Bayer Process Towards the Circular Economy
—Soil Conditioners from Bauxite Residue
Roseanne Barata Holanda, Patricia Magalhães Pereira Silva,
Andre Luiz Vilaça do Carmo, Alice Ferreira Cardoso, Raphael Vieira da
Costa, Caio César Amorim de Melo, Adriano Reis Lucheta,
and Marcelo Montini
Abstract
Large-scale bauxite residue (BR) reuse is still a challenge
for alumina producers worldwide. Agronomic applica-
tions for BR can be a sustainable and economically viable
option for soil fertility improvement in countries where
agriculture plays a crucial economic role, such as Brazil.
This study reports a biological approach to partial BR
alkalinity neutralization, allowing its safe application as a
soil conditioner for fertility improvement in acidic
tropical soils. Microcosm tests were established to assess
the effect of incorporating local agro-industrial organic
residues into the BR to generate acidity, while highly
fertile undisturbed soil was added as a microbial inocu-
lum. BR amendment with organic residues exhibited a
fast pH neutralisation (from 10 to 6.5 at the second day of
incubation). Results confirmed that the locally available
organic residues and the soil added to BR improved its
physical and chemical characteristics, allowing further
research into its agronomic effects.





Keywords
Bauxite residue Sustainability Soil amelioration
Green mining Zero waste
R. B. Holanda
P. M. P. Silva
A. L. V. do Carmo
A. F. Cardoso

