Journal Pre-proof Environmental impact of spent lithium ION batteries and green recycling perspectives by organic acids – A review Pratima Meshram, Abhilash Mishra, Abhilash, Rina Sahu PII:
S0045-6535(19)32531-7
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125291
Reference:
CHEM 125291
To appear in:
ECSN
Received Date: 6 June 2019 Revised Date:
31 October 2019
Accepted Date: 1 November 2019
Please cite this article as: Meshram, P., Mishra, A., Abhilash, , Sahu, R., Environmental impact of spent lithium ION batteries and green recycling perspectives by organic acids – A review, Chemosphere (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125291. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Battery Materials are less prone to affect the food chain, and efficient utilisation might resurrect the metal depletion imbalance
1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SPENT LITHIUM ION BATTERIES AND GREEN RECYCLING
2
PERSPECTIVES BY ORGANIC ACIDS – A REVIEW
3
Pratima Meshram1, Abhilash Mishra2, Abhilash1, Rina Sahu2
4
1
CSIR-National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur
5
2
National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur
6
7
Tel: +91-657-2345274; Fax: +91-657-2345213; Email:
[email protected]
8
Abstract: The huge usage of rechargeable batteries in electronics has added to a recurrent
9
problem worldwide in generating tonnage of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). The inadequacy
10
of the resources of the depleting critical metals has also been described in vogue. The
11
environmental assessment of the life cycle of the LIBs has been elucidated vis-a-vis the effects
12
of raw material supply, transportation, and recycling. Based on the available work for recycling
13
technologies, this review also attempts to elicit the various methods practiced in
14
discharging/dismantling, classification, and separation of components followed by metal
15
recovery. The authors have reviewed the major developments in the area of recycling of
16
cathode material by using various acids for extraction of metals from spent LIBs, compared the
17
merits and demerits of acids used and presented a comprehensive outlook to the processes
18
formulated vis-à-vis imperative need for using green techniques. The necessity for benign
19
recycling methods is stressed upon to alleviate the need for high temperature and oxidative
20
acid leaching conditions. The various green lixiviants (organic acids) attempted to extract
21
metals from spent LIBs have been discussed in detail with respect to the mechanism, efficacies
22
as well as the various factors (selectivity, cost, etc.) that govern the use of organic acids in
23
battery recycling. It was ascertained that the GHG emissions to extract Co using organic acids
24
stand 1/8 of that using an inorganic acid leaching process. Efforts need to be envisaged in
25
separating the leached metals from these lixiviants ensuring economics and environmental
26
benefits.
27
Keywords: environmental assessment; spent LIBs; recycling; pretreatment; metal; organic acids 1
28
1. Introduction
29
Every year the LIBs production increase rapidly and the production of LIBs all over the world has
30
reached 7.8 billion in 2016, which is grown by 40% as compared to 5.6 billion in 2015 (Zheng et
31
al., 2018). Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have been introduced by Sony Corp. in 1991, after which
32
it gains more attention as compare to any other available batteries (Zou et al., 2013; Georgi-
33
Maschler et al., 2012). Spent LIBs recycling gain remarkable attention in the past few years due
34
to the rapid increase in demand for critical metals and negative impact on environmental from
35
solid hazardous waste scrapping and disposal. Lithium-ion batteries find their applications
36
mainly in portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, power banks, laptops and cameras
37
due to their advantageous features including, large range of operating temperatures, high
38
energy density, long life cycles, and sensible discharge resistance. LIBs are not only dominating
39
the portable electronic markets like mobile phone and laptop but also become the first choice
40
for electronic automobiles in the future. Automakers like Nissan, Toyota, Honda, General
41
Motors and Volkswagen announced plans to utilize LIBs in upcoming electric and hybrid
42
vehicles (Ferreira et al, 2009). LIBs technologies are more advanced than other batteries in
43
terms of energy density and higher voltage per cell, which is a crucial factor for hybrid and
44
electric vehicles (Zou et al., 2013; Li et al., 2012).
45
Spent LIBs not only contain significant quantities of valuable materials but also contain
46
hazardous materials. The release and fate (i.e., transport and transformation) of metals in these
47
batteries or the batteries as such into the environmental system is a very important issue for
48
discussion. The uncontrolled disposal of these batteries creates a major risk to health, the
49
environment, and a significant waste of valuable resources. Although a few organizations, such
2
50
as Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA), Rechargeable Battery Recycling
51
Corporation (RBRC) and European Portable Battery Association (EPBA) and some more
52
organizations in the USA and Europe are involved in collection and recycling of batteries but at
53
present there are no such legislation and regulations of collecting and recycling of batteries in
54
most of the developing countries. Battery metals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese
55
as well as the electrolytes may have adverse human health and environmental effects. The
56
amount and the form in which the respective component material is present in the battery can
57
determine the quantum of risk associated with the batteries. Disposal in landfills or by
58
incineration is preferred often during the phase-out of technologies, but green recycling is
59
unanimously the better option as it can diminish the adverse effect (if any) on the environment
60
and landfill.
