4.7 Article

Development tendency and future response about the recycling methods of spent lithium-ion batteries based on bibliometrics analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
Volume 27, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2019.101111

Keywords

Bibliometrics; Recycling methods; Spent lithium-ion batteries; Web of Science Core Collection

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the rapid development of electric vehicles and portable electronics, lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are increasingly widely used in our daily life. At the same time, how to deal with the spent LIBs has been a hot study topic as well. 383 relevant articles were obtained in Web of Science Core Collection and a bibliometrics analysis about the recycling of spent LIBs was conducted by Excel, BibExcel and Pajek. According to the analytical results, the research of LIBs recycling has been growing fast and relevant achievements will continue to increase in the future. China is the most active country in this field. Central South University and Beijing Institute of Technology in China is the most productive single and collaborative institution, respectively. Journal of Power Sources has published the most articles compared with other journals. On the basis of the statistical data hydrometallurgical process with acid leaching and valuable metals has been the main recycling method and object of study. Other routes and components also received attention and have potential to be developed and recycled in the future. Before the complete recycling system is established, there would stillbe much detailed work in many respects to be accomplished to tackle the coming wave of spent LIBs in the near future. This article has performed a quantitative analysis of the development tendency about the recycling methods of spent lithium-ion batteries and will provide experienced reference for intended researchers interested in this field.

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