4.7 Review

A review of physical processes used in the safe recycling of lithium ion batteries

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.susmat.2020.e00197

关键词

Physical separation; Lithium-ion batteries; Circular economy; Recycling; Waste management; Safety

资金

  1. Faraday Institution
  2. ReLiB fast-start project [FIRG005, FIRG006]
  3. Faraday Challenge
  4. R2LIB [TS/S004572/1]
  5. S.H.R.E.D.
  6. WMG HVMC project
  7. Circular Economy
  8. Innovate UK through the High Value Manufacturing Catapult (HVMC) pipeline project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A review of separating methods used in domestic and electric vehicle lithium ion battery recycling is presented, focusing on physical processes which are commonly utilized prior to further chemical processing and purification steps. The four processes of stabilization, disassembly, separation and binder negation are reviewed and the strengths and weaknesses in current research identified. The main limitation with current recycling methods is the comminution step, which mixes, sometimes intimately, the materials from different cell components. This mixed waste stream requires further physical separation, and produces cross contamination in the different material streams. Effective separation of battery components, which produces enhanced purity of waste streams is essential to providing a cost-effective recycling process for direct or closed loop recycling. Improvements in the separation process are possible if the materials are separated prior to comminution, to prevent contamination of the different materials streams. In addition to purity of waste streams, one area mostly neglected in the literature is the health and safety implications and hazards associated with the chemicals contained within the cells. Little information is known about the chemical reactions which may occur during the physical separation processes and this has been identified as an area which needs substantially more investigation. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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