent Work on the Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Secondary Sources; The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2019.

78. Dushyantha, N.P.; Ratnayake, N.P.; Premasiri, H.M.R.; Ilankoon, I.M.S.K.; Hemalal, P.V.A.; Jayawardena, C.L.; Chandrajith, R.; Rohitha, L.P.S.; Abeysinghe, A.M.K.B.; Dissanayake, D.M.D.O.K.; et al. Leaching of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) from Lake Sediments around Eppawala Phosphate Deposit, Sri Lanka: A Secondary Source for REEs. *Hydrometallurgy* **2021**, *205*, 105751. [CrossRef]

79. Khelifi, F.; Batool, S.; Kechiched, R.; Padoan, E.; Ncibi, K.; Hamed, Y. Abundance, Distribution, and Ecological/Environmental Risks of Critical Rare Earth Elements (REE) in Phosphate Ore, Soil, Tailings, and Sediments: Application of Spectroscopic Fingerprinting. *J. Soils Sediments* **2024**, *24*, 2099–2118. [CrossRef]

80. Dutta, T.; Kim, K.-H.; Uchimiya, M.; Kwon, E.E.; Jeon, B.-H.; Deep, A.; Yun, S.-T. Global Demand for Rare Earth Resources and Strategies for Green Mining. *Environ. Res.* **2016**, *150*, 182–190. [CrossRef]
81. Garnit, H.; Bouhlel, S.; Barca, D.; Chtara, C. Application of LA-ICP-MS to Sedimentary Phosphatic Particles from Tunisian Phosphorite Deposits: Insights from Trace Elements and REE into Paleo-Depositional Environments. *Geochemistry* **2012**, *72*, 127–139. [CrossRef]

82. Christmann, P. A Forward Look into Rare Earth Supply and Demand: A Role for Sedimentary Phosphate Deposits? *Procedia Eng.* **2014**, *83*, 19–26. [CrossRef]

83. Altschuler, Z.S.; Berman, S.; Cuttitta, F. *Rare Earths in Phosphorites—Geochemistry and Potential Recovery*; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1967.

84. Baturin, G.N.; Bliskovskii, V.Z.; Mineev, D.A. Rare Earth Elements in Phosphorites from the Ocean Floor. In *Proceedings of the Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR*; Academy of Sciences of the USSR: Moscow, Russia, 1972; Volume 207, pp. 954–957.

85. Liang, H.; Zhang, P.; Jin, Z.; DePaoli, D. Rare-Earth Leaching from Florida Phosphate Rock in Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Production. *Miner. Metall. Process.* **2017**, *34*, 146–153. [CrossRef]

86. Ptáček, P. Mining and Beneficiation of Phosphate Ore. In *Apatites and Their Synthetic Analogues—Synthesis, Structure, Properties and Applications*; Ptáček, P., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; ISBN 978-953-51-2266-1.

87. Dev, S.; Sachan, A.; Dehghani, F.; Ghosh, T.; Briggs, B.R.; Aggarwal, S. Mechanisms of Biological Recovery of Rare-Earth Elements from Industrial and Electronic Wastes: A Review. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2020**, *397*, 124596. [CrossRef]

88. Rakovan, J.; Reeder, R.J. Intracrystalline Rare Earth Element Distributions in Apatite: Surface Structural Influences on Incorporation during Growth. *Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta* **1996**, *60*, 4435–4445. [CrossRef]

89. Get'man, E.I.; Loboda, S.N.; Ignatov, A.V.; Prisedsky, V.V.; Abdul Jabar, M.A.B.; Ardanova, L.I. Isomorphous Substitution of Rare-Earth Elements in Lacunary Apatite $Pb_8Na_2(PO_4)_6$. *Inorg. Chem.* **2016**, *55*, 2165–2173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

90. Balaram, V. Rare Earth Elements: A Review of Applications, Occurrence, Exploration, Analysis, Recycling, and Environmental Impact. *Geosci. Front.* **2019**, *10*, 1285–1303. [CrossRef]

91. Jackson, W.D.; Christiansen, G. *International Strategic Minerals Inventory Summary Report—Rare-Earth Oxides*; Circular; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1993.

92. Charalampides, G.; Vatalis, K.I.; Apostoplos, B.; Ploutarch-Nikolas, B. Rare Earth Elements: Industrial Applications and Economic Dependency of Europe. *Procedia Econ. Financ.* **2015**, *24*, 126–135. [CrossRef]

93. Engi, M. Petrochronology Based on REE-Minerals: Monazite, Allanite, Xenotime, Apatite. *Rev. Mineral. Geochem.* **2017**, *83*, 365–418. [CrossRef]

94. Chen, W.; Honghui, H.; Bai, T.; Jiang, S. Geochemistry of Monazite within Carbonatite Related REE Deposits. *Resources* **2017**, *6*, 51. [CrossRef]

95. Ni, Y.; Hughes, J.M.; Mariano, A.N. Crystal Chemistry of the Monazite and Xenotime Structures. *Am. Mineral.* **1995**, *80*, 21–26. [CrossRef]

96. Chelgani, S.C.; Rudolph, M.; Leistner, T.; Gutzmer, J.; Peuker, U.A. A Review of Rare Earth Minerals Flotation: Monazite and Xenotime. *Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol.* **2015**, *25*, 877–883. [CrossRef]

97. Li, Z.; Xie, Z.; He, D.; Deng, J.; Zhao, H.; Li, H. Simultaneous Leaching of Rare Earth Elements and Phosphorus from a Chinese Phosphate Ore Using H3PO4. *Green Process. Synth.* **2021**, *10*, 258–267. [CrossRef]

98. Jang, G.G.; Thompson, J.A.; Meyer, P.A.; Zhang, P.; Shen, Z.; Tsouris, C. Technoeconomic Assessment of Phosphoric Acid and Rare Earth Element Recovery from Phosphoric Acid Sludge. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 6984. [CrossRef]

