4.7 Article

Comparative study on the sulfation of spent lithium-ion battery under different sulfur inputs: Extraction efficiency, SO2 emission and mechanism

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2023.111099

关键词

Spent LiCoO2 battery; Selectively recovery; Sulfation roasting; SO2 emission-free; Ferrous sulfate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries is crucial for environmental protection and addressing resource shortages. This study compared the performance of cobalt-lithium co-sulfation and selective sulfation processes, and established an efficient and eco-friendly method for metal recovery from spent lithium-ion batteries.
The recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) is of utmost significance for environmental protection and alleviating resource shortages. Traditional sulfation roasting techniques were accused of their unsustainability and negative environmental impact, such as the consumption of expensive sulfation reagents and the emission of SO2. This study compared the performance of cobalt-lithium co-sulfation and selective sulfation processes under high and low sulfur input conditions with waste ferrous sulfate as sulfation reagent. The results revealed that selective roasting can efficiently achieve lithium separation without SO2 emission. Additionally, a sulfation roasting mechanism for SO2 emission-free conditions under low sulfur input was proposed. At 650 degrees C, spent lithium cobaltate (LCO) was sulfated via ion exchange with FeSO4 and gas-solid reactions with SO2, and the lithium in the outer layer was selectively sulfated. Partially sulfated CoSO4 was then served as a sulfation agent to sulfate the unreacted LCO at 800 degrees C, allowing the sulfur element to be fully recovered and recycled in the form of Li2SO4. By comparing the co-sulfation and selective sulfation processes, an efficient and eco-friendly method for recovering metals from spent lithium-ion batteries was established.

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