4.8 Article

Recovery of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries with organic acids as leaching reagents and environmental assessment

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 233, Issue -, Pages 180-189

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.12.089

Keywords

Spent lithium-ion batteries; Acid leaching; Cathode active materials; Organic acids; Environmental assessment

Funding

  1. International S&T Cooperation Program of China [2010DFB63370]
  2. Chinese National 973 Program [2009CB220106]
  3. Beijing Nova Program [Z121103002512029]
  4. Beijing Excellent Youth Scholars funding
  5. Chinese Education Ministry [NCET-12-0050]
  6. Vehicle Technology Program of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A leaching process for the recovery of cobalt and lithium from spent lithium-ion batteries (LIB) is developed in this work. Three different organic acids, namely citric acid, malic acid and aspartic acid, are used as leaching reagents in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The cathode active materials before and after acid leaching are characterized by X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. Recovery of cobalt and lithium is optimized by varying the leachant and H2O2 concentrations, the solid-to-liquid ratio, and the reaction temperature and duration. Whereas leaching with citric and malic acids recovered in excess of 90% of cobalt and lithium, leaching with aspartic acid recovered significantly less of these metals. The leaching mechanism likely begins with the dissolution of the active material (LiCoO2) in the presence of H2O2 followed by chelation of Co(II) and Li with citrate, malate or aspartate. An environmental analysis of the process indicates that it may be less energy and greenhouse gas intensive to recover Co from spent LIBs than to produce virgin cobalt oxide. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available