A Multidisciplinary Approach That Considers Occurrence, Geochemistry, Bioavailability, and Toxicity to Prioritize Critical Minerals for Environmental Research
2024

Prioritizing Critical Minerals for Environmental Research

publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Sarah Jane O. White, Tyler J. Kane, Kate M. Campbell, Marie-Noƫle Croteau, Michael Iacchetta, Johanna M. Blake, Charles A. Cravotta III, Bethany K. Kunz, Charles N. Alpers, Jill A. Jenkins, Katherine Walton-Day

Primary Institution: U.S. Geological Survey

Hypothesis

How do governments, regulators, scientists, and industries identify research priorities to help ensure that critical elements are recovered, refined, used, reused, and disposed in a sustainable, environmentally responsible manner?

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary approach can help prioritize critical minerals for research, focusing on those with significant data gaps and potential environmental impacts.

Supporting Evidence

  • Critical minerals are essential to national and global security and prosperity.
  • Only limited information is available about environmental occurrence, distribution, mobility, and potential adverse effects on ecosystem and biota health for many critical minerals.
  • The proposed approach could be applied to critical minerals lists from other countries or industries.
  • Zinc is identified as a high priority in three topic areas: occurrence in common deposit types, high expected bioavailability, and high expected toxicity.
  • Indium is identified as a high priority in eight categories, indicating significant data gaps.

Takeaway

This study suggests a way to figure out which important minerals we should study more because we don't know enough about them and they can harm the environment.

Methodology

The study proposes a multidisciplinary screening tool with multiple criteria to prioritize critical elements for study based on available information, environmental occurrence, geochemistry, bioavailability, and toxicity.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from the reliance on available literature and metrics that may not capture the full complexity of environmental interactions.

Limitations

The study does not explicitly consider human toxicity in its prioritization framework.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1021/acs.est.4c11211

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication