TY - JOUR
T1 - Electrochemical leaching of critical materials from lithium-ion batteries
T2 - A comparative life cycle assessment
AU - Adhikari, Birendra
AU - Chowdhury, Nighat A.
AU - Diaz, Luis A.
AU - Jin, Hongyue
AU - Saha, Apurba K.
AU - Shi, Meng
AU - Klaehn, John R.
AU - Lister, Tedd E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2023/6
Y1 - 2023/6
N2 - The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) requires critical materials such as cobalt (Co) and lithium (Li) that are essential for clean-energy products including electric vehicles. Because of their rapidly increasing demand and limited supply, the recycle and reuse of these materials from end-of-life LIB have garnered a lot of interest. Electrochemical leaching has emerged as a sustainable method to extract critical materials out of LIB, so life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the environmental impacts with traditional peroxide-based leaching and another emerging technology – SO2-based leaching. The results showed that electrochemical leaching reduces the global warming potential (GWP) by 80%−87% compared to peroxide-based leaching due to a lower acid consumption, avoidance of hydrogen peroxide, and regeneration of reducing agent iron (II) sulfate and compares well with SO2-based leaching in most impact categories. The analysis suggested renewable energy can further reduce the environment footprint of electrochemical leaching.
AB - The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) requires critical materials such as cobalt (Co) and lithium (Li) that are essential for clean-energy products including electric vehicles. Because of their rapidly increasing demand and limited supply, the recycle and reuse of these materials from end-of-life LIB have garnered a lot of interest. Electrochemical leaching has emerged as a sustainable method to extract critical materials out of LIB, so life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the environmental impacts with traditional peroxide-based leaching and another emerging technology – SO2-based leaching. The results showed that electrochemical leaching reduces the global warming potential (GWP) by 80%−87% compared to peroxide-based leaching due to a lower acid consumption, avoidance of hydrogen peroxide, and regeneration of reducing agent iron (II) sulfate and compares well with SO2-based leaching in most impact categories. The analysis suggested renewable energy can further reduce the environment footprint of electrochemical leaching.
KW - Circular economy
KW - Environmental impact
KW - Peroxide-based leaching
KW - SO leaching
KW - Value recovery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150406291&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85150406291&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106973
DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106973
M3 - Article
SN - 0921-3449
VL - 193
JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
M1 - 106973
ER -