99. Salem, M.; Souissi, R.; Souissi, F.; Abbes, N.; Moutte, J. Phosphoric Acid Purification Sludge: Potential in Heavy Metals and Rare Earth Elements. *Waste Manag.* **2019**, *83*, 46–56. [CrossRef]

100. Wu, S.; Wang, L.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, P.; El-Shall, H.; Moudgil, B.; Huang, X.; Zhang, L. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphate Rock by Hydrometallurgical Processes—A Critical Review. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2018**, *335*, 774–800. [CrossRef]

101. Diwa, R.R.; Tabora, E.U.; Haneklaus, N.H.; Ramirez, J.D. Rare Earths Leaching from Philippine Phosphogypsum Using Taguchi Method, Regression, and Artificial Neural Network Analysis. *J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.* **2023**, *25*, 3316–3330. [CrossRef]

102. Maina, L.; Kiegiel, K.; Samczyński, Z.; Haneklaus, N.; Zakrzewska-Kołtuniewicz, G. Sulfuric Acid Leaching Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Wizów’s Phosphogypsum in Poland. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 9059. [CrossRef]

103. Battsengel, A.; Batnasan, A.; Narankhuu, A.; Haga, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Shibayama, A. Recovery of Light and Heavy Rare Earth Elements from Apatite Ore Using Sulphuric Acid Leaching, Solvent Extraction and Precipitation. *Hydrometallurgy* **2018**, *179*, 100–109. [CrossRef]

104. Yu, S.; Ao, X.; Liang, L.; Mao, X.; Guo, Y. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Sedimentary Rare Earth Ore via Sulfuric Acid Roasting and Water Leaching. *J. Rare Earths* **2024**, *43*, 805–814. [CrossRef]

105. Cheremisina, O. Recovery of Rare Earth Metals from Phosphogypsum—Apatite Ore Sulfuric Acid Leaching Product. In Proceedings of the 19th SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference EXPO, Sofia, Bulgaria, 20 June 2019.

106. Wang, L.; Long, Z.; Huang, X.; Yu, Y.; Cui, D.; Zhang, G. Recovery of Rare Earths from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid. *Hydrometallurgy* **2010**, *101*, 41–47. [CrossRef]
107. Ogata, T.; Narita, H.; Tanaka, M.; Hoshino, M.; Kon, Y.; Watanabe, Y. Selective Recovery of Heavy Rare Earth Elements from Apatite with an Adsorbent Bearing Immobilized Tridentate Amido Ligands. *Sep. Purif. Technol.* **2016**, *159*, 157–160. [CrossRef]

108. Smida, O.; Souissi, R.; Salem, M.; Souissi, F. Geochemical Assessment and Mobility of Undesired Elements in the Sludge of the Phosphate Industry of Gafsa-Metlaoui Basin, (Southern Tunisia). *Appl. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 1075. [CrossRef]

109. Garnit, H.; Bouhlel, S.; Jarvis, I. Geochemistry and Depositional Environments of Paleocene–Eocene Phosphorites: Metlaoui Group, Tunisia. *J. Afr. Earth Sci.* **2017**, *134*, 704–736. [CrossRef]

110. Galfati, I.; Sassi, A.B.; Zaier, A.; Bouchardon, J.L.; Bilal, E.; Joron, J.L.; Sassi, S. Geochemistry and Mineralogy of Paleocene-Eocene Oum El Khecheb Phosphorites (Gafsa-Metlaoui Basin) Tunisia. *Geochem. J.* **2010**, *44*, 189–210. [CrossRef]

111. Kechiched, R.; Laouar, R.; Bruguier, O.; Kocsis, L.; Salmi-Laouar, S.; Bosch, D.; Ameur-Zaimeche, O.; Foufou, A.; Larit, H. Comprehensive REE + Y and Sensitive Redox Trace Elements of Algerian Phosphorites (Tébessa, Eastern Algeria): A Geochemical Study and Depositional Environments Tracking. *J. Geochem. Explor.* **2020**, *208*, 106396. [CrossRef]

112. Amine, M.; Asafar, F.; Bilali, L.; Nadifiyine, M. Hydrochloric Acid Leaching Study of Rare Earth Elements from Moroccan Phosphate. *J. Chem.* **2019**, *2019*, 1–10. [CrossRef]

113. Zhang, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Niu, H.; Xing, J.; Yan, S.; Li, A.; Weng, Q.; Zhao, X. Enrichment of Rare Earth Elements in the Early Cambrian Zhijin Phosphorite Deposit, SW China: Evidence from Francolite Micro-Petrography and Geochemistry. *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2021**, *138*, 104342. [CrossRef]

114. Xin, H.; Jiang, S.-Y.; Yang, J.-H.; Wu, H.-P.; Pi, D.-H. Rare Earth Element and Sr–Nd Isotope Geochemistry of Phosphatic Rocks in Neoproterozoic Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation in Zhangcunping Section from Western Hubei Province, South China. *Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.* **2015**, *440*, 712–724. [CrossRef]

115. Xin, H.; Jiang, S.; Yang, J.; Wu, H.; Pi, D. Rare Earth Element Geochemistry of Phosphatic Rocks in Neoproterozoic Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation in Hushan Section from the Yangtze Gorges Area, South China. *J. Earth Sci.* **2016**, *27*, 204–210. [CrossRef]

116. Murthy, R.; Kidder, D.; Mapes, R.; Hannigan, R. Rare-Earth Element Chemistry of Mississippian–Age Phosphate Nodules in the Fayetteville Shale of Oklahoma and Arkansas. *Environ. Geosci.* **2004**, *11*, 99–111. [CrossRef]

117. Long, K.R.; Van Gosen, B.S.; Foley, N.K.; Cordier, D. The Principal Rare Earth Elements Deposits of the United States: A Summary of Domestic Deposits and a Global Perspective. In *Non-Renewable Resource Issues*; Sinding-Larsen, R., Wellmer, F.-W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 131–155, ISBN 978-90-481-8678-5.