R. V. da Costa
C. C. A. de Melo
A. R. Lucheta (&)
SENAI Innovation Institute for Mineral Technology, Av. Com
Brás de Águiar, 548, Bélem, PA 66035-405, Brazil
e-mail: adriano.isi@senaipa.org.br
M. Montini
Hydro Alunorte S.A, Rodovia PA-481 km 12, Distrito de
Murucupe, Barcarena, PA 68447-000, Brazil
e-mail: marcelo.montini@hydro.com
© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2020
A. Tomsett (ed.), Light Metals 2020, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36408-3_15
Introduction
The Bayer process used in the refining of alumina from
bauxite ore generates a solid, highly alkaline saline-sodic
by-product, referred as bauxite residue (BR), with a global
estimated annual production of 150 million tons (Mt) and a
total global inventory estimated at 4.6 billion tons to date
[1]. The BR is currently disposed of in large purpose-built
Bauxite Residue Disposal Areas (BRDA) and new tech-
nologies, such as dry disposal, have been applied to mini-
mize land area use [1]. Adoption of technological
innovations to reduce remaining sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
and water content (press filter) are helping BRDA rehabili-
tation and facilitating BR utilization.
The International Aluminium Institute (IAI) [2] estab-
lished, at the Alumina Technology Roadmap, a goal to uti-
lize 20% of BR by 2025, but currently, only 2–3% of BR
produced annually is re-used [3]. Consequently, great effort
has been directed at developing viable applications for the
utilization of BR, aiming to transform it from a waste to a
valuable product and a secondary source of raw materials,
generating revenue, decreasing storage areas (and costs
involved) in the process. Unfortunately, of all the BR uti-
lization technologies developed until now, none has resulted
in significant commercial scale application [3, 4]. Currently,
the most promising areas for which BR has large scale
potential utilization comprise construction, chemical, met-
allurgical, environmental and agronomic applications.
Within those, agronomic applications represent a sus-
tainable, environmentally beneficial and potentially
economically viable approach [3, 4], particularly, when
considering the high demand for fertilizers and soil condi-
tioners in countries that are commodity exporters, such as
Brazil. Agronomic applications of BR aims to address sev-
eral soil issues such as acidity, low water holding capacity
and phosphorus losses [4]. Incorporation of BR to degraded
acidic sandy soil at 5% (m/v) significantly increased pH,
improved soil texture and water holding capacity, and had
107
108
no significant detrimental effect on the tested plants and
microorganisms [5]. Although, trials using raw BR as soil
ameliorant have obtained positive results [5], remediation of
BR prior to use may allow a more effective and safer
application [6]. Rehabilitation strategies considered the
organic and/or inorganic amendments to change the BR’s
properties, and thus mitigating critical BR characteristics by
decreasing pH to < 9, salinity, sodicity, electrical conduc-
tivity (EC) to < 4 mS cm−1 and exchangeable sodium per-
centage (ESP) [7–9].
Bioremediation strategies often aim to add beneficial
properties to BR, transforming it into a soil-like material by
improving particle aggregation and nutrient content (organic
C, NH4+, NO3−, PO43− and K+). Microbial communities
play a crucial role in bioremediation, and represent an
important strategy for lowering BR reuse costs. Local
microbial communities adapted to the conditions of the BR
environment and able to metabolise a range of organic car-
bon substrates, including substrates containing a more
recalcitrant carbon source such as cellulose and lignin-rich
wastes from agro-industry (abundant in countries like Brazil)
and available to nearby alumina plants, are an effective way
of providing these microbial input. Complete microbial
metabolization of organic substrates generates CO2, that
under alkaline conditions reacts with hydroxide ion (OH−)
generating bicarbonate (Eq. 1), that also will react with OH−
producing carbonate (Eq. 2). Therefore, carbonation reac-
tions consume two OH− for each CO2 generated. Moreover,
incomplete microbial decomposition of organic material
generates organic acids. Together, organic acids generation
and carbonation are the potential mechanisms promoting pH
acidification of BR amended with organic substrates and/or
soil [4, 9].
OH þ CO2 ! HCO3  ð1Þ
OH þ HCO3  ! CO3 2 þ H2 O ð2Þ
Laboratory trials have shown that microbial fermentation
of organic substrates dramatically reduce the BR’s pH from
11 to 7 after few days incubation [8, 10–12]. Considering
that raw BR has a much less diverse microbial community
and lower biomass compared to soil, bioaugmentation
techniques (addition of a microbial inoculum) have been
observed to promote more consistent and rapid BR biore-
mediation [10, 11].
This study investigated the effect of locally available
agro-industrial organic residues and native fertile soil addi-
tion to the BR as carbon sources and microbial inoculum,
respectively, by assessing changes in its physical and
chemical properties. Microcosms tests containing different
organic waste materials and soil were established in the
laboratory to evaluate their effects on the rates of pH neu-
tralisation and changes in mineralogical and chemical
R. B. Holanda et al.
composition of BR compared to untreated BR. Outcomes
from this study will allow further development of a
BR-based soil conditioner formulations for the improvement
of fertility in acidic tropical soils.
Materials and Methods
Microcosms Experiment
The BR sample from an industrial alumina refining plant,
located at Pará State, Northern Brazil, was collected in 50 L
plastic containers direct after press-filter processing step,
under non-sterile conditions, storage at room temperature
and shipped to the SENAI Innovation Institute for Mineral
Technologies (ISI-TM), in Belém, Brazil, where the study
was conducted.
Microcosm experiments were carried out to evaluate
in situ pH neutralization of BR mixed with organic waste
materials, used as carbon sources for microbial metaboliza-
tion, and soil (microbial inoculum). Residues from a local
Palm Oil processing plant: palm mesocarp fiber (PMF),
empty (palm) fruit bunches (EFB), palm oil decanter cake
(PODC); Palm Oil refinery: spent Fuller’s earth (SFE) from
palm oil bleaching process; and spent seeds from Açaí
(Euterpe oleracea) beverage processing facility (Fig. 1a)
were selected for this study. Organic residues (except for
PODC and SFE) were dried at 55 °C for 24 h and then
ground in an industrial blender prior to use, to guarantee a
uniform mixing with BR and soil. Fertile undisturbed soil
collected from an area hosting native vegetation (classified
as Tropical Lowland Ombrophilous Dense Forest), 400 km
northwest of Belém, was added to the microcosm as a
microbial inoculant.
The microcosm’s setup was based on a modified version
of those described by Santini and Peng [11]. It consisted of 5
treatments (one treatment for each organic residue) and 5
controls (3 negative and 2 positives) and were prepared in
150 mL polyethylene capped bottles (Fig. 1b). The treat-
ments were performed in triplicate and are described in
Table 1. All tests received 10 g of untreated BR and 100 mL
of solution (H2O or nutrient medium). The water used was
treated by reverse osmosis, pH adjusted to 10 with 2 M
KOH and sterilized. The nutrient medium, sterilized prior to
use, had the following composition: 0.15% (w/v) yeast
extract and 0.12% (w/v) peptone, pH 10 (adjusted with 2 M
KOH). The pH of organic residues and soil, measured in
H2O (treated by reverse osmosis) at a ratio of 1:5, were: soil
pH 4.4, PODC pH 4.7, SFE pH 3.6, PMF pH 6.5, EFB pH
6.9 and Açaí seeds pH 5.8.
Treatments (T1–T5) consisted of 10 g BR, 15 g organic
residue, 5 g soil and 100 mL H2O. To CN1 were added 10 g
of BR and 100 mL of H2O. Both controls CN2 and CN3
Bayer Process Towards the Circular Economy—Soil Conditioners … 109

