4.6 Article

Hydrometallurgical Extraction of Li and Co from LiCoO2 Particles-Experimental and Modeling

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 10, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10186375

关键词

battery recycling; COMSOL; unreacted shrinking core model

资金

  1. European Union [778045]
  2. program Proyectos I+D+i en el marco del Programa Operativo FEDER Andalucia [UMA18-FEDERJA-279]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [778045] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of lithium-ion batteries as energy storage in portable electronics and electric vehicles is increasing rapidly, which involves the consequent increase of battery waste. Hence, the development of reusing and recycling techniques is important to minimize the environmental impact of these residues and favor the circular economy goal. This paper presents experimental and modeling results for the hydrometallurgical treatment for recycling LiCoO2 cathodes from lithium-ion batteries. Previous experimental results for hydrometallurgical extraction showed that acidic leaching of LiCoO2 particles produced a non-stoichiometric extraction of lithium and cobalt. Furthermore, the maximum lithium extraction obtained experimentally seemed to be limited, reaching values of approximately 65-70%. In this paper, a physicochemical model is presented aiming to increase the understanding of the leaching process and the aforementioned limitations. The model describes the heterogeneous solid-liquid extraction mechanism and kinetics of LiCoO2 particles under a weakly reducing environment. The model presented here sets the basis for a more general theoretical framework that would describe the process under different acidic and reducing conditions. The model is validated with two sets of experiments at different conditions of acid concentration (0.1 and 2.5 M HCl) and solid to liquid ratio (5 and 50 g L-1). The COMSOL Multiphysics program was used to adjust the parameters in the kinetic model with the experimental results.

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