4.7 Article

Numerical simulation of counter-current liquid liquid extraction for recovering Co, Ni and Li from lithium-ion battery leachates of varying composition

Journal

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 210, Issue -, Pages 530-540

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.08.036

Keywords

Liquid-liquid extraction; Li-ion battery waste; Process design; Continuous counter-current operation; Nonlinear regression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fractionation of Li-ion battery waste leachates into high-purity Li, Ni, and Co streams in a liquid-liquid extraction circuit was studied using numerical simulations. A new mechanistic mathematical model explaining the phase equilibrium in the loading, scrubbing, and stripping stages using bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)phosphinic acid (Cyanex 272) as extractant was developed. Including the distribution equilibrium of ammonia in the model enabled simulation of metal extraction with partially neutralized extractant. The model facilitates the design and optimization of liquid liquid extraction circuit for fractionation of Li-ion battery leachates. Four leachates from recent research articles were selected to the study in order to cover a wide composition variation. In the separation process scheme studied, Co and Ni are first selectively extracted, yielding a pure Li raffinate, and then separated as pure products in the stripping steps. The simulation results confirm the viability of the scheme. The influence of the leachate composition on the feasible range of O/A ratios in loading and scrubbing as well as acid concentration in Ni stripping was quantified. With proper operating parameters, high recoveries of Li and Co (> 99.9%) are achieved for all leachate compositions. The leachates containing 10-25 g/L Co, > 10 g/L Ni, and > 2.5 g/L Li are particularly suitable for fractionation of the metals into high-purity (> 99%) Li, Ni, and Co streams.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available