See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280575951

Extraction of Lithium from Salt Lake Brine with

Triisobutyl Phosphate in Ionic Liquid and
Kerosene
ARTICLE in CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN CHINESE UNIVERSITIES AUGUST 2015
Impact Factor: 0.88 DOI: 10.1007/s40242-015-4376-z

READS

10

8 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Nelson Belzile
Laurentian University
114 PUBLICATIONS 3,765 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Nelson Belzile

Retrieved on: 11 January 2016

Chem. Res. Chin. Univ., 2015, 31(4), 621626

doi: 10.1007/s40242-015-4376-z

Extraction of Lithium from Salt Lake Brine with Triisobutyl

Phosphate in Ionic Liquid and Kerosene
GAO Daolin1, YU Xiaoping1, GUO Yafei1, WANG Shiqiang1, LIU Mingming1,
DENG Tianlong1*, CHEN Yuwei1,2 and BELZILE Nelson1,2
1. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Marine Resources and Chemistry,
College of Chemical Engineering and Material Science,
Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin 300457, P. R. China;
2. Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Laurentian University, Sudbury P3E2C6, Canada
Abstract Three ionic liquids(ILs), namely, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide with the triisobutyl phosphate(TIBP) and kerosene system were respectively used to extract lithium ion
from salt lake brine with a high concentration ratio of magnesium and lithium experimentally. Results indicate that
the highest extraction selectivity for lithium was obtained with IL 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide. The effects of solution pH and phase ratio R(O/A) on the extractive step and the influence of acid
concentration of the stripping solution and R(O/A) on the back extraction step were also investigated systematically.
The single-step extraction efficiency of lithium ion was 83.71% under the optimal extraction conditions, and the
single-step back extraction efficiency was 85.61% with a 1.0 mol/L HCl in 1.0 mol/L NaCl medium as stripping
agent at R(O/A)=2. The liquid-liquid extraction mechanism and the complex of the ligand with lithium were
proposed.
Keywords Ionic liquid; Triisobutyl phosphate; Extraction; Lithium; Salt lake brine

Introduction

The lightest alkali metal lithium considered as a future

and strategic metal is widely used in the fields of porcelain
and glass making, refrigeration, metallurgy, medicine, aerospace, military industry, atomic energy, alloys and batteries,
among others[17]. Lithium resources exist naturally either in
solid ores or in liquid brines. However, the limited reserves of
solid lithium ores and the high costs related to its extraction
indicate that the recovery of lithium from salt lake brines is
going to be a future trend.
Qaidam Lake, located in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of
China is extremely rich in salt lake brine, and is famous for
lithium and magnesium in abundance. However, the concentration ratio of magnesium to lithium in brine is up to 500 to 800[8],
which makes the separation and extraction of lithium challenging. Nevertheless, solvent extraction of lithium from high
Mg/Li ratio salt lake brine is still considered as the most promising technology worldwide[913].
More and more attention has been given to ionic
liquids(ILs) as a new-type of extraction solvents due to their
unique salvation properties such as negligible vapor pressure,
nonflammability, high thermostability, wide electrochemical

window and good conductivity[1422]. However, researches on

the use of ILs in extraction systems reveal that the extractions
of some metals are often inefficient and require the addition of
extraction agents to improve the efficiency. For example, Dai
et al.[23] studied ILs as solvent and crown ether as extractant for
the strontium ion from an aqueous solution and found that the
distribution coefficient of strontium between the organic and
aqueous phases was four orders of magnitude higher than that
obtained in ILs alone. Chun et al.[24] also found that the extraction efficiency of crown ether DC18C6 added IL extraction
system for alkali metal ions is higher than that of the single IL
system.
In this work, three types of ILs were tested with triisobutyl
phosphate(TIBP) as the neutral extractant and kerosene used
only as the diluent for extracting lithium from the aqueous solution. The optimal conditions for both the extraction and back
extraction steps were systematically studied and an excellent
separation between lithium and magnesium was achieved.
Moreover, a liquid-liquid extraction mechanism was proposed
and the complex of the ligand with lithium was analyzed via
infrared spectroscopy and the mathematical calculation of the
slope of parameter relationship.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: tldeng@tust.edu.cn

Received October 9, 2014; accepted January 12, 2015.
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Nos.21276194, U1407113), the Training Program for
Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University, China(No.[2013]373) and the Innovative Research Team of
Tianjin Municipal Education Commission, China(No.TD12-5004).
Jilin University, The Editorial Department of Chemical Research in Chinese Universities and Springer-Verlag GmbH

