4.7 Article

Generation and detection of metal ions and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions from the pretreatment processes for recycling spent lithium-ion batteries

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 221-227

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.011

关键词

Spent lithium-ion battery; Recycling; Pretreatment; Risk assessment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51534005]
  2. Shanghai Natural Science Foundation [15ZR1422200]
  3. Shanghai Cooperative Centre for WEEE Recycling [ZF1224-12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries brings benefits to both economic and environmental terms, but it can also lead to contaminants in a workshop environment. This study focused on metals, nonmetals and volatile organic compounds generated by the discharging and dismantling pretreatment processes which are prerequisite for recycling spent lithium-ion batteries. After discharging in NaCl solution, metal contents in supernate and concentrated liquor were detected. Among results of condition #2, #3, #4 and #5, supernate and concentrated liquor contain high levels of Na, Al, Fe; middle levels of Co, Li, Cu, Ca, Zn; and low levels of Mn, Sn, Cr, Zn, Ba, K, Mg, V. The Hg, Ag, Cr and V are not detected in any of the analyzed supernate. 10 wt% NaCl solution was a better discharging condition for high discharge efficiency, less possible harm to environment. To collect the gas released from dismantled LIB belts, a set of gas collecting system devices was designed independently. Two predominant organic vapour compounds were dimethyl carbonate (4.298 mg h(-1)) and tert-amylbenzene (0.749 mg h(-1)) from one dismantled battery cell. To make sure the concentrations of dimethyl carbonate under recommended industrial exposure limit (REL) of 100 mg L-1, for a workshop on dismantling capacity of 1000 kg spent LIBs, the minimum flow rate of ventilating pump should be 235.16 m(3) h(-1). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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