118. Shahin, M.; Elmongy, S.; Saad, E.; Shazly, A.; Ezzat, A. Evaluation of Rare Earth Elements in Black Sand and Phosphate Ores, EGYPT. *Egypt. J. Chem.* **2020**, *63*, 4185–4193. [CrossRef]

119. Abed, A.M.; Jaber, O.; Alkuisi, M.; Sadaqah, R. Rare Earth Elements and Uranium Geochemistry in the Al-Kora Phosphorite Province, Late Cretaceous, Northwestern Jordan. *Arab. J. Geosci.* **2016**, *9*, 187. [CrossRef]

120. Amireh, B.S.; Amaireh, M.N.; Taha, S.A.; Abed, A.M. Petrogenesis, Provenance, and Rare Earth Element Geochemistry, Southeast Desert Phosphorite, Jordan. *J. Afr. Earth Sci.* **2019**, *150*, 701–721. [CrossRef]

121. De Oliveira, S.M.B.; Da Silva, P.S.C.; Mazzilli, B.P.; Favaro, D.I.T.; Saueia, C.H. Rare Earth Elements as Tracers of Sediment Contamination by Phosphogypsum in the Santos Estuary, Southern Brazil. *Appl. Geochem.* **2007**, *22*, 837–850. [CrossRef]

122. Silva, F.B.V.; Nascimento, C.W.A.; Alvarez, A.M.; Araújo, P.R.M. Inputs of Rare Earth Elements in Brazilian Agricultural Soils via P-Containing Fertilizers and Soil Correctives. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2019**, *232*, 90–96. [CrossRef]

123. Al-Thyabat, S.; Zhang, P. REE Extraction from Phosphoric Acid, Phosphoric Acid Sludge, and Phosphogypsum. *Miner. Process. Extr. Metall.* **2015**, *124*, 143–150. [CrossRef]

124. Yang, X.; Makkonen, H.T.; Pakkanen, L. Rare Earth Occurrences in Streams of Processing a Phosphate Ore. *Minerals* **2019**, *9*, 262. [CrossRef]

125. Amaral, J.C.B.S.; Sá, M.L.C.G.; Morais, C.A. Recovery of Uranium, Thorium and Rare Earth from Industrial Residues. *Hydrometalurgy* **2018**, *181*, 148–155. [CrossRef]

126. Khawassek, Y.M.; Eliwa, A.A.; Gawad, E.A.; Abdo, S.M. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from El-Sela Effluent Solutions. *J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci.* **2015**, *8*, 583–589. [CrossRef]

127. Hamza, M.F.; El-Aassy, I.E.; Guibal, E. Integrated Treatment of Tailing Material for the Selective Recovery of Uranium, Rare Earth Elements and Heavy Metals. *Miner. Eng.* **2019**, *133*, 138–148. [CrossRef]

128. Samsonov, M.D.; Trofimov, T.I.; Kulyako, Y.M.; Vinokurov, S.E.; Malikov, D.A.; Batorshin, G.S.; Myasoedov, B.F. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements, Uranium, and Thorium from Monazite Concentrate by Supercritical Fluid Extraction. *Radiochemistry* **2015**, *57*, 343–347. [CrossRef]

129. Graupner, T.; Mühlbach, C.; Schwarz-Schampera, U.; Henjes-Kunst, F.; Melcher, F.; Terblanche, H. Mineralogy of High-Field-Strength Elements (Y, Nb, REE) in the World-Class Vergenoeg Fluorite Deposit, South Africa. *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2015**, *64*, 583–601. [CrossRef]

130. Sholkovitz, E.R. Rare-Earth Elements in Marine Sediments and Geochemical Standards. *Chem. Geol.* **1990**, *88*, 333–347. [CrossRef]

131. Menendez, A.; James, R.H.; Roberts, S.; Peel, K.; Connelly, D. Controls on the Distribution of Rare Earth Elements in Deep-Sea Sediments in the North Atlantic Ocean. *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2017**, *87*, 100–113. [CrossRef]
132. Khadijeh, R.E.S.; Elias, S.B.; Wood, A.K.; Reza, A.M. Rare Earth Elements Distribution in Marine Sediments of Malaysia Coasts. *J. Rare Earths* **2009**, *27*, 1066-1071. [CrossRef]

133. Toyoda, K.; Nakamura, Y.; Masuda, A. Rare Earth Elements of Pacific Pelagic Sediments. *Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta* **1990**, *54*, 1093-1103. [CrossRef]

134. Milinovic, J.; Rodrigues, F.J.L.; Barriga, F.J.A.S.; Murton, B.J. Ocean-Floor Sediments as a Resource of Rare Earth Elements: An Overview of Recently Studied Sites. *Minerals* **2021**, *11*, 142. [CrossRef]

135. Ouyang, A.; Xiong, W.; Li, X.; Chen, D.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, P. Occurrence and Screening- Flotation Separation for the Beneficiation of Rare Earth Elements and Yttrium (REY) in Core Sediments from the Pacific Ocean. *Mar. Geol.* **2023**, *462*, 107097. [CrossRef]

136. Wu, S.; Zhao, L.; Wang, L.; Huang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, Z.; Cui, D. Simultaneous Recovery of Rare Earth Elements and Phosphorus from Phosphate Rock by Phosphoric Acid Leaching and Selective Precipitation: Towards Green Process. *J. Rare Earths* **2019**, *37*, 652-658. [CrossRef]

137. Hammache, Z.; Berbar, Y.; Bensaadi, S.; Trari, M.; Amara, M. Recovery of Light Rare Earth Elements by Leaching and Extraction from Phosphate Mining Waste (Fluorapatite and Carbonate-Fluorapatite). *J. Afr. Earth Sci.* **2020**, *171*, 103937. [CrossRef]

138. Liang, H.; Zhang, P.; Jin, Z.; DePaoli, D. Rare Earth and Phosphorus Leaching from a Flotation Tailings of Florida Phosphate Rock. *Minerals* **2018**, *8*, 416. [CrossRef]

139. International Atomic Energy Agency. *Radiation Protection and Management of NORM Residues in the Phosphate Industry*; Safety reports series; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2013; ISBN 978-92-0-135810-3.