622

2
2.1

Chem. Res. Chin. Univ.

obtained from the Linzhou Keneng Material Technology Co.,

Ltd. Lithium chloride(LiCl, 99.0% in mass), magnesium

Experimental

chloride hexahydrate(MgCl26H2O, 98.0%), sodium chlo-

Materials

ride(NaCl, 99.5%), potassium chloride(KCl, 99.5%) and

All the chemicals used in this study were of analytical

grade, which were used without further purification. The
three ILs, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate
([C4mim][PF6], abbreviated BH), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium
bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide([C2mim][NTf2],
abbreviated EB), and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide([C4mim][NTf2], abbreviated BB), were
Table 1

2.2

Vol.31

triisobutyl phosphate(C12H27O4P, 99.0%, abbreviated TIBP)

were from either the Xinjiang Research Institute of Non-ferrous
Metals or the Tianjin Guangfu Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. Double
deionized water(DDW) with a conductivity lower than 1104
S/m and pH=6.60 was used in the preparation of the artificial
brine. The physical properties of the solvent and ILs obtained
from the manufacturers are listed in Table 1.

Physical properties of extractants and diluent

Chemical

Formula

Average molecular weight

/(gcm3)

[C4mim][PF6](BH)
[C4mim][NTf2](BB)

C8H15N2F6P
C10H15F6N3O4S2

284.18
419.36

1.36509
1.43044

[C2mim][NTf2](EB)

C8H11F6N3O4S2

391.31

1.51221

Triisobutyl phosphate(TIBP)

C12H27O4P

266.32

0.96035

Kerosene

0.95762

of the organic phase to aqueous phase; and DLi and DM are the
distribution coefficient of Li+ and Mn+, respectively.

Extraction Methods

All the experiments were conducted at T=(2982) K and

pressure p=0.1 MPa, and all the data on extraction and
back-extraction reported in this study were determined in
triplicate. To mimic the chemical composition of the mother
liquor after separating potassium of Dongtai Lake, an artificial
brine saturated with magnesium chloride with a composition in
Li+(2.30 g/L), Na+(3.69 g/L), K+(10.56 g/L) and Mg2+(76.87
g/L) was prepared for extraction experiments, and the pH and
density of the brine were 5.0 and 1.22175 g/cm3, respectively.
Extraction experiments were performed by mixing 1.0 mL of
IL(BH, EB or BB), 8.0 mL of TIBP and 1.0 mL of kerosene
with 10.0 mL of the artificial brine at an organic/aqueous
volume ratio of R(O/A)=1 in a 50 mL centrifuge tube for 10
min with a vortex mixer. Then the mixture was centrifuged at
710 g for 5 min and allowed to reach extraction equilibrium
before removing the aqueous solution from the bottom of the
tube. The concentrations of the metal ions in the aqueous phase
were determined by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry(ICP-OES, Leman Corporation) with a precision within 0.5% in mass. The concentrations of the metal
ions in the organic phase were calculated based on the distribution coefficient of each ion. The extraction mechanism of the
extraction system composed of IL+TIBP+kerosene was investigated by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry(FTIR,
Nicolet 6700). The extraction efficiency(EM), distribution coefficient(DM) and separation factor[(Li/M)] for extraction of Mn+
are defined as
c c
EM (%) = i f 100%
(1)
ci
DM =

ci cf
cf R(O/A)

(Li / M) =

DLi
DM

(2)
(3)

where ci(g/L) and cf(g/L) are the initial and final concentrations
of metal M in the aqueous solution; R(O/A) is the volume ratio

And the back extraction efficiency of Mn+( EM ) is defined

as
EM (%) =

ca
100%
co R(O/A)

(4)

where co(g/L) is the equilibrium concentration of Mn+ in the

organic phase before back extraction; ca(g/L) is the final concentration in the stripping solution; R(O/A) is the volume ratio
of the organic phase to stripping solution.