Fig. 1 a Organic residues used in the microcosm tests. PMF, EFB and Açaí seeds were dried and ground prior use. PODC and SFE were “in
natura”. b Tests at time zero

Table 1 Composition of controls and treatments used in the microcosm tests

Identification Microcosm composition
BR Inoculum Added carbon source Medium
Controls CN1 10 g BR None 100 mL H2O
CN2 10 g BR 5 g soil None 100 mL H2O
CN3 10 g BR 5 g soil None 100 mL NM
CP1 10 g BR 5 g soil 1% sucrose 100 mL NM
CP2 10 g BR 5 g soil 2% sucrose 100 mL NM
a
Treatments T1 10 g BR 5 g soil 15 g PMF 100 mL H2O
T2 10 g BR 5 g soil 15 g PODCb 100 mL H2O
c
T3 10 g BR 5 g soil 15 g EFB 100 mL H2O
T4 10 g BR 5 g soil 15 g SFEd 100 mL H2O
e
T5 10 g BR 5 g soil 15 g AS 100 mL H2O
NM nutrient medium
a
Palm mesocarp fiber. bPalm oil decanter cake. cEmpty (palm) fruit bunches. dSpent fuller’s earth. eAçaí seeds

contained 10 g BR and 5 g soil, however 100 mL of H2O Statistical Analysis

was added to CN2 and 100 mL of nutrient medium to CN3.
Controls CP1 and CP2 also contained BR, soil and nutrient
medium, however sucrose was added at 1% (w/v) and 2%
(w/v), respectively. Tests were incubated at 30 °C in the
dark without shaking.
To assess the effect of organic residues and soil incorpora-
tion on microcosm tests final pH (on the 28th incubation
day), one-way ANOVA was performed with Tukey’s Hon-
estly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc test.

Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Analysis Results

The pH of microcosm suspensions was measured until pH in the Microcosm Experiments

28 days incubation using an Orion Star A211 pH meter
(Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) calibrated daily.
Planktonic microbial cells were counted using a Neubauer
chamber in an optical trinocular microscope (DM3000 400x,
Leica, Wetzlar, Alemanha). Bauxite residue chemical and
mineralogical compositions were determined by Energy
Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) spectrometry and
X-ray Diffraction (XRD), respectively, as described by [13].
Microcosm tests aimed to evaluate the efficacy of organic
waste material in promoting BR’s pH partial alkalinity
neutralisation. Treatments and controls showed distinct pH
profile during the incubation time. Tests using organic
residues (treatments T1–T5) were effective in promoting
rapid pH neutralization and maintaining pH levels through-
out the 28th days of experiment (although there were small
110 R. B. Holanda et al.

Table 2 Average pH values of Identification pH

microcosm tests after 28 days
incubation CN1 10.6 ± 0.1 a
CN2 10.4 ± 0.1 a
CN3 10.0 ± 0.04 ab
CP1 9.0 ± 2.1 abc
CP2 7.8 ± 1.7 bc
T1 6.6 ± 0.3 c
T2 7.30 ± 0.04 c
T3 6.6 ± 0.2 c
T4 7.90 ± 0.08 c
T5 6.9 ± 0.5 c
Values displayed are the means of three replicates and standard error of the mean. Significant differences
(p < 0.05) between tests are indicated with lower case letters according to one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s
HSD post hoc test

positive controls and treatments did not exhibit significant

differences (Table 2; Fig. 2).