140. Jordens, A.; Cheng, Y.P.; Waters, K.E. A Review of the Beneficiation of Rare Earth Element Bearing Minerals. *Miner. Eng.* **2013**, *41*, 97-114. [CrossRef]

141. Cánovas, C.R.; Pérez-López, R.; Macías, F.; Chapron, S.; Nieto, J.M.; Pellet-Rostaing, S. Exploration of Fertilizer Industry Wastes as Potential Source of Critical Raw Materials. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2017**, *143*, 497-505. [CrossRef]

142. Haxel, G.B.; Hedrick, J.B.; Orris, G.J.; Stauffer, P.H.; Hendley, J.W., II. *Rare Earth Elements—Critical Resources for High Technology*; Fact Sheet; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2002.

143. Park, S.; Tracy, C.L.; Ewing, R.C. Reimagining US Rare Earth Production: Domestic Failures and the Decline of US Rare Earth Production Dominance—Lessons Learned and Recommendations. *Resour. Policy* **2023**, *85*, 104022. [CrossRef]

144. Hellman, P.L.; Duncan, R.K. Evaluating Rare Earth Element Deposits. *ASEG Ext. Abstr.* **2018**, *2018*, 1-13. [CrossRef]

145. Lynas Rare Earths. Residue and Tailings Management. Available online: https://lynasrareearths.com/sustainability/residue-tailings-management/ (accessed on 7 November 2025).

146. Chen, L.; Zhou, S.; Wu, S.; Wang, C.; Li, B.; Li, Y.; Wang, J. Combining Emission Inventory and Isotope Ratio Analyses for Quantitative Source Apportionment of Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soil. *Chemosphere* **2018**, *204*, 140-147. [CrossRef]

147. Wang, Z.; Hill, R.; Williams, G.; Dwyer, G.S.; Hu, J.; Schnug, E.; Bol, R.; Sun, Y.; Coleman, D.S.; Liu, X.-M.; et al. Lead Isotopes and Rare Earth Elements Geochemistry of Global Phosphate Rocks: Insights into Depositional Conditions and Environmental Tracing. *Chem. Geol.* **2023**, *639*, 121715. [CrossRef]

148. Shields, G. Stratigraphic Trends in Cerium Anomaly in Authigenic Marine Carbonates and Phosphates: Diagenetic Alteration or Seawater Signals? *Mineral. Mag.* **1998**, *62A*, 1387-1388. [CrossRef]

149. Shields, G.; Stille, P. Diagenetic Constraints on the Use of Cerium Anomalies as Palaeoseawater Redox Proxies: An Isotopic and REE Study of Cambrian Phosphorites. *Chem. Geol.* **2001**, *175*, 29-48. [CrossRef]

150. Wu, Y. Review of Comprehensive Utilization of Phosphate Rock-Rare Earth Recovery. *J. Wuhan Inst. Chem. Ind.* **1983**, *1*, 1-13.

151. Singh, D.K.; Jain, V. Phosphatic Resources: A Valuable Wealth of Rare Earths. In *Critical and Rare Earth Elements*; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 331-342. [CrossRef]

152. Goldstein, I.J. Preparation of the Precipitate and of Rare Earth Oxides from Kola Apatites. *Rev. Chem.* **1965**, *16*, 359-360.

153. Habashi, F. The Recovery of the Lanthanides from Phosphate Rock. *J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. Chem. Technol.* **1985**, *35*, 5-14. [CrossRef]

154. Rollat, A. Recovery of Rare Earths from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid, the Solvay Experience. *Procedia Eng.* **2016**, *138*, 273-280. [CrossRef]

155. Mashkovtsev, M.; Botalov, M.; Smyshlyaev, D.; Pajarre, R.; Kangas, P.; Rychkov, V.; Koukkari, P. Pilot-Scale Recovery of Rare Earths and Scandium from Phosphogypsum and Uranium Leachates. *E3S Web Conf. 2016*, *8*, 01026. [CrossRef]

156. Hammas-Nasri, I.; Horchani-Naifer, K.; Férid, M.; Barca, D. Production of a Rare Earths Concentrate after Phosphogypsum Treatment with Dietary NaCl and Na₂CO₃ Solutions. *Miner. Eng.* **2019**, *132*, 169-174. [CrossRef]

157. Masmoudi-Soussi, A.; Hammas-Nasri, I.; Horchani-Naifer, K.; Férid, M. Rare Earths Recovery by Fractional Precipitation from a Sulfuric Leach Liquor Obtained after Phosphogypsum Processing. *Hydrometallurgy* **2020**, *191*, 105253. [CrossRef]

158. Khater, A.E.M.; Galmed, M.A.; Nasr, M.M.; El-Taher, A. Uranium and Rare Earth Elements in Hazm El-Jalamid Phosphate, Saudi Arabia: Concentrations and Geochemical Patterns Comparison. *Environ. Earth Sci.* **2016**, *75*, 1261. [CrossRef]

159. Ji, B.; Li, Q.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, W. Enhanced Leaching Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from a Phosphatic Waste Clay through Calcination Pretreatment. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2021**, *319*, 128654. [CrossRef]
160. Togizov, K.; Issayeva, L.; Muratkhanov, D.; Kurmangazhina, M.; Swęd, M.; Duczmal-Czernikiewicz, A. Rare Earth Elements in the Shok-Karagay Ore Fields (Syrymbet Ore District, Northern Kazakhstan) and Visualisation of the Deposits Using the Geography Information System. *Minerals* **2023**, *13*, 1458. [CrossRef]

161. Xie, G.; Guan, Q.; Zhou, F.; Yu, W.; Yin, Z.; Tang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Chi, R. A Critical Review of the Enhanced Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum. *Molecules* **2023**, *28*, 6284. [CrossRef]

162. Podbiera-Matysik, K.; Gorazda, K.; Wzorek, Z. Potencial Management of Waste Phosphogypsum with Particular Focus on Recovery of Rare Earth Metals. *Pol. J. Chem. Technol. 2015*, *17*, 55–61. [CrossRef]