3
3.1

Results and Discussion

Screening of Extraction Systems

The extractive behaviors of the organic systems TIBP

only, IL(BH, EB or BB alone), TIBP+kerosene, IL(BH, EB or
BB)+kerosene, TIBP+IL(BH, EB or BB) and TIBP+IL(BH, EB
or BB)+kerosene were investigated(see Table 2). The extractive
results show that the extraction efficiencies of the systems of
TIBP/IL(BH, BB or EB) only as well as the systems of IL(BH,
BB or EB)+kerosene or TIBP+kerosene for lithium ion were all
less than 2%, and the extraction efficiencies of the extractive
systems of IL(BH, BB or EB)+TIBP as well as IL(BH, BB or
EB)+TIBP+kerosene for lithium ion were much higher than
those of the systems[TIBP/IL(BH, BB or EB), TIBP+kerosene,
IL(BH, BB or EB)+kerosene]. Although IL(BH, BB or EB) has
no extraction performance for lithium ion(see Table 2), the
extraction efficiency of TIBP for lithium ion was improved
significantly after adding IL(BH, BB or EB). In addition, the
experiment results of lithium ion extracted with the extraction
systems of TIBP+IL(BH, BB or EB) with and without kerosene
as a diluent showed no obvious difference in the extraction
efficiency for lithium ion, but the back extraction in the absence of kerosene was more difficult even under the similar
conditions.
A comparison of the extraction behaviors at room temperature for different ILs(BH, BB or EB)+TIBP+kerosene as an
extractive system to extract lithium ion presented in Table 2

No.4

GAO Daolin et al.

623

shows that the extractive efficiency and distribution coefficient

were in the order of EB > BH > BB. Hence, our further study
for lithium ion were in the order of EB > BB > BH, and that the
was focused on the extraction properties of the system of
extraction efficiency of EB was much higher than those of the
EB+TIBP+kerosene.
other two ILs. Moreover, the separation factors of Li+ to Mg2+
Table 2 Comparison of extraction behavior of different extraction systems*
Extraction system

ELi(%)

EMg(%)

DLi

DMg

(Li/Mg)

ELi(%)

TIBP

1.68

2.42

0.02

0.025

0.69

IL(BH, BB or EB)

<1.00

<2.00

<0.01

<0.200

<1.00

TIBP+kerosene

1.73

2. 37

0.02

0.024

0.73

IL(BH, BB or EB)+kerosene

<1.00

<2.00

<0.01

<0.200

<1.00

BH+TIBP

59.62

3.67

1.48

0.038

38.75

36.46

BB+TIBP

68.57

4.83

2.18

0.051

42.96

41.57

EB+TIBP

77.35

4.57

3.41

0.048

71.24

44.44

BH+TIBP+kerosene

55.22

2.76

1.23

0.028

43.45

99.72

BB+TIBP+kerosene

62.39

4.69

1.66

0.049

33.72

95.37

EB+TIBP+kerosene

73.95

4.13

2.84

0.043

65.90

96.12

* Experimental conditions: solution pH=5.0, R(O/A)=1.0, 1.0 mol/L HCl as the stripping agent at R(O/A)=2.

3.2 Influence of EB Concentration on Lithium

Ion Extraction
The influence of EB concentration(volume fraction) on
lithium ion extraction under the experimental conditions of
the fixed TIBP in 80%(volume fraction), solution pH=5.0,
R(O/A)=1.5 was studied with the results shown in Fig.1. In

the main factors, solution pH and R(O/A), were investigated.

The composition of the organic solvent was fixed at 10% EB,
80% TIBP and 10% kerosene in volume. Solution pH and
R(O/A) varied from 0.5 to 7.0 and from 0.5 to 2.5, respectively,
and the experimental results on the influences of pH and R(O/A)
are presented in Figs.2 and 3 respectively.

Fig.2
Fig.1

Influence of EB concentration on the

extraction of lithium

Influence of pH value of the solution on the

extraction of lithium

Experimental conditions: V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)=8:1:1, R(O/A)=1.5.

Experimental conditions: TIBP=80% in volume,

solution pH=5.0, R(O/A)=1.5.

Fig.1, the extraction efficiency(ELi) and distribution coefficient(DLi) after adding EB were increased significantly compared with the corresponding ones without EB added, which
indicates that EB is an effective component for lithium ion
extraction although EB alone has no extraction performance for
lithium ion(see Table 2). The probable reason for EB added as a
component into TIBP+kerosene system may be that it increase
the solubility of TIBP in kerosene to promote the extraction
performance for lithium ion in the new system EB+TIBP+
kerosene. The extraction efficiency was increased sharply with
EB concentration ranged from 0 to 10%, and then began to
flatten when the EB concentration increased further. When
the high cost and large viscosity of EB were taken into account,
an EB concentration of 10% was chosen with an extraction
efficiency of 73.95% and a distribution coefficient of 2.84.