Biomass Growth

Increases in microbial biomass (planktonic cells) during

Fig. 2 Variation in pH in the microcosm suspensions during incuba-
tion period. Values displayed are the mean of three replicates; error bars
indicate the standard deviation of the mean
incubations were detected in all microcosms, including
negative controls. In the second day of incubation, cell
numbers measured at treatments (*1010 cells mL−1) were
higher than controls (*109 cells mL−1). The observed
microbial biomass content of all tests was maintained
throughout incubation period, with cell numbers oscillating
between 108 and 109 cells mL−1, indicating that the amount
of BR used in the experiment did not inhibited the microbial
community.
Mineralogical and Chemical Composition

variations in pH during this period). Positive controls (with
sucrose) exhibited low rates of pH reduction (CP1 pH
9.0 ± 2.1 and CP2 7.8 ± 1.7), while no pH neutralisation
was obtained in negative controls, as expected. Inversely, the
pH of CN1 and CN2 increased from *pH 10 to pH 12 and
pH 11, respectively, during the first days of incubation,
while the increase in pH observed in the CN3 ceased by
the fourth day. Negative controls pH decreased gradually in
the following days, returning to baseline levels on the 28th
day.
Treatments (with organic residues) had faster rates of pH
neutralization than CP1 and CP2 (as well as lower devia-
tion), where pH decreased to values between 6 and 8 on the
2nd day of incubation, remaining in this range until com-
pletion of experiments. However, the final pH values of
Mineralogical composition of the microcosm treatments is
shown in Fig. 3. Untreated BR, negative (CN1, CN2 and
CN3) and positive (CP1 and CP2) controls and treatments
T1, T2, T3 and T5 were predominantly composed of quartz
(Qz), hematite (Hem), sodalite (Sdl), anatase (Ant), alumi-
nous goethite (Al-Gth), gibbsite (Gbs) and calcite (Cal). The
latter was not detected in CP2, T1, T2, T3 and T5. Figure 3d
shows the mineralogical composition of the residue SFE
before microcosm amendment and in treatment T4.
While SFE composition was characterized by chlorite (Chl),
illite (Ill), kaolinite (Kln), palygorskite (Plg) and quartz (Qz),
the mineralogy of treatment 4 comprised a combination of
minerals present in both SFE and BR, except for calcite that
was not detected in this treatment. Quartz was the main
mineral phase found in the soil sample.
Bayer Process Towards the Circular Economy—Soil Conditioners …
Fig. 3 Comparison of X-Ray diffraction patterns of microcosm
treatments and raw materials (BR, soil, SFE). a Unamended BR, soil,
CN1, CN2 and CN3; b unamended BR, soil, CP1 and CP2;
c unamended BR, T1, T2, T3 and T5; d unamended BR, soil, SFE
The chemical composition of all microcosm tests indi-
cated iron (Fe), silicon (Si) and aluminum (Al) as the main
elements (Table 3). Untreated BR contained 36.75% of Fe,
15.55% of Si and 20.09% of Al. While Fe, Al and Si con-
tents of CN1 remained close to those of BR (36.07, 20.75
and 15.97%, respectively), the other tests exhibited a
decreased in the Fe content (values ranging from 16.08%
(T4) to 28.91% (CP2)), a decreased in the Al (values from
111
and T4. Qz quartz, Hem hematite, Sdl sodalite, Ant anatase, Al-Gth
aluminous goethite, Gbs gibbsite, Cal calcite, Chl chlorite, Ill illite, Kln
kaolinite and Plg palygorskite
14.94% (T1) to 19.01% (CP2)) and increased Si with values
between 31.24% (CP2) to 39.72% (T3).
Except for CN1 that exhibited similar values to una-
mended BR, sodium (Na) and calcium (Ca) content
decreased in all tests, of which T3 exhibited the lowest Ca
content (0.56%) and T1 the lowest Na content (0.86%). The
loss on ignition (LOI) measured for untreated BR, negative
and positive controls and T5 ranged from 7.3 to 9.3%, while
 112