61
LIBs cell is predominantly composed of three different layers that are cathode layer, an
62
anode layer, a separator (PVC), electrolyte, and polymer enclosed with metallic shells (Gratz et
63
al., 2014). The composition of different parts of LIBs vis-à-vis its percentage weight distribution
64
per battery is shown in Table-S1. The cathode material in LIBs is mostly metal oxide in the form
65
of LixMyOz such as lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide and many more coated on
66
aluminum foil. Among these the recycling of spent batteries comprising LiCoO2 as the electrode
67
material has many positive aspects since the cobalt and lithium in it can be an alternative
68
resource for the future. The anode is the negative active material coated with active material
69
(graphite) on copper foil. The electrolyte salts used include LiPF6 and LiBF4. Lithium hexafluoride
70
phosphate (LiPF6) is preferably used lithium salt in most of the LIBs (Zeng, et al., 2014). A
71
separator is mainly used between anode and cathode layers to maintain the space and avoid
3
72
contact between them. Separator (a microporous film) is made up of polymers like
73
polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene. The function of separator is to avoid short circuits between
74
the electrodes as well as it also used as a safety purpose by sealing the electrodes when the cell
75
is overheating. Around 85% of the lithium-ion batteries used in worldwide have a size in
76
between the range of 5 to 25 g and around 15% have sizes between 25 to 75 g. Espinosa, et al.,
77
(2004) mentioned that every laptop usually consists of four to six cells and the average weight
78
of single cell is 45 g, whereas mobile phones having a single cell with 22 g of average size. Table-
79
1 shows the weight of different parts of mobile and laptop LIBs. The differences in composition
80
matter for the economics of processing of the different types of batteries; but the
81
environmental effects are mostly similar. In recent years, there have been few comprehensive
82
reviews on the subject of LIB green recycling. Zhang et al. (2018) emphasized on the various
83
aspects of recycling and leaching of LIBs including the process steps, and separation of metals
84
followed by LCA of the process methods. Huang et al (2018) do emphasize similar aspects but
85
mostly focused on product manufacturing from recycled LIBs. Kim et al. (2018) strictly discuss
86
end-of-life battery management and material flow analysis in South Korea instead of a global
87
perspective. Boxall et al. (2018) reviewed the projections of LIB waste generation and potential
88
for innovation for LIB recycling only for Australia. Zeng et al. (2014) attempt to review the
89
status of the recycling processes of spent LIBs, introduce the structure and components of the
90
batteries, and the problems encountered. However, no of these reviews have been able to
91
assess the environmental impact during raw material production, battery production,
92
distribution and transportation, usage and green recycling in a collective mode.
93
4
94
2. Environmental Assessment
95
The life cycle of lithium-ion battery (Fig.1) defines the complexity in disposition of spent LIBs
96
due to presence of various interim routes like reuse in batteries, use of remanufacturing
97
material in batteries, and regeneration of cathode before recycling for use as battery grade
98
material by stoichiometric additions. A detailed environmental assessment for the production
99
of LIBs as well as their recycling has been put forth with the need to pinpoint the precise unit
100
operation that contributes maximum towards environmental degradation and emission of
101
greenhouse gases. The environmental impacts of the production of several different batteries
102
were presented by McManus (2012), who reported that the materials required in lithium-ion
103
battery production have the most significant contribution to greenhouse gases and metal
104
depletion. The energy requirement for the production of these batteries was reported to about
105
90 MJ per Kg and 12.5 kg of CO2 equivalent emitted for per Kg of LIBs. Ordoñez et al., (2016)
106
reported that about 1100 t of heavy metals and 200 t of toxic electrolytes were generated from
107
4000 t of spent LIBs. Apart from this, there are many occupational hazards during disposal and
108
recycling of LIBs vis-à-vis components, which is depicted in Table-2. The major contributors to
109
environmental and health impact start from its raw material production followed by battery
110
production, its distribution, and transportation requirements, uses, charging and maintenance
111
and finally recycling and waste management (Corbus and Hammel, 1995). Recycling efforts are
112
mainly focused on cathode materials because of their relative mass and presence of critical
113
metals (Kim et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019). The cradle to grave pathway via all these stages
114
needs minimization ensuring a shift to adoption of a circular economy approach to preventing
115
the environment and health effects.