3.3

Optimization of Extraction Conditions

In order to optimize the extraction process for lithium ion,

Fig.3

Influence of R(O/A) value on the

extraction of lithium

Experimental conditions: V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)=8:1:1,

solution pH=5.0.

As shown in Fig.2, the extraction efficiency increased only

slightly(about 0.5%) with the increase of the pH of the solution,
whereas the separation factor[(Li/Mg)] and the distribution
coefficient were increased from 50.52 to 78.80 and from 2.76
to 2.90, respectively. Those results indicate that the separation
factor was increased significantly with the increasing of the pH
of the solution. When the cost was taken into account, the

624

Chem. Res. Chin. Univ.

original pH value of the brine at 5.0 with (Li/Mg) = 65.9 was

chosen for lithium extraction directly.
Similarly, Fig.3 shows that when R(O/A) was increased
from 0.5 to 2.5, the extraction efficiency and distribution coefficient of Li+ increased from 52.03% to 91.66% and from 2.17
to 4.40, respectively, and the separation factor increased from
39.54 to 138.61. When R(O/A) was less than 1.0, the extraction
efficiency for lithium ion increased faster with the augmentation of the phase ratio, but when R(O/A) was higher than 1.0,
the increase slowed down. Generally, the higher the phase ratio
R(O/A) was, the greater the extraction efficiency of lithium was.
However, as R(O/A) increases, the enrichment of lithium ion
may fall. In order to obtain good lithium concentrate ratio and
extraction efficiency, the optimal R(O/A) was selected at a
value of 1.5.

3.4

Vol.31

ratio conditions. It is worth mentioning that the effect of

R(O/A) was insignificant on the back extraction efficiency of
the system for Mg2+, which suggests that it could be possible to
strip and wash Mg2+ from the organic phase at a higher R(O/A).
Thus a 1.0 mol/L HCl solution was used to strip Li+ into an
aqueous phase at a low R(O/A). However, the Mg/Li ratio in
the stripping aqueous solution was only 1.64 at R(O/A)=2 and
the concentration of Li+ was 2.17 g/L. Hence, the step of
washing and stripping magnesium ions from the organic phase
was not applied.

Optimization of Back Extraction Conditions

The effects of different acidities of HCl solutions and

R(O/A) on the back extraction efficiency of metal ions were
also investigated. Fig.4 illustrates the acidity effect(0.0 to 3.0
mol/L HCl) on the back extraction in a 1.0 mol/L NaCl stripping solution, where NaCl was used only as a conditioning
agent to adjust the density of stripping agent. Fig.4 shows that
the back extraction efficiencies of TIBP+EB+kerosene for
lithium, potassium and magnesium ions were significant lower
in DDW than those in HCl solutions. When the concentration
of HCl was less than 1.0 mol/L, the back extraction efficiency(E) of the system for Li+ increased sharply, but a further
increase in HCl concentration did not influence the E. After the
corrosive effect of high acidity HCl solution on the equipment,
the cost and the environmental impact had been taken into account, an optimal back extraction acidity of 1.0 mol/L HCl was
selected to obtain back extraction efficiencies of 96.12%,
89.48% and 64.64% for Li+, K+ and Mg2+, respectively.

Fig.4

Fig.5

Influence of R(O/A) on back extraction efficiency of the system for Li+(a), K+(b) and
Mg2+(c)

Experimental conditions: V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)=8:1:1, solution

pH=5.0, 1.0 mol/L HCl in 1.0 mol/L NaCl medium as the stripping agent.

3.5

Reuse of the Organic Phase

To investigate the repeated extraction ability of the organic

phase, a ten times reuse cycle of the organic phase was done
under the optimal extractive conditions of the selected system
V(EB):V(TIBP):V(kerosene)=1:8:1, pH=5.0 and R(O/A)= 1.5
and a back extraction condition of 1.0 mol/L HCl in a medium
of 1.0 mol/L NaCl with a R(O/A)=2. After the back extraction
of the metal ions and before the next extraction cycle, a regeneration step of the organic phase was performed in a 1.0 mol/L
NaOH solution with a R(O/A)=2. The results of the reuse of the
organic phase for extracting the three ions are shown in Fig.6.
The extraction efficiency of the system for Li+ did not change
significantly after a ten times reuse cycle and the deviation of
extraction efficiency was only 3.88% or less.