163. Qing, J.; Zhao, D.; Zeng, L.; Zhang, G.; Zhou, L.; Du, J.; Li, Q.; Cao, Z.; Wu, S. Comprehensive Recovery of Rare Earth Elements and Gypsum from Phosphogypsum: A Wastewater Free Process Combining Gravity Separation and Hydrometallurgy. *J. Rare Earths* **2025**, *43*, 362–370. [CrossRef]

164. Hammas-Nasri, I.; Horchani-Naifer, K.; Férid, M.; Barca, D. Rare Earths Concentration from Phosphogypsum Waste by Two-Step Leaching Method. *Int. J. Miner. Process*. **2016**, *149*, 78–83. [CrossRef]

165. Yang, J.; Dong, S.; Ma, L.; Dai, Q.; Zheng, D.; Huang, B.; Sun, M.; Hu, B.; Du, W.; Xie, L.; et al. Review on High-Value Utilization of Phosphogypsum: Utilization of Calcium and Oxygen Resources Present in Phosphogypsum. *Sep. Purif. Technol.* **2024**, *344*, 127246. [CrossRef]

166. Yahorava, V.; Bazhko, V.; Freeman, M. Viability of Phosphogypsum as a Secondary Resource of Rare Earth Elements. In Proceedings of the XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 11–15 September 2016; pp. 11–15.

167. Soltani, F.; Abdollahy, M.; Petersen, J.; Ram, R.; Becker, M.; Javad Koleini, S.M.; Moradkhani, D. Leaching and Recovery of Phosphate and Rare Earth Elements from an Iron-Rich Fluorapatite Concentrate: Part I: Direct Baking of the Concentrate. *Hydrometallurgy* **2018**, *177*, 66–78. [CrossRef]

168. Chen, J.; Yang, R.; Zhang, J.; Chao, J. Occurrence of Yttrium in the Zhijin Phosphorus Deposit in Guizhou Province, China. *Open Geosci.* **2022**, *14*, 776–784. [CrossRef]

169. Sadaqah, R.M.; Abed, A.M.; Grimm, K.A.; Pufahl, P.K. The Geochemistry of Rare Earth Elements (REE), Yttrium (Y) and Scandium (Sc) in Some Upper Cretaceous Jordanian Phosphorites. *J. Afr. Earth Sci.* **2005**, *32*, 104635.

170. Kogarko, L.N. Chemical Composition and Petrogenetic Implications of Apatite in the Khibiny Apatite–Nepheline Deposits (Kola Peninsula). *Minerals* **2018**, *8*, 532. [CrossRef]

171. Rychkov, V.N.; Kirillov, E.V.; Kirillov, S.V.; Semenishchev, V.S.; Bunkov, G.M.; Botalov, M.S.; Smyshlyaev, D.V.; Malyshev, A.S. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2018**, *196*, 674–681. [CrossRef]

172. Tzifas, I.; Godelitsas, A.; Magganas, A.; Androulakaki, E.; Eleftheriou, G.; Mertzimekis, T.J.; Perraki, M. Uranium-Bearing Phosphatized Limestones of NW Greece. *J. Geochem. Explor.* **2014**, *143*, 62–73. [CrossRef]

173. Buccione, R.; Kechiched, R.; Mongelli, G.; Sinisi, R. REEs in the North Africa P-Bearing Deposits, Paleoenvironments, and Economic Perspectives: A Review. *Minerals* **2021**, *11*, 214. [CrossRef]

174. Bouabdallah, M.; Elgharbi, S.; Horchani-Naifer, K.; Barca, D.; Fattah, N.; Férid, M. Chemical, Mineralogical and Rare Earth Elements Distribution Study of Phosphorites from Sra Ouertane Deposit (Tunisia). *J. Afr. Earth Sci.* **2019**, *157*, 103505. [CrossRef]

175. Preston, J.S.; Cole, P.M.; Craig, W.M.; Feather, A.M. The Recovery of Rare Earth Oxides from a Phosphoric Acid By-Product. Part 1: Leaching of Rare Earth Values and Recovery of a Mixed Rare Earth Oxide by Solvent Extraction. *Hydrometallurgy* **1996**, *41*, 1–19. [CrossRef]

176. Merroune, A.; Ait Brahim, J.; Achiou, B.; Kada, C.; Mazouz, H.; Beniazza, R. Closed-Loop Purification Process of Industrial Phosphoric Acid: Selective Recovery of Heavy Metals and Rare Earth Elements via Solvent Extraction. *Desalination* **2024**, *580*, 117515. [CrossRef]

177. Cánovas, C.R.; Chapron, S.; Arrachart, G.; Pellet-Rostaing, S. Leaching of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and Impurities from Phosphogypsum: A Preliminary Insight for Further Recovery of Critical Raw Materials. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2019**, *219*, 225–235. [CrossRef]

178. Mukaba, J.-L.; Eze, C.P.; Pereao, O.; Petrik, L.F. Rare Earths’ Recovery from Phosphogypsum: An Overview on Direct and Indirect Leaching Techniques. *Minerals* **2021**, *11*, 1051. [CrossRef]

179. El-Didamony, H.; Ali, M.M.; Awwad, N.S.; Fawzy, M.M.; Attallah, M.F. Treatment of Phosphogypsum Waste Using Suitable Organic Extractants. *J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.* **2012**, *291*, 907–914. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

180. Wamser, C.A.; Bruen, C.P. Recovery of Fluorine, Uranium and Rare Earth Metal Values from Phosphoric Acid By-Product Brine Raffinate. U.S. Patent 3,937,783, 10 February 1976.

181. Bunus, F.T. Uranium and Rare Earth Recovery from Phosphate Fertilizer Industry by Solvent Extraction. *Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev.* **2000**, *21*, 381–478. [CrossRef]

182. Bunuş, F.; Dumitrescu, R. Simultaneous Extraction of Rare Earth Elements and Uranium from Phosphoric Acid. *Hydrometallurgy* **1992**, *28*, 331–338. [CrossRef]
183. Zhang, P.; Liang, H.; Jin, Z.; DePaoli, D.; Miller, J.; Lin, C.; Crossman, R. Rare Earths in Phosphate: Characterization and Extraction. In *Rare Earth Elements: Sustainable Recovery, Processing, and Purification*; Karamalidis, A.K., Eggert, R., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2024; pp. 99–165, ISBN 978-1-119-51503-6.