Table 3 Chemical composition of microcosm treatments and raw materials

Constituent Content (% mass)
BRa Soilb SFEc CN1d CN2e CN3f CP1g CP2h T1i T2j T3k T4l T5m
SiO2 15.55 79.74 30.87 15.97 31.99 32.76 33.21 31.24 38.89 33.32 39.72 34.4 37.71
TiO2 5.18 1.27 0.49 5.66 4.13 4.09 4.14 4.2 3.48 4.12 3.72 2.18 3.94
Al2O3 20.09 8.92 10.92 20.75 18.67 18.96 18.55 19.01 14.94 17.23 16.21 14.96 17.22
Fe2O3 36.75 3.66 4.93 36.07 28.6 27.63 27.2 28.91 23.22 24.29 23.72 16.08 25.93
CaO 1.35 0.16 1.9 1.39 1.01 1 0.97 0.81 0.58 1.16 0.56 1.27 0.68
MgO – 0.14 1.32 – – – – – – – – 0.8 –
K2O – 0.49 2.43 0.16 0.22 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.84 0.92 1.25 2.22 0.58
Na2O 10.27 – 0.34 9.68 7 6.49 6.38 4.69 0.86 2.18 1.29 2.05 1.64
V2O5 0.14 – – 0.16 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 – – –
ZrO2 0.86 0.12 – 0.64 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.64 0.25 0.58
P2O5 – – 0.21 0.38 – – – 0.1 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.49
SO3 0.16 – 2 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.25 0.12 0.53 0.14
LOI* 9.29 5.23 44.39 8.79 7.32 7.26 7.91 9.47 15.77 15.23 11.94 24.85 10.84
*Loss on ignition. aBauxite residue, bsoil inoculum, cSpent Fuller’s Earth, dnegative control 1, enegative control 2, fnegative control 3, gpositive control 1 (1% sucrose), hpositive control 2 (2%
sucrose), itreatment 1(palm mesocarp fiber), jtreatment 2 (palm oil decanter cake), ktreatment 3 (empty palm fruit bunche), ltreatment 4 (spent fuller’s earth), mtreatment 5 (Açaí seed)
R. B. Holanda et al.
Bayer Process Towards the Circular Economy—Soil Conditioners …
T3 and T5 were slightly higher (11.9–10.8%). However, for
T1, T2 and T4, LOI values were greater (15.77, 15.73 and
24.84%, respectively), in particular the latter that showed the
highest LOI.
Discussion
The addition of organic residues to BR was effective in
reducing the pH and maintaining levels throughout the
28 days of experiment. No statistically significant differences
in final pH were determined when comparing treatments
receiving organic wastes with the controls containing the
disaccharide sucrose (CP1 and CP2), confirming the efficacy
of these wastes in promoting microbial fermentation of
organic carbon. The lowest pH value (pH 6.6) obtained after
28 days of microcosm incubation was observed in the treat-
ments T1 and T3 (containing PMF and EFB, respectively).
The treatment T4 (with SFE) was the least efficient, with a
final pH of 7.9. Spent fuller’s earth is a sulfuric acid-treated
bentonite used for carotenoid removal during refining of
vegetable oils [14], and was the most acidic of the evaluated
residues (pH 3.6). The less pronounced pH neutralization
observed in T4 reflects the pH buffering capacity of SFE, that
is superior to the other organic residues, exhibiting smaller
pH value deviations during the experiment. Treatment with
PMF reached the lowest pH value (5.86 ± 0.07) of all
treatments after the 7th day of incubation, however increased
on subsequent days, possibly due to sodalite dissolution,
buffering the pH in the range of pH 6–8 [15].
Previous studies applying organic residues to the BR
achieved reduction in the pH in a similar timeframe as that in
the present study. Microcosm experiments conducted by
Santini and Peng [11] evaluated BR leachate pH neutral-
ization using distinct organic carbon sources (glucose,
banana, eucalyptus and wood chips), which were compared
with controls containing “BR + soil” or only BR (in solution
with H2O). All tested carbon sources reduced the BR’s pH,
with banana and glucose showing the best results (reaching
pH 7.2 and pH 7.4, respectively), while wood chips had the
lowest reduction (pH 9.0). The pH of “BR + soil” and only
BR did not decrease, similarly to CN1 and CN2 that
remained >10. Tests containing banana showed considerable
reduction pH (from *10 to 7.5) in four days, while in this
study microcosms amended with PMF and EFB had pH 6.9
and 6.7, respectively, in the second day. Santini and Peng
[11] concluded that the extent of pH neutralization is
determined by labile carbon content, which dictates the rates
of microbial substrate metabolization. Differences in the pH
neutralization observed in CN3, CP1 and CP2 confirmed the
