Issue

Vol. 37 No. 8 (2025): Vol 37 Issue 8, 2025

Copyright (c) 2025 Vaseem Akhtar, Dinesh Kulhary

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Physico-Chemical Characterization and Environmental Implications of Jarosite Waste from Zinc Hydrometallurgical Processing

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2025.33897
Vaseem Akhtar
Department of Chemistry, Career Point University, Kota-325003, India
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9469-1600
Dinesh Kulhary
Department of Chemistry, Career Point University, Kota-325003, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5140-1176

Corresponding Author(s) : Dinesh Kulhary

dinesh.kulhary@cpur.edu.in

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 37 No. 8 (2025): Vol 37 Issue 8, 2025

Abstract

This study reports the physico-chemical properties and environmental implications of jarosite waste generated from the zinc hydrometallurgical processing. Jarosite waste samples from a major zinc processing facility were analyzed alongside soil samples from surrounding areas to assess the potential environmental impacts. Comprehensive characterization was performed using multiple analytical techniques including ICP-OES for major element analysis, ICP-MS for trace elements and heavy metals, FTIR spectroscopy, XRD and zeta potential measurements. Results revealed that the jarosite waste contains significantly increased concentrations of Fe2O3 (37.8-42.5%), SO3 (20.9-26.1%) and ZnO (6.1-7.7%), with concerning levels of heavy metals including Zn (52,084-59,979 mg/kg), Pb (5,938-8,612 mg/kg) and Cd (140-237 mg/kg). XRD analysis confirmed the predominance of jarosite minerals with secondary phases of iron oxides and quartz. FTIR spectroscopy identified the characteristic sulfate stretching vibrations (1080-1190 cm–1) and Fe-O bonds (510-630 cm–1). Zeta potential measurements demonstrated the highly acidic nature of jarosite waste with an isoelectric point at approximately pH 3.2, significantly lower than surrounding soils (pH 5.8). Statistical analysis revealed the strong positive correlations between heavy metal concentrations and sulfate content, suggesting co-precipitation mechanisms during jarosite formation. The extreme acidity (pH 2.6-3.3) and high electrical conductivity (3.57-4.58 mS/cm) of jarosite waste present substantial environmental risks through metal leaching and acid mine drainage. This study provides critical insights into jarosite waste characteristics that can inform improved waste management strategies, remediation approaches and potential resource recovery opportunities in zinc hydrometallurgical processing.

