4.6 Article

A Sustainable Process for the Recovery of Anode and Cathode Materials Derived from Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11082363

关键词

electrode materials; spent lithium-ion battery; pyrolysis; liberation; flotation; recovery

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51574234, 51674257]
  2. National College Students' innovative and entrepreneurial training program [201710290029]
  3. Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds [1701038C]
  4. Shanghai Tongji Gao Tingyao Environmental Science and Technology Development Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recovery of cathode and anode materials plays an important role in the recycling process of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Organic binders reduce the liberation efficiency and flotation efficiency of electrode materials derived from spent LIBs. In this study, pyrolysis technology is used to improve the recovery of cathode and anode materials from spent LIBs by removing organic binders. Pyrolysis characteristics of organics in electrode materials are investigated, and on this basis, the effects of pyrolysis parameters on the liberation efficiency of electrode materials are studied. Afterwards, flotation technology is used to separate cathode material from anode material. The results indicate that the optimum liberation efficiency of electrode materials is obtained at a pyrolysis temperature of 500 degrees C, a pyrolysis time of 15 min and a pyrolysis heating rate of 10 degrees C/min. At this time, the liberation efficiency of cathode materials is 98.23% and the liberation efficiency of anode materials is 98.89%. Phase characteristics of electrode materials cannot be changed under these pyrolysis conditions. Ultrasonic cleaning was used to remove pyrolytic residues to further improve the flotation efficiency of electrode materials. The cathode material grade was up to 93.89% with a recovery of 96.88% in the flotation process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据