Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies
Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Hayes, Sarah M. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
8 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass - Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER, 2019, the international journal of minerals policy and economics, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:59 ; year:2018 ; pages:192-199 ; extent:8 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV045164754 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV045164754 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626010702.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 190205s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV045164754 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 530 |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 52.56 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hayes, Sarah M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 8 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. | ||
| 520 | |a Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Critical elements |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Critical minerals |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Criticality |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McCullough, Erin A. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER |t Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |d 2019 |d the international journal of minerals policy and economics |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV003457176 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:59 |g year:2018 |g pages:192-199 |g extent:8 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 52.56 |j Regenerative Energieformen |j alternative Energieformen |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 59 |j 2018 |h 192-199 |g 8 | ||
| author_variant |
s m h sm smh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
hayessarahmmccullougherina:2018----:rtclieasrveoeeetlrnsnopeesv |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
52.56 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica (DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Hayes, Sarah M. verfasserin aut Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies 2018transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier McCullough, Erin A. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass 2019 the international journal of minerals policy and economics Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003457176 volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 59 2018 192-199 8 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica (DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Hayes, Sarah M. verfasserin aut Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies 2018transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier McCullough, Erin A. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass 2019 the international journal of minerals policy and economics Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003457176 volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 59 2018 192-199 8 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica (DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Hayes, Sarah M. verfasserin aut Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies 2018transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier McCullough, Erin A. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass 2019 the international journal of minerals policy and economics Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003457176 volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 59 2018 192-199 8 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica (DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Hayes, Sarah M. verfasserin aut Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies 2018transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier McCullough, Erin A. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass 2019 the international journal of minerals policy and economics Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003457176 volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 59 2018 192-199 8 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica (DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Hayes, Sarah M. verfasserin aut Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies 2018transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier McCullough, Erin A. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass 2019 the international journal of minerals policy and economics Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003457176 volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 59 2018 192-199 8 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:59 year:2018 pages:192-199 extent:8 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Critical elements Critical minerals Criticality |
| dewey-raw |
530 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Hayes, Sarah M. @@aut@@ McCullough, Erin A. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV003457176 |
| dewey-sort |
3530 |
| id |
ELV045164754 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV045164754</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626010702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">190205s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV045164754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hayes, Sarah M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Critical elements</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Critical minerals</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Criticality</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCullough, Erin A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass</subfield><subfield code="d">2019</subfield><subfield code="d">the international journal of minerals policy and economics</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV003457176</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:59</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:192-199</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">59</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">192-199</subfield><subfield code="g">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Hayes, Sarah M. |
| spellingShingle |
Hayes, Sarah M. ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| authorStr |
Hayes, Sarah M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV003457176 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
530 - Physics 620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality |
| topic_browse |
ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Critical elements Elsevier Critical minerals Elsevier Criticality |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
e a m ea eam |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV003457176 |
| dewey-tens |
530 - Physics 620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV003457176 |
| title |
Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV045164754 (ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6 |
| title_full |
Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| author_sort |
Hayes, Sarah M. |
| journal |
Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |
| journalStr |
Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
192 |
| author_browse |
Hayes, Sarah M. |
| container_volume |
59 |
| physical |
8 |
| class |
530 620 VZ 52.56 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Hayes, Sarah M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |
| dewey-full |
530 620 |
| title_sort |
critical minerals: a review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| title_auth |
Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| abstract |
Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. |
| abstractGer |
Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
McCullough, Erin A. |
| author2Str |
McCullough, Erin A. |
| ppnlink |
ELV003457176 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T16:47:07.442Z |
| _version_ |
1803848963790471169 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV045164754</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626010702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">190205s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000000840.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV045164754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0301-4207(18)30129-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hayes, Sarah M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mineral criticality is a subjective concept that has evolved throughout history. An abundance of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade, encompassing a variety of criteria and methodologies. To our knowledge, this work is the first large-scale effort to organize and analyze recent comprehensive criticality studies in order to determine if a consensus exists within the global community as to which elements are critical. Here, we set aside methodological differences and analyze the results of 32 comprehensive nonfuel mineral criticality studies that evaluate at least 10 elements. Of the 56 elements or elemental groups evaluated, the three most commonly identified as critical in these studies are the rare-earth elements (REE), the platinum-group metals (PGM), and indium. Most of the studies also identify tungsten, germanium, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, gallium, and antimony as critical. These results are consistent with the 11 most recent studies, published post-2014, which also identify bismuth as critical. Furthermore, the same elements identified in the complete dataset, except antimony, were designated as critical when normalized by geographic region. Magnesium was also deemed critical. Elements may be identified consistently as critical for several reasons; similarities in methodologies, which embody evolving perceptions of risk, or changing national and institutional priorities. This work compiles a large number of recent criticality studies in an effort to define a consensus of currently critical materials, essentially defining the modern criticality paradigm, which is valuable when interpreting an individual perspective in more global context.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Critical elements</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Critical minerals</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Criticality</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCullough, Erin A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Gong, Zhiqiang ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Catalytic pyrolysis of chemical extraction residue from microalgae biomass</subfield><subfield code="d">2019</subfield><subfield code="d">the international journal of minerals policy and economics</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV003457176</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:59</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:192-199</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">59</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">192-199</subfield><subfield code="g">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3995867 |