184. He, N.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, X.; Davaasambuu, S.; Zhao, H. Effect of Microgravity on Rare Earth Elements Recovery by Burkholderia Cepacia and Aspergillus Niger. *Minerals* **2024**, *14*, 1055. [CrossRef]

185. Binnemans, K.; Jones, P.T.; Blanpain, B.; Van Gerven, T.; Pontikes, Y. Towards Zero-Waste Valorisation of Rare-Earth-Containing Industrial Process Residues: A Critical Review. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2015**, *99*, 17–38. [CrossRef]

186. Bech, J.; Suarez, M.; Reverter, F.; Tume, P.; Sánchez, P.; Bech, J.; Lansac, A. Selenium and Other Trace Elements in Phosphate Rock of Bayovar-Sechura (Peru). *J. Geochem. Explor. 2010*, *107*, 136–145. [CrossRef]

187. Nourhen Omri. Analyses Inorganiques, Isotopiques et de Spéciation Solide Avancées Pour Le Suivi Géochimique Des Éléments Traces et Des Terres Rares: Du Bassin Phosphatier de Gafsa à Leur Enregistrement Dans Les Sédiments Du Golfe de Gabès (Tunisie). Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, Pau, France, 2025.

188. Wang, L.; Huang, X.; Yu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, C.; Feng, Z.; Cui, D.; Long, Z. Towards Cleaner Production of Rare Earth Elements from Bastnaesite in China. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2017**, *165*, 231–242. [CrossRef]

189. Pradip; Fuerstenau, D.W. Design and Development of Novel Flotation Reagents for the Beneficiation of Mountain Pass Rare-Earth Ore. *Min. Metall. Explor.* **2013**, *30*, 1–9. [CrossRef]

190. Lin, C.L.; Hsieh, C.-H.; Miller, J.D. Characterization of Rare-Earth Resources at Mountain Pass, CA Using High-Resolution X-Ray Microtomography (HRXMT). *Min. Metall. Explor.* **2013**, *30*, 10–17. [CrossRef]

191. Li, S.; Malik, M.; Azimi, G. Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Phosphogypsum Using Mineral Acids: Process Development and Mechanistic Investigation. *Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.* **2022**, *61*, 102–114. [CrossRef]

192. Bolivar, J. Radioecological Study of an Estuarine System Located in the South of Spain. *Water Res.* **2000**, *34*, 2941–2950. [CrossRef]

193. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjou, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Heavy Metal Toxicity and the Environment. In *Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology*; Luch, A., Ed.; Experientia Supplementum; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2012; Volume 101, pp. 133–164, ISBN 978-3-7643-8339-8.

194. Khatun, J.; Intekhab, A.; Dhak, D. Effect of Uncontrolled Fertilization and Heavy Metal Toxicity Associated with Arsenic(As), Lead(Pb) and Cadmium (Cd), and Possible Remediation. *Toxicology* **2022**, *477*, 153274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

195. Rentería-Villalobos, M.; Vioque, I.; Mantero, J.; Manjón, G. Radiological, Chemical and Morphological Characterizations of Phosphate Rock and Phosphogypsum from Phosphoric Acid Factories in SW Spain. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2010**, *181*, 193–203. [CrossRef]

196. El Zrelli, R.; Rabaoui, L.; Van Beek, P.; Castet, S.; Souhaut, M.; Grégoire, M.; Courjault-Radé, P. Natural Radioactivity and Radiation Hazard Assessment of Industrial Wastes from the Coastal Phosphate Treatment Plants of Gabes (Tunisia, Southern Mediterranean Sea). *Mar. Pollut. Bull.* **2019**, *146*, 454–461. [CrossRef]

197. El Zrelli, R.; Courjault-Radé, P.; Rabaoui, L.; Castet, S.; Michel, S.; Bejaoui, N. Heavy Metal Contamination and Ecological Risk Assessment in the Surface Sediments of the Coastal Area Surrounding the Industrial Complex of Gabes City, Gulf of Gabes, SE Tunisia. *Mar. Pollut. Bull.* **2015**, *101*, 922–929. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

198. El Zrelli, R.; Courjault-Radé, P.; Rabaoui, L.; Daghbouj, N.; Mansour, L.; Balti, R.; Castet, S.; Attia, F.; Michel, S.; Bejaoui, N. Biomonitoring of Coastal Pollution in the Gulf of Gabes (SE, Tunisia): Use of Posidonia Oceanica Seagrass as a Bioindicator and Its Mat as an Archive of Coastal Metallic Contamination. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2017**, *24*, 22214–22225. [CrossRef]

199. Saadaoui, E.; Ghazel, N.; Ben Romdhane, C.; Massoudi, N. Phosphogypsum: Potential Uses and Problems—A Review. *Int. J. Environ. Stud.* **2017**, *74*, 558–567. [CrossRef]

200. Chernysh, Y.; Yakhnenko, O.; Chubur, V.; Roubík, H. Phosphogypsum Recycling: A Review of Environmental Issues, Current Trends, and Prospects. *Appl. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 1575. [CrossRef]

201. Adamczyk-Szabela, D.; Markiewicz, J.; Wolf, W.M. Heavy Metal Uptake by Herbs. *IV. Influence of Soil pH on the Content of Heavy Metals in Valeriana officinalis L. Water Air Soil Pollut.* **2015**, *226*, 106. [CrossRef]

202. Adamczyk-Szabela, D.; Wolf, W.M. The Impact of Soil pH on Heavy Metals Uptake and Photosynthesis Efficiency in Melissa Officinalis, Taraxacum Officinalis, Ocimum Basilicum. *Molecules* **2022**, *27*, 4671. [CrossRef]

