4.8 Article

Recovery of Co, Ni, Mn, and Li from Li-ion batteries by smelting reduction Part II: A pilot-scale demonstration

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 483, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.229089

Keywords

Li-ion batteries; Electrode materials; Recycling; Smelting reduction; Pyrometallurgy

Funding

  1. Swedish Energy Agency (Energimyndigheten) [2016-006027]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper demonstrates the smelting recovery of Co, Ni, Mn, and Li from LIBs materials in a pilot-scale Electric Arc Furnace, showing high yields for Co, Ni, and Mn and varying lithium recovery rates in the flue dust. The primary carbonated-water leaching method can extract around 60% Li2CO3 from the flue dust with a purity of up to 95.8%, proposing a smelting recovery process for LIBs.
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) contain valuable elements, which need to be recovered to sustain the production of new LIBs and reduce the use of virgin resources. In this paper, smelting recovery of Co, Ni, Mn, and Li from three types of LIBs materials is demonstrated in two trials (Trial I and Trial II) in a pilot-scale Electric Arc Furnace. After smelting reduction, Co, Ni, and Mn are recovered in the metal alloys, and lithium is concentrated and recovered in the flue dust in the form of Li2CO3. Co, Ni, and Mn's yields are respectively 98.2%, 98.4%, and 91.5% in Trial I, and respectively 97.9%, 97.7%, and 85.3% in Trial II. No significant differences in Co and Ni yields are observed concerning the use of different LIBs materials. The lithium yields in the flue dust are respectively 68.3% and 60.9% for Trial I and Trial II. By applying a primary carbonated-water leaching, around 60% salt (mainly Li2CO3) can be extracted from the flue dust; the purity of the extracted Li2CO3 could reach up to 95.8%. In the end, a smelting recovery process for LIBs is proposed.

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