Effect of HCl concentration on back extraction

efficiency of the system for Li+(a), K+(b) and
Mg2+(c)
Experimental conditions: V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)=8:1:1,
solution pH=5.0, R(O/A)=1.0.

The effect of R(O/A) on the back extraction step is

presented in Fig.5, which shows that the efficiency of the
back extraction of the system for metal ions was inversely
proportional to R(O/A) ratio. For Li+, the efficiency sharply
decreased from 96.12% at R(O/A)=1 to 38.07% at R(O/A)=5,
whereas for K+ and Mg2+ it went from 89.48% to 71.84% and
from 64.64% to 61.09%, respectively, under the same phase

Fig.6

Reuse cycle of the organic phase in the

extraction of lithium

Experimental conditions: V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)=8:1:1, solution

pH=5.0, R(O/A)=1.5, 1.0 mol/L HCl in 1.0 mol/L NaCl medium as the
stripping agent at R(O/A)=2.

No.4

GAO Daolin et al.

625

Eq.(2), it can be described as

3.6

Liquid-liquid Extraction Mechanism

In order to better understand the extraction mechanism,

two series of experiments were conducted. Combined with the
mathematical treatment and information from infrared spectroscopy, coordination numbers of ligands were obtained by a
slope analysis method to examine the nature of the complex of
the ligand with lithium. IR spectra under various experimental
conditions are presented in Fig.7. The vibration bands are
shown in the IR spectra of EB: the imidazole ring vibrate, 1471
cm1; the ring CN stretch, 1396 cm1; the imidazole ring
stretch, 1169 cm1; the CF3 symmetric stretch, 1137 cm1 and
the SO stretch, 880 cm1. With lithium loaded into the
organic phase, the vibration bands of EB have not shifted. In
other words, there is no component of EB in the complex of the
ligand with lithium. However, for the vibration bands of TIBP,
the P=O stretching vibration peak and the POC asymmetric stretching vibration peak have clearly moved from 1280
cm1 to 1258 cm1 and from 1023 cm1 to 1030 cm1, respectively, while the related CH3 asymmetric stretching vibration
peak(2962 cm1, 2876 cm1) and the CH3 symmetric stretching
vibration peak(1369 cm1) of TIBP have not shifted. The results
show that the P=O stretch is intensely influenced by the loading of lithium, and there is a stronger interaction only between
lithium and TIBP.

DLi =

DLi =

a. Organic solvent with V(TIBP):V(EB):V(kerosene)= 8:1:1 before extracting lithium ion; b. organic solvent after extracting lithium ion under the
conditions of pH=5.0 and R(O/A)=1.5 at room temperature.

It is generally known that kerosene has no functional

group for lithium extraction, only acts as a typical inert diluent.
Hence, the extraction reaction in this system can be proposed as
following:
+

ZZX LiCl mTIBPo

Li + Cl + mTIBPo YZZ
(5)
K ex =

[LiCl mTIBP]o
+

[Li ]a [Cl ]a [TIBP]o

(6)

where the subscripts of a and o represent the aqueous and

the organic phase, respectively. Kex is the equilibrium constant,
and the stoichiometric coefficient between TIBP with lithium is
denoted by m.
Similarly, for the distribution coefficient(DLi) shown in

[LiCl mTIBP]o
[Li + ]a

(7)

[LiCl mTIBP]o
+

[Li ]a

K ex [ Li + ]a [Cl ]a [TIBP]mo
+

[Li ]a

K ex [Cl ]a [TIBP]mo

(8)

And its logarithmic form can be expressed as

lgDLi = lgK ex +lg[Cl ]a +mlg[TIBP]o

(9)

According to Eq.(9), when the molar concentration of Cl

is greater than that of Li+, the values of lgKex and lg[Cl] nearly
remain constant with the volume concentration change of TIBP.
The dependence of lgDLi on lg[TIBP] for extracting lithium is
presented in Fig.8. Maintaining the molar concentration of
lithium chloride constantly and only changing that of TIBP, we
can draw the relationship between lgDLi and lg[TIBP](Fig.8),
so that the stoichiometric coefficient of m can be calculated
from Eq.(9) by regressing experimental data. The calculated
result shows that the stoichiometric coefficient between TIBP
and lithium chloride is close to 1.5(slope of 1.4138, Fig.8).
That is to say, the structural formula of the complex of the
ligand with lithium can be expressed by 2LiCl3TIBP as an
empiric formula.

