4.6 Article

Direct Regeneration of Spent LiFePO4 Cathode Material by a Green and Efficient One-Step Hydrothermal Method

Journal

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
Volume 8, Issue 48, Pages 17622-17628

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c07166

Keywords

Lithium-ion batteries; LiFePO4; Cathode materials; Direct regeneration; Hydrothermal

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51834008, 51874040, 52034002]
  2. Guangdong Key Area RD Program [2020B090919003]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [FRF-TP-18-020A3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The environmentally friendly and low-cost recycling of spent LiFePO4 (LFP) cathode material has become an urgent problem. Herein, a green and effective one-step hydrothermal approach was proposed for the direct regeneration of spent LFP. LFP will lose part of its lithium and convert into FePO4 (FP) during long-term cycles. Thus, a supplement of lost lithium is essential to regenerate spent LFP, and this is thermodynamically feasible to achieve under hydrothermal conditions. The hydrothermal conditions of temperature, Li+ concentration, and reductant dosage were investigated. It was found that enhancement of hydrothermal conditions was beneficial to supplementing lithium, correspondingly improving the electrochemical performance. Under the hydrothermal conditions of 200 degrees C for 3 h, 12 g L-1 of Li+, L/S = 6 mL g(-1) , and 1.0 mL of reductant (for every 5 g of spent LFP), the regenerated LFP displayed excellent discharge capacities of 146.2 mAh g(-1) at 0.2 C, 141.9 mAh g(-1) at 1 C, and 128.2 mAh g(-1) at 5 C. Additionally, the capacity retention reached up to 98.6% after 200 cycles at 1 C. This regeneration method has been demonstrated to be of good economic benefit and energy savings, which will provide technological support for the sustainable development of the LIBs industry.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available