4.7 Article

Selective recycling of lithium from spent lithium-ion batteries by carbothermal reduction combined with multistage leaching

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123555

关键词

Spent lithium -ion batteries; Selective lithium recycling; Carbothermal reduction; Multistage leaching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes a method of carbothermal reduction combined with multi-stage leaching to recycle lithium from electrode materials. Results show that this method can achieve a comprehensive recovery rate of 87.15% even with a high aluminum content in the electrode materials.
The indiscriminate hydrometallurgical leaching of metallic ions from spent lithium-ion batteries derived black mass significantly hinders the targeted recovery of specific metal salts. Selective recycling of lithium from electrode materials has attracted much attention because of its high value and realizability. While carbothermal reduction combined with single stage water-leaching is an alternative pathway, impurities in the electrode materials will affect the reduction process and decrease the recycling efficiency. In this study, we proposed the concept of carbothermal reduction in combination with multi-stage leaching as a facile and earth friendly approach to recycle lithium from electrode materials. Results demonstrate that cathode material of LiNixCoyMn(1-x-y)O2 can be fully reduced to Li2CO3, LiAlO2, CoO, NiO, Co, Ni. Li2CO3 can be recycled by water-leaching while LiAlO2 can be recycled by alkali-leaching. Roasting process can make lithium ions out of the aluminum -containing precipitates to form water-soluble salts, and this part of lithium can be recycled by water-leaching again. Afterwards, the comprehensive recovery rate of lithium is 87.15% when the content of aluminum in electrode materials is up to 4.03%. Findings made from this study may inspire the next generation of greener hydrometallurgical pathways to recover lithium from electrode materials even with a high aluminum content.

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