4
FTIR spectra under various experimental
conditions

cLia

With the help of Eqs.(6) and(7), DLi can be simplified to

Fig.8

Fig.7

cLio

Relationship between lgDLi and lg[TIBP]

Conclusions

In this work, the novel extractive systems (IL+TIBP+

kerosene) with three differential kinds of hydrophobic ILs as an
effective solvent for lithium ion extracting from salt lake brine
with a high concentration ratio of magnesium to lithium were
studied systematically. Results show that the extraction efficiency and distribution coefficient for lithium ion followed the
sequence: EB>BB>BH. The optimal extraction conditions for
lithium extraction are: V(EB):V(TIBP):V(kerosene)=1:8:1,
pH=5.0, R(O/A)=1.5 and the back extraction of Li+ by 1.0
mol/L HCl in a 1.0 mol/L NaCl medium as stripping agent with
a R(O/A)=2. Moreover, the mechanism of the extraction system
of EB+TIBP+kerosene was studied by combining infrared
spectroscopy and mathematical calculation based on experimental data. The structural formula of the complex with lithium
was 2LiCl3TIBP.

References
[1] Li H. Y., Zhai X. J., Fu Y., J. Mol. Sci., 2002, 18(4) , 199

626

Chem. Res. Chin. Univ.

[2] Zhao Z. W., Si X. F., Liu X. H., He L. H., Liang X. X., Hydrometallurgy, 2013, 133, 75
[3] Zhou Z. Y., Qin W., Fei W. Y., J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2011, 56(9),
3518
[4] Ono M., Bell M. G., Hirooka Y., Kaita R., Kugel H. W., Mazzitelli G.,
Menard J. E., Mirnov S. V., Shimada M., Skinner C. H., Tabares F. L.,
Nucl. Fusion, 2012, 52, 1
[5] Pannocchia G., Puccini M., Seggiani M., Vitolo S., Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., 2007, 46, 6696
[6] Bettge M., Seung Y. R., Maclaren S., Burdin S., Petrov L., Yu M. F.,
Sammann E., Abraham D. P., J. Power Sources, 2012, 206, 288
[7] Rahman M. M., Wang J. Z., Zeng R., Wexler D., Liu H. K., J. Power
Sources, 2012, 206, 259
[8] Meng L. Z., Yu X. P., Li D., Deng T. L., J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2011,
56(12) , 4627
[9] Zhu S. L., Piao X. L., Gou Z. M., J. Tsinghua Univ.(Sci. & Tech.),
2000, 40, 47
[10] Song X. J., Wang S. F., Li Z. J., Chin. J. Rare Metals, 2011, 35(3) ,
434
[11] Yang L. X., Wu S. X., Liu X. L., He J., Chen W. G., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2013, 34(1) , 55
[12] Nagaphani K. B., Chong H. S., Man S. L, Hydrometallurgy, 2014,
144-145, 1

Vol.31

[13] Zhou Z. Y., Liang S. K., Qin W., Fei W. Y., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
2013, 52, 7912
[14] Feng X. D., Liang F. H., Su R., Wu L. J., Li X. Y., Wang X. H.,
Zhang H. Q., Yu A. M., Chem. Res. Chinese Universities, 2013, 29(4),
647
[15] Yan R., Shao M. Y., Liang Z. F., Zhang H. Q., Yu A. M., Chem. Res.
Chinese Universities, 2013, 29(2), 218
[16] Visser A. E., Swatloski R. P., Reichert W. M., Mayton R., Sheff S.,
Wierzbicki A., Davis Jr. J. H., Rogers R. D., Chem. Commun., 2001,
(1), 135
[17] Tonova K., Sep. Purif. Technol., 2012, 89, 57
[18] Garcia S., Larriba M., Garcia J., Torrecilla J. S., Rodriguez F., J.
Chem. Thermodynamics, 2012, 53, 119
[19] Tang B. K., Bi W. T., Tian M. L., Row K. H., J. Chromatogr. B, 2012,
904, 1
[20] Lee J. M., Fluid Phase Equilibr., 2012, 319, 30
[21] Papaiconomou N., Yakelis N., Salminen J., Bergman R., Prausnitz J.
M., J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2007, 52(1), 39
[22] Lee J. M., Prausnitz J. M., Chem. Phys. Lett., 2010, 492(13), 55
[23] Dai S., Ju Y. H., Barnes C. E., J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans., 1999, 8,
1201
[24] Chun S., Sergei V. D., Richard A. B., Anal. Chem., 2001, 73(15) ,
3737