Highlights

• China controls 63% of dysprosium reserves and separation capacity, creating a strategic bottleneck that new mining alone cannot overcome, making recycling a security imperative.
• Spent NdFeB magnets from EVs and wind turbines offer 90-99% recovery rates and are the only viable high-grade secondary source for dysprosium oxide production.
• Western recycling rates remain under 1% while China recovers 8-12% of supply from scrap, underscoring the urgent need for domestic separation and recycling infrastructure.

---

A new January 2026review by Ewa Rudnik (opens in a new tab) of AGH University of Krakow (opens in a new tab), published in the open-access journal Molecules, reaches a stark conclusion: China’s dominance over dysprosium—especially in processing and separation—is unlikely to be challenged by new mining projects alone. Recycling dysprosium from secondary sources is emerging as a strategic necessity for supply security.

The review synthesizes more than a decade of global research on recovering dysprosium, a critical heavy rare earth essential to high-performance permanent magnets used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics, and defense systems. The stakes are high. China controls roughly 63% of global dysprosium reserves and the overwhelming majority of chemical separation capacity, exposing the U.S. and allies to export controls, price volatility, and geopolitical risk.

Why Dysprosium Is a Strategic Bottleneck

Dysprosium is added in small quantities to neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets to maintain magnetic strength at high operating temperatures. Without it, EV drivetrains, wind turbines, and advanced weapons systems lose reliability.

While dysprosium is not ultra-rare geologically, it is difficult to separate, environmentally costly to extract, and unevenly distributed. China dominates not only mining—primarily from ion-adsorption clays—but also the downstream separation steps that convert concentrates into dysprosium oxide, the true choke point in the rare earth supply chain.

Study Scope and Methods

Rudnik’s paper is a comprehensive review, not an experimental study. It evaluates three broad recovery pathways across dozens of peer-reviewed studies:

• Hydrometallurgical methods (acid leaching and solvent extraction)
• Biohydrometallurgical methods (microbial and enzymatic leaching)
• Solvometallurgical methods (ionic liquids, deep eutectic solvents, hybrid systems)

The analysis compares recovery yields, selectivity, scalability, cost, and environmental trade-offs, with a practical focus on which secondary sources can realistically supply dysprosium at scale.

Key Findings: Where Recycling Actually Works

1. Spent NdFeB Magnets Are the Only High-Value Secondary Source

End-of-life permanent magnets from electronics, motors, and wind turbines often contain several percent dysprosium, far richer than most primary ores. Laboratory and pilot-scale studies report 90–99% recovery and high-purity dysprosium oxide, making magnet recycling the most credible non-Chinese supply pathway.

2. Coal Ash and Phosphogypsum Are Abundant—but Low-Grade

Coal fly ash and phosphogypsum are produced in massive volumes in the U.S. and globally, but dysprosium concentrations are typically only a few parts per million. The element is often locked in inert mineral phases, requiring energy-intensive pretreatment and aggressive chemistry, raising cost and environmental concerns.

3. Advanced Chemistries Show Promise—but Are Not Yet Commercial

Ionic liquids, deep eutectic solvents, and bioleaching often show better dysprosium selectivity than conventional acids. However, most approaches remain laboratory-scale, expensive, or operationally complex, with limited industrial deployment.

4. Recycling Rates Outside China Remain Minimal

Less than 1% of rare earths are recycled in the EU, with similarly low rates in the U.S. By contrast, China already recovers 8–12% of its dysprosium supply from magnet scrap, reinforcing its dominance even in secondary sourcing.

Implications for the U.S. and Allies

The review reinforces a hard reality: there is no credible dysprosium supply-security strategy without magnet recycling and domestic separation capacity. New mines in Australia, Canada, Greenland, or Africa do not solve the processing bottleneck.

Notably, the paper highlights that initial dysprosium oxide production outside China began in 2025, including early output from Lynas Rare Earths (Malaysia) and Energy Fuels (Utah). These volumes remain small but represent important proof-of-capability milestones.

Limitations and Open Questions

As a review, the paper does not demonstrate commercial readiness. Many studies rely on idealized conditions, synthetic leachates, or small sample sizes. Environmental risks—especially solvent toxicity, waste streams, and lifecycle impacts—remain underexplored. Recycling volumes may also lag accelerating EV and wind demand for years.

Bottom Line: Dysprosium Is Now a Recycling Problem

Rudnik’s review makes one point unmistakable: China’s dominance in heavy rare earths is structural, not accidental—and breaking it requires industrial-scale recycling and separation, not just new mines. For policymakers, investors, and manufacturers, dysprosium recycling has shifted from a sustainability concept to a supply-chain security imperative.

Source: Rudnik, E. Advances in Dysprosium Recovery from Secondary Sources: A Review of Hydrometallurgical, Biohydrometallurgical and Solvometallurgical Approaches. Molecules (2026), 31(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31010176 (opens in a new tab)

© 2025 Rare Earth Exchanges™ – Accelerating Transparency, Accuracy, and Insight Across the Rare Earth & Critical Minerals Supply Chain.