203. Li, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, L.; Tang, M.; Hu, W.; Chen, L.; Ai, S. Speciation of Heavy Metals in Soils and Their Immobilization at Micro-Scale Interfaces among Diverse Soil Components. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2022**, *825*, 153862. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

204. Awad, S.; Essam, M.; Boukhriss, A.; Kamar, M.; Midani, M. Properties, Purification, and Applications of Phosphogypsum: A Comprehensive Review Towards Circular Economy. *Mater. Circ. Econ.* **2024**, *6*, 9. [CrossRef]

205. Jacomino, V.M.F.; Oliveira, K.A.P.D.; Taddei, M.H.T.; Siqueira, M.C.; Carneiro, M.E.D.P.; Nascimento, M.R.L.; Silva, D.F.D.; Mello, J.W.V.D. Radionuclides and Heavy Metal Contents in Phosphogypsum Samples in Comparison to Cerrado Soils. *Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo* **2009**, *33*, 1481–1488. [CrossRef]

206. Saueia, C.H.R.; Mazzilli, B.P. Distribution of Natural Radionuclides in the Production and Use of Phosphate Fertilizers in Brazil. *J. Environ. Radioact.* **2006**, *89*, 229–239. [CrossRef]
207. Guerrero Márquez, J.L. Evaluation of the Impact Produced by the Huelva Phosphogypsum Stacks on Their Estuarine Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain, 2021; p. 207.

208. Hamed, Y.; Gentilucci, M.; Mokadem, N.; Khalil, R.; Ayadi, Y.; Hadji, R.; Elaloui, E. Assessment and Mitigation of Groundwater Contamination from Phosphate Mining in Tunisia: Geochemical and Radiological Analysis. *Hydrology* **2024**, *11*, 84. [CrossRef]

209. Ben Garali, A.; Salah, S.; Henchiri, M.; Srarfi, F. Assessment of Heavy Metals Contamination/Pollution of Phosphogypsum Waste of the Mdhilla Region (Gafsa, Southern Tunisia). *Environ. Monit. Assess.* **2024**, *196*, 1204. [CrossRef]

210. Hassoune, H.; Lachehab, A.; Hajjaji, K.E.; Mertah, O.; Kherbeche, A. Dynamic of Heavy Metals and Environmental Impact of Waste Phosphogypsum. In *Fate and Transport of Subsurface Pollutants*; Gupta, P.K., Bharagava, R.N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 57–77, ISBN 978-981-15-6564-9.

211. Santos, A.J.G.; Silva, P.S.C.; Mazzilli, B.P.; Fávaro, D.I.T. Radiological Characterisation of Disposed Phosphogypsum in Brazil: Evaluation of the Occupational Exposure and Environmental Impact. *Radiat. Prot. Dosim.* **2006**, *121*, 179–185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

212. Ettoumi, M.; Jouini, M.; Neculita, C.M.; Khalil, A.; Bouhlel, S.; Taha, Y.; Benzaazoua, M. Challenges of Phosphate By-Product Management: A Case-Study of the Tunisian Mining Basins. *Mine Water Environ. 2025*, **44**. [CrossRef]

213. Wang, C.; Xiong, D.; Chen, Y.; Wu, K.; Tu, M.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, L. Characteristic Pollutant Purification Analysis of Modified Phosphogypsum Comprehensive Utilization. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2022**, *29*, 67456–67465. [CrossRef]

214. Shi, X.; Zeng, A.; Duan, H.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J. Status and Development Trends of Phosphogypsum Utilization in China. *Circ. Econ.* **2024**, *3*, 100116. [CrossRef]

215. Chouaybi, I.; Azifa, A.; Moujahid, E.M.; Bettach, M. Waste to Wealth: Synthesis of Hydrocalumite from Moroccan Phosphogypsum and Aluminum Wastes. *Waste Manag.* **2023**, *171*, 26–31. [CrossRef]

216. Noli, F.; Sidirelli, M.; Tsamos, P. The Impact of Phosphate Fertilizer Factory on the Chemical and Radiological Pollution of the Surrounding Marine Area (Seawater and Sediments) in Northwestern Greece. *Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci.* **2024**, *73*, 103458. [CrossRef]

217. Gargouri, D.; Annabi-Trabelsi, N.; Karam, Q.; Ali, M.; Ayadi, H. Assessment of Metallic Pollution in the Waters, Suspended Particulate Matter, and Surface Sediments of the Central Coastal Area of the Gulf of Gabès, Mediterranean Sea; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.

218. Kobbi-Rebai, R.; Annabi-Trabelsi, N.; Khemakhem, H.; Ayadi, H.; Aleya, L. Impacts of Restoration of an Uncontrolled Phosphogypsum Dumpsite on the Seasonal Distribution of Abiotic Variables, Phytoplankton, Copepods, and Ciliates in a Man-Made Solar Saltern. *Environ. Monit. Assess.* **2013**, *185*, 2139–2155. [CrossRef]

219. Vaccari, D.A.; Strigul, N. Extrapolating Phosphorus Production to Estimate Resource Reserves. *Chemosphere* **2011**, *84*, 792–797. [CrossRef]

220. Koppelaar, R.; Weikard, H.P. Assessing Phosphate Rock Depletion and Phosphorus Recycling Options. *Glob. Environ. Change* **2013**, *23*, 1454–1466. [CrossRef]

221. Silva, L.F.O.; Oliveira, M.L.S.; Crissien, T.J.; Santosh, M.; Bolivar, J.; Shao, L.; Dotto, G.L.; Gasparotto, J.; Schindler, M. A Review on the Environmental Impact of Phosphogypsum and Potential Health Impacts through the Release of Nanoparticles. *Chemosphere* **2022**, *286*, 131513. [CrossRef]

222. Hu, X.; Wang, J.; Wu, F.; Li, D.; Yang, J.; Chen, J.; Liang, J.; Lou, X.; Chen, H. Phosphorus Recovery and Resource Utilization from Phosphogypsum Leachate via Membrane-Triggered Adsorption and Struvite Crystallization Approach. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2023**, *471*, 144310. [CrossRef]

