Highlights

• IIT Kanpur researchers deliver a TRL-mapped review of REE recycling from waste magnets, batteries, and phosphors, showing less than 1% is currently recovered despite massive end-of-life potential.
• Green separation chemistries—DES, MOFs, and ionic liquids—are advancing, but the study warns most still need scale, cost, and toxicity validation before industrial deployment.
• Recycling alone won't break China's rare earth chokehold; the West must simultaneously build midstream separation and refining infrastructure to turn waste into strategic feedstock.

---

Ankur Srivastava (opens in a new tab), joined by Prof. Amarendra Kumar Singh (opens in a new tab) and Assistant Professor Arunabh Meshram (opens in a new tab) at the Department of Materials Science & Engineering, India Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur (opens in a new tab), has delivered a timely, hard-nosed review of how rare earth elements (REEs) can be recovered from waste—magnets, lamp phosphors, NiMH batteries, and tailings—rather than dug anew from the ground.

Published in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, the paper argues that the most realistic near-term lever for supply-chain resilience is recycling end-of-life products, paired with maturing “greener” separation chemistries. In plain terms: if China controls the refinery gate, the West may need to build a new entrance—through waste streams.

Study Methods: A “Map” of the Recycling Battlefield

This is a comprehensive review, not a single laboratory breakthrough. The authors synthesize literature (2000–2025, emphasizing 2015–2025) across hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, adsorption, membranes, solvent systems, ionic liquids, deep eutectic solvents (DES), and emerging frameworks such as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). A standout feature is their use of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) to classify which methods are still lab curiosities versus industrially deployable—then they tie that maturity to real-world companies and countries where adoption is actually occurring.

Key Findings: The Real Prize Is Separation, Not Scrap

1. The world wastes rare earths at scale.

The authors reinforce a grim baseline: less than 1% of rare earths from end-of-life products are currently recycled—an old statistic, but still widely cited in the literature and industry.

2. “Green” chemistry is moving from promise to toolkit.

They highlight DES and MOFs as routes to more selective extraction with potentially lower energy use and reduced conventional solvent burdens; ionic liquids also appear as a pathway to tighter separations with lower solvent demand in some flowsheets.

3. TRL reality check: not everything is ready.

Their TRL framing implicitly tells investors what to bet on: today’s credible pathways tend to be hydrometallurgy + proven separation, while newer media (DES/MOFs) often need scale, stability, toxicity, and cost validation before they can carry national-security expectations.

Implications: Recycling Helps—but China Still Owns the Gate

Recycling is not a magic wand. It reduces dependence on primary mining, but the hardest work remains: separation and refining to specification. That’s precisely where China’s dominance is most structural, and where export licensing friction can ripple through global industries. The IEA has warned that delays or denials in licensing for rare earth magnets can threaten revenues, competitiveness, and jobs across industrial value chains.

Europe is attempting to hard-code resilience targets into law—benchmarks include 25% recycling capacity by 2030 for strategic raw materials broadly, and policy discussions have also targeted recycling coverage for permanent magnets.

The Srivastava team’s message fits this moment: waste streams are a strategic feedstock, but only if the West builds the chemical and industrial machinery to process them.

Limitations and Controversies

• Review paper, not new data: conclusions depend on the quality of underlying studies and assumptions.
• TRLs can be subjective: “maturity” varies by feedstock, regulation, and local economics.
• Green solvents aren’t automatically green: some ionic liquids and novel media face unresolved toxicity, life-cycle, and cost questions before industrial rollout.
• Supply-chain narrative risk: policymakers may overinterpret recycling potential without simultaneously funding the midstream (separation, metals, alloys).

Conclusion

This review does something rare: it doesn’t just celebrate recycling—it triages it. The authors show where REE recovery from waste is real, where it is hype, and where it could become a strategic wedge against China’s processing chokehold. The takeaway for REEx readers is blunt: a circular economy for rare earths is possible—but only if nations treat separation know-how as critical infrastructure, not a science project.

Citation

Srivastava, A., Singh, A.K., & Meshram, A. Underlying advances in rare earth elements recovery from waste: A comprehensive review (opens in a new tab). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering (2026) 120957. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2025.120957 (opens in a new tab).

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->