Keywords

Jarosite waste Zinc hydrometallurgy Heavy metal contamination Acid mine drainage
(1)
Akhtar, V.; Kulhary, D. Physico-Chemical Characterization and Environmental Implications of Jarosite Waste from Zinc Hydrometallurgical Processing. ajc 2025, 37, 1995-2001.
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. V.S. Litvinenko, Nat. Resour. Res., 29, 1521 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-019-09568-4
  2. J. Peng, H. Liu, L. He, Z. Sun, Y. Peng, X. Huang and X. Yan, Sustainability, 15, 9472 (2023); https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129472
  3. K.M. Renaud, The Mineral Industry of India. Minerals Yearbook: Area Reports: International Review 2014 Asia and the Pacific, vol. 3 (2018).
  4. P. Kushwaha, M. Agarwal and A. Ghosh, Mater. Today Proc., 76, 201 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.12.178
  5. L.G. Dyer, W.R. Richmond and P.D. Fawell, Hydrometallurgy, 119-120, 47 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2012.02.017
  6. M. Cruells and A. Roca, Metals, 12, 802 (2022); https://doi.org/10.3390/met12050802
  7. Z. Piervandi, A.K. Darban, S.M. Mousavi, V. Funari, M. Abdollahy, G. Asadollahfardi, E. Dinelli, R.D. Webster and M. Sillanpää, Chemosphere, 258, 127288 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127288
  8. L. Zhu, C. Lin, Y. Wu, W. Lu, Y. Liu, Y. Ma & A. Chen, Environ. Geol., 53, 1491 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0758-y
  9. M. Zhu, Y. Wang, C. Zheng, Y. Luo, Y. Li, S. Tan, Z. Sun, Y. Ke, C. Peng and X. Min, J. Environ. Manag., 370, 122396 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122396
  10. R. Pérez-López, A.M. Álvarez-Valero, J.M. Nieto, R. Sáez and J.X. Matos, Appl. Geochem., 23, 3452 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.08.005
  11. A. Navarro, E. Cardellach, J.L. Mendoza, M. Corbella and L.M. Domènech, Appl. Geochem., 23, 895 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.07.012
  12. F.M. Romero, M.A. Armienta and G. González-Hernández, Appl. Geochem., 22, 109 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.07.017
  13. Annual Report 2022-2023; Hindustan Zinc Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur, India (2023).
  14. H.E. Jamieson, S.R. Walker and M.B. Parsons, Appl. Geochem., 57, 85 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.12.014
  15. G.A. Desborough, K.S. Smith, H.A. Lowers, G.A. Swayze, S.F. Diehl, J.M. Hammarstrom, R.W. Leinz and R.L. Driscoll, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 74, 1041 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2009.11.006
  16. M. Kerolli-Mustafa, L. Curkovic, H. Fajkovic and S. Ronèevic, Croat. Chem. Acta, 88, 189 (2015); https://doi.org/10.5562/cca2554
  17. D. Paktunc and J.E. Dutrizac, Can. Mineral., 41, 905 (2003); https://doi.org/10.2113/gscanmin.41.4.905
  18. J. Majzlan, P. Drahota and M. Filippi, Rev. Mineral. Geochem., 79, 17 (2014); https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2014.79.2
  19. S.A. Welch, D. Kirste, A.G. Christy, F.R. Beavis and S.G. Beavis, Chem. Geol., 254, 73 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.06.010
  20. Y. Wang, L. Jiao, C. Zhao, W. Dong, W. Gong and D. Dong, Sci. Rep., 15, 7678 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90322-7
  21. L. Alakangas, E. Andersson and S. Mueller, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 20, 7907 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1838-z
  22. E. Yilmaz, Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi-Mineral Resources Management, 27, pp. 89-112 (2011).
  23. A. Qureshi, C. Maurice and B. Öhlander, J. Geochem. Explor., 160, 44 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.10.014
  24. X. Wang, H. Zhao, L. Chang, Z. Yu, Z., Xiao, S. Tang, C. Huang, J. Fan and S. Yang, ACS Omega, 7, 39169 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c05067
  25. M. Kerolli-Mustafa, H. Fajkovic, S. Ronèevic and L. Curkovic, J. Geochem. Explor., 148, 161 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2014.09.001.
  26. A. Pappu, M. Saxena and S.R. Asolekar, Sci. Total Environ., 359, 232 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.024
  27. F.A. Swartjes, M. Rutgers, J.P. Lijzen, P.J. Janssen, A. Wintersen, P.F. Otte, E. Brand and L. Posthuma, Sci. Total Environ., 427-428, 1 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.078
  28. CEPA, National Guidelines and Standards Office, Quebec, Canada (2007).
  29. K.A. Hudson-Edwards, Mineral. Mag., 67, 205 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1180/0026461036720095
  30. J.E. Dutrizac, in eds.: R.G. Bautista, Hydrometallurgical Process Funda-mentals. NATO Conference Series, Springer, Boston, MA, USA (1980).
  31. P. Acero, C. Ayora, C. Torrentó and J.M. Nieto, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 70, 4130 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2006.06.1367
  32. A. Pappu, M. Saxena and S.R. Asolekar, Build. Environ., 42, 2311 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.015
  33. Dinesh and A. Sharma, Ceram. Int., (2025); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.04.323
  34. A. Sharma, V.K. Rao, D.V. Kamboj, R. Gaur, M. Shaik and A.R. Shrivastava, New J. Chem., 40, 8334 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1039/C5NJ03460D
  35. Dinesh, Ceram. Int., 51, 23021 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.02.404
  36. D. Kulhary and N. Dhariwal, Mater. Sci. Eng. B, 321, 118552 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mseb.2025.118552
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 236 Download : 87
PlumX