223. Bandara, A.M.T.S.; Senanayake, G. Leachability of Rare-Earth, Calcium and Minor Metal Ions from Natural Fluorapatite in Perchloric, Hydrochloric, Nitric and Phosphoric Acid Solutions: Effect of Proton Activity and Anion Participation. *Hydrometallurgy* **2015**, *153*, 179–189. [CrossRef]

224. Lee, H.; Coulon, F.; Beriro, D.J.; Wagland, S.T. Recovering Metal(Loids) and Rare Earth Elements from Closed Landfill Sites without Excavation: Leachate Recirculation Opportunities and Challenges. *Chemosphere* **2022**, *292*, 133418. [CrossRef]

225. Pérez-López, R.; Nieto, J.M.; López-Coto, I.; Aguado, J.L.; Bolívar, J.P.; Santisteban, M. Dynamics of Contaminants in Phosphogypsum of the Fertilizer Industry of Huelva (SW Spain): From Phosphate Rock Ore to the Environment. *Appl. Geochem.* **2010**, *25*, 705–715. [CrossRef]

226. Yang, X.; Salvador, D.; Makkonen, H.T.; Pakkanen, L. Phosphogypsum Processing for Rare Earths Recovery—A Review. *Nat. Resour.* **2019**, *10*, 325–336. [CrossRef]

227. Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Su, X.; Du, H.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, Q. Rare Earth Extraction from Phosphogypsum by Aspergillus Niger Culture Broth. *Molecules* **2024**, *29*, 1266. [CrossRef]

228. Naz, R.; Khan, M.S.; Hafeez, A.; Fazil, M.; Khan, M.N.; Ali, B.; Javed, M.A.; Imran, M.; Shati, A.A.; Alfaifi, M.Y.; et al. Assessment of Phytoremediation Potential of Native Plant Species Naturally Growing in a Heavy Metal-Polluted Industrial Soils. *Braz. J. Biol.* **2024**, *84*, e264473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

229. Azizi, M.; Faz, A.; Zornoza, R.; Martinez-Martinez, S.; Acosta, J.A. Phytoremediation Potential of Native Plant Species in Mine Soils Polluted by Metal(Loid)s and Rare Earth Elements. *Plants* **2023**, *12*, 1219. [CrossRef]
230. El Berkaoui, M.; El Adnani, M.; Hakkou, R.; Ouhammou, A.; Bendaou, N.; Smouni, A. Assessment of the Transfer of Trace Metals to Spontaneous Plants on Abandoned Pyrrhotite Mine: Potential Application for Phytostabilization of Phosphate Wastes. *Plants* **2022**, *11*, 179. [CrossRef]

231. Hentati, O.; Abrantes, N.; Caetano, A.L.; Bouguerra, S.; Gonçalves, F.; Römbke, J.; Pereira, R. Phosphogypsum as a Soil Fertilizer: Ecotoxicity of Amended Soil and Elutriates to Bacteria, Invertebrates, Algae and Plants. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2015**, *294*, 80–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

232. Bumanis, G.; Vaičiukynienė, D.; Tambovceva, T.; Puzule, L.; Sinka, M.; Nizevičienė, D.; Fornés, I.; Bajare, D. Circular Economy in Practice: A Literature Review and Case Study of Phosphogypsum Use in Cement. *Recycling* **2024**, *9*, 63. [CrossRef]

233. Akfas, F.; Elghali, A.; Aboulaich, A.; Munoz, M.; Benzaazoua, M.; Bodinier, J.-L. Exploring the Potential Reuse of Phosphogypsum: A Waste or a Resource? *Sci. Total Environ.* **2024**, *908*, 168196. [CrossRef]

234. Fornés, I.V.; Vaiciukyniene, D.; Nizeviciene, D.; Bajare, D.; Borg, R.P.; Bistrickaite, R. By-Product Phosphogypsum Valorisation Possibilities in the Context of Circular Economy of Building Materials. In *Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment*; Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R., Ungureanu, V., Eds.; Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 107–118, ISBN 978-3-031-45979-5.

235. Peiravi, M.; Dehghani, F.; Ackah, L.; Baharlouei, A.; Godbold, J.; Liu, J.; Mohanty, M.; Ghosh, T. A Review of Rare-Earth Elements Extraction with Emphasis on Non-Conventional Sources: Coal and Coal Byproducts, Iron Ore Tailings, Apatite, and Phosphate Byproducts. *Min. Metall. Explor.* **2021**, *38*, 1–26. [CrossRef]

236. Balaram, V. Potential Future Alternative Resources for Rare Earth Elements: Opportunities and Challenges. *Minerals* **2023**, *13*, 425. [CrossRef]

237. Murali, G.; Azab, M. Recent Research in Utilization of Phosphogypsum as Building Materials: Review. *J. Mater. Res. Technol.* **2023**, *25*, 960–987. [CrossRef]

238. da Silva, E.F.; Mlayah, A.; Gomes, C.; Noronha, F.; Charef, A.; Sequeira, C.; Esteves, V.; Marques, A.R.F. Heavy Elements in the Phosphorite from Kalaat Khasba Mine (North-Western Tunisia): Potential Implications on the Environment and Human Health. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2010**, *182*, 232–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

239. Neves, D.B. Radioactive Material, Fluorine and Rare-Earth Element Quantification in Phosphogypsum Using Nuclear Analytical Techniques. Master's Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal, 2024. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/178030 (accessed on 7 November 2025).

240. Haschke, M.; Friedrich, B.; Stopic, S.; Panias, D.; Schneider, P.; Dittrich, C. Extraction of Critical Technology Elements and Radionuclides from Phosphogypsum Tailings. In Proceedings of the OPMR2016—Opportunities in Processing of Metal Resources in South East Europe (OPMR 2016), Budapest, Hungary, 28–30 November 2016.

241. Laurino, J.P.; Mustacato, J.; Huba, Z.J. Rare Earth Element Recovery from Acidic Extracts of Florida Phosphate Mining Materials Using Chelating Polymer 1-Octadecene, Polymer with 2,5-Furandione, Sodium Salt. *Minerals* **2019**, *9*, 477. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.