positive correlation between organic carbon concentration
and the acidification of pH.
113
Positive effects of wheat straw, poultry manure compost
and biosolids additions to BR were reported by Dong et al.
[16]. Soil (at 5%) was incorporated into BR, and the organic
material was mixed to BR + soil at three different rates: 3, 5
and 10%. The mixture was adjusted to 70% of water holding
capacity, placed in 2 L plastic pots and incubated for one
year at room temperature (25–30 °C). BR + soil was chosen
as control treatment. BR bulk density decreased and the
concentration of large aggregates increased, in all treatment
and addition rates. At the highest rates (10%) of organic
material addition, compared with the control, all treatments
had a decrease in Na content (from 4% to 1.3–1.5%, in
weight), pH (from 11 to *8) and electrical conductivity
(from 1 to *0.3 mS cm−1). Microbial biomass increased in
all treatments, but a lower extent than reference soil.
Treatments’ enzymatic activity (invertase and catalase)
reached the levels of reference soils, after one year of
treatment. The amount of organic amendment used signifi-
cantly improved the parameters measured, while no signifi-
cant differences in values were obtained with the different
organic material used. Treatments were effective in
improving microbial activity, and consequently the authors
emphasized the importance of establishing microbial eco-
logical functions in rehabilitation practices for sustainable
ecosystems.
Incorporation of organic residues and soil affected the
mineralogical and chemical composition of the microcosm
tests when compared with unamended BR. The SFE
amendment conferred to treatment T4 distinct mineralogical
profile due its unique composition which possibly resulted in
the marked differences exhibited in parameters such as,
higher pH buffering capacity and greater LOI in comparison
with the other treatments. The increase in Si content of
controls and treatments, occurred due to the high content of
Si in the soil (79.74%). Sodium content of the tests showed a
positive correlation with pH values measured on the com-
pletion of incubation period, in which treatments exhibited
considerably lower content in comparison with BR and
controls.
The rapid pH neutralization and marked decreased in Na
content (from 10.3% to  2.2%) obtained in the treatments
(T1–T5) are major improvements in the BR’s undesirable
properties. These traits tend to inhibit plant growth, in par-
ticular the salinity stress, impairing the effectiveness of a
BR-based soil conditioner.
The native soil used as microbial inoculum provided
microorganisms able to adapt to the BR characteristics and
to metabolise cellulose and lignin-containing substrates (e.g.
PMF, EFB and Açaí seeds), indicated by pH neutralization
and the high biomass content of all treatments during the
course of the experiment. Future research will focus in
developing a synthetic inoculum based on the isolation of
114
BR adapted microbes to establish a more robust and stable
BR-based bioremediation systems.
Conclusions
The final pH of treatments and positive controls did not
exhibit significant differences at the statistical level of sig-
nificance adopted (p < 0.05), indicating that the source of
organic carbon did not affect the extent of pH neutralization,
after 28 days incubation. However, the speed of pH reduc-
tion was greatly influenced by the organic carbon source,
where sucrose provided the slowest rates and PMF and EBF
the fastest. The obtained results indicate that the selected
organic waste material and the soil incorporated to the BR
were adequate and efficient for partial residue alkalinity
neutralization favouring its application as a soil conditioner.
The evaluated organic amendments effectively improved the
BR’s physical and chemical properties, alleviating its critical
properties such as high alkalinity and sodium content, and
demonstrating this as a promising biological approach to BR
remediation.
Further research into microbial community composition,
dynamics and identification of organic metabolites will
provide better understanding of transformations occurring on
BR properties, contributing to the development of an effec-
