4.7 Review

Assessment of recycling methods and processes for lithium-ion batteries

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104321

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. key research and development program of Zhejiang province [2021C03018]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization, Zhejiang University, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review discusses physical, chemical, and direct methods for recycling lithium-ion batteries and explores future recovery routes. The study shows that physical and chemical processes can effectively treat the cathode active materials, while direct recycling methods can maintain the chemical structure and process value of battery materials. However, challenges remain in controlling impurities in recovered products and ensuring the overall sustainability of the recycling process.
This review discusses physical, chemical, and direct lithium-ion battery recycling methods to have an outlook on future recovery routes. Physical and chemical processes are employed to treat cathode active materials which are the greatest cost contributor in the production of lithium batteries. Direct recycling processes maintain the original chemical structure and process value of battery materials by recovering and reusing them directly. Mechanical separation is essential to liberate cathode materials that are concentrated in the finer size region. However, currently, the cathode active materials are being concentrated at a cut point that is considerably greater than the actual size found in spent batteries. Effective physical methods reduce the cost of subsequent chemical treatment and thereafter re-lithiation successfully reintroduces lithium into spent cathodes. Some of the current challenges are the difficulty in controlling impurities in recovered products and ensuring that the entire recycling process is more sustainable.

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