ABSTRACT This study presents a mathematical model to evaluate the kinetics of the carbothermal reduction of NiO using graphite. Based on the shrinking core theory, the model was validated against experimental data obtained under both isothermal and non-isothermal conditions. The shrinking core model for isothermal and non-isothermal conditions was created using MATLAB software for the kinetic modelling of the reduction process to determine the extent of reduction and the reaction rate. The kinetics were mathematically modelled from independently measured physical and thermodynamic properties of the reaction system and experimentally measured properties. The carbothermal reduction method was effective in producing Ni metal from NiO and was considered an established basis for evaluating the modelling aspect of the solid–gas system. The experimental investigation of carbothermal reduction was conducted using a statistical design of experiments (DOE), employing a two-level factorial design (23). The experiments were performed for a range of different factors, namely reduction temperature (800-1000°C), reduction time (1-2 h), and the molar ratio of graphite to NiO (0.5-1.5) on the extent of reduction. The extent of reduction increases with increasing reduction temperature, reduction time, and molar ratio of C to NiO. The highest extent of reduction (77.9%) was achieved at a reduction temperature of 1000°C, 2 h of reduction time, and the molar ratio of C to NiO as 1.5. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) studies confirmed the formation of Ni at a lower reduction time, but the intensity of the Ni phase was higher for a longer duration of reduction. SEM-EDS analysis of the reduced products confirmed the formation of Ni in the form of elongated and larger grains, along with traces of residual or unreacted carbon. The predicted extent of reduction is then compared with the experimentally measured results. The kinetic modelling results proved that both isothermal and non-isothermal shrinking core models showed similarity and significant closeness to the experimental data. The deviation between the experimental and model results could be due to the varying geometry and porosity of the reactants and intermediate products.