tive soil conditioner formulation.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the financial support
for this study by Hydro Alunorte S/A and all technical and logistical
support from Hydro’s R&D team. The author also thanks Juliano
Rodrigo de Paula, Industrial Manager of Biopalma S/A, for providing
the Palm Oil Processing by-products, and Museu Paraense Emílio
Goeldi for providing the soil samples used in this study.
References
1. Sheng-guo X, Yu-jun W, Yi-wei Li, Xiang-feng K, Feng Z,
Hartley W, Xiao-fei L, Yu-zhen Y (2019) Industrial wastes
applications for alkalinity regulation in bauxite residue: A
comprehensive review. J. Cent. South. Univ. 268–288. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11771-019-4000-3
2. International Aluminium Institute, Bauxite and Alumina Commit-
tee (2010) Alumina Technology Roadmap. http://bauxite.
R. B. Holanda et al.
worldaluminium.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/
fl0000422_02.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2019
3. Ujaczki É, Feigl V, Molnár M, et al. (2018) Re-using bauxite
residues: benefits beyond (critical raw) material recovery: Re-using
bauxite residues. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 93:2498–2510.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5687
4. Klauber C, Gräfe M, Power G (2011) Bauxite residue issues: II.
options for residue utilization. Hydrometallurgy 108:11–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2011.02.007
5. Ujaczki É, Feigl V, Farkas É, et al. (2016) Red mud as acidic
sandy soil ameliorant: a microcosm incubation study: Red mud as
soil ameliorant. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 91:1596–1606.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4898
6. Jones BEH, Haynes RJ, Phillips IR (2010) Effect of amendment of
bauxite processing sand with organic materials on its chemical,
physical and microbial properties. J. Environ. Manage. 91:2281–
2288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.013
7. Courtney R, Harrington T (2012) Growth and nutrition of Holcus
lanatus in bauxite residue amended with combinations of spent
mushroom compost and gypsum. Land Degrad. Dev. 23:144–149.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1062
8. Santini TC, Warren K, Raudsepp M, et al. (2019) Accelerating
bauxite residue remediation with microbial biotechnology. In:
Chesonis C (ed) Light Met. 2019. Springer International Publish-
ing, Cham. 69–77
9. Bray AW, Stewart DI, Courtney R, et al. (2018) Sustained bauxite
residue rehabilitation with gypsum and organic matter 16 years
after initial treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:152–161. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03568
10. Santini TC, Malcolm LI, Tyson GW, Warren LA (2016) pH and
organic carbon dose rates control microbially driven bioremedi-
ation efficacy in alkaline bauxite residue. Environ. Sci. Tech-
nol.50:11164–11173. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01973
11. Santini TC, Peng YG (2017) Microbial fermentation of organic
carbon substrates drives rapid ph neutralization and element
removal in bauxite residue leachate. Environ. Sci. Technol.
51:12592–12601. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02844
12. Hamdy MK, Williams FS (2001) Bacterial amelioration of bauxite
residue waste of industrial alumina plants. J. Ind. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 27:228–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jim.7000181
13. Silva PMP, Lucheta AR, Bitencourt JAP, et al. (2019) Covellite
(CuS) production from a real acid mine drainage treated with
biogenic H2S. Metals. 9:206. https://doi.org/10.3390/met9020206
14. Khoo LE, Morsingh F, Liew KY (1979) The adsorption
of/3-carotene i. by bleaching earths. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 56.7
(1979): 672–675
15. Silva, PMP, Carmo, ALV, Holanda, R, et al. (2019) Brazilian
bauxite residue physical-chemical characterization and acidic
neutralization potential. Light Met. This issue
16. Dong Y, Shao Y, Liu A, et al. (2019) Insight of soil amelioration
process of bauxite residues amended with organic materials from
different sources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11356-019-06007-y