5
116
2.1. Effects of raw material production: The raw material production for batteries have a huge
117
ramifying effect. Mostly the raw materials used in LIBs are extracted from their respective ores
118
with mainly focusing on lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese as they are used in the
119
production of cathode materials in the lithium-ion batteries. Cobalt is mainly extracted from its
120
ores accompanied by nickel or copper along with the little amount of arsenic and silver as well.
121
The worldwide scenario of cobalt generation mainly includes 44% from the copper industry,
122
50% from the nickel industry and remaining production are from primary cobalt operations. The
123
approximate reserve of cobalt is about 7,100,000 MT (USGS, 2018). African countries,
124
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia are the main producers of cobalt while Russia,
125
Australia, China, Cuba, Canada, and Madagascar are the other important producers as shown in
126
Fig. 2 and the location of reserves are presented in Table-3. Lithium is an important metal as it
127
shares the largest market in the production of LIBs. Chile, Australia, and Brazil are the main
128
producers of lithium while other important producers include Argentina, Portugal, the U.S., and
129
China. The estimated reserves for lithium are about 16,000,000 MT, out of which Chile has
130
about 53% and Argentina has 14% (USGS, 2018). The estimated reserves for manganese is
131
about 680,000 MT (USGS, 2018). South Africa (75% of world resources), Ukraine (10%),
132
Australia, and China are the major producers and suppliers of manganese, while other
133
important producers include Brazil, India, and Indonesia. Cuba and Australia are the major
134
producers of nickel across the worldwide while Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, and Indonesia are
135
also important producers of nickel. The estimated reserve for nickel is about 74,000,000 MT. It
136
is estimated that cobalt and lithium will be going to face a serious deficiency in the upcoming
137
years. In the year 2016, the consumption rate of Co for batteries has increased to 13.7% and
6
138
will reach 20.3% in 2018 (Lv et al., 2018). According to USGS, 2018 the reserve for valuable
139
metals like Li and Co is 53 million tons and 5 million tons respectively. Apart from metals, it is
140
important to consider graphite recycling especially in countries with less primary production
141
(Song et al., 2019).
142
Mining, mineral processing, smelting, leaching, and refining are the major processes applied for
143
the conversion of the metal and components to the specific form of material utilized in the
144
batteries. Taking into consideration a LIB for EVs, the production of wrought aluminum
145
consumes 2-3kg CO2 equivalents per kg of battery, surpassing it more than an actual alumina
146
refinery. The electrode viz., LiMn2O4, production consumes nearly 800-1000 kg CO2 equivalents
147
per kg of battery. Even the consumption is 100-500 kg CO2 equivalents per kg of battery for
148
production of electrolytes like DMC, LiFP6, which after discharging of batteries pose high threats
149
of being emanated into the environment (Kang et al., 2013; Dunn et al., 2016). However,
150
currently owing to the stringent regulation and environment pollution acts these days, all the
151
unit operation in the production of raw materials releases fewer emissions.
152 153
2.2. Effects during battery production: Water pollution, air emission, and solid wastes may
154
generate during LIBs manufacturing, which is harmful to health as well as the environment. Due
155
to the increasing demand for these types of batteries, the Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
156
associated with its production has become a major concern. Recently Hao et al., (2017)
157
reported the GHG emission for the three types of most commonly used cathode materials of
158
LIBs. According to their report, for the production of a 28 kWh battery of LFP, NMC and LMO
159
cathode materials, about 3061 KgCO2-eq, 2912 kgCO2-eq, and 2705 kgCO2-eq GHG emissions is 7
160
generated respectively. A more detailed perspective id shown in Table-4, which describes the
161
energy consumption vis-à-vis type of cathode chemistry and its share on contribution to GHG
162
emissions. Though used prevalent and economically suitable, LCO’s contribute 80% to GHG
163
emissions. The emitted gas contains 40% carbon monoxide (CO), 20% carbon dioxide (CO2) and
164
30% hydrogen (H2) as well as traces of <3% hydrogen fluoride (HF) and nearly 7% hydrocarbons.
165 166
2.3. Effect due to transportation and distribution: Battery waste management is imperatively
167
affected by sorting, packing, storage and transportation. To avoid fire or incident, the batteries
168
must be packaged according to stringent requirements. A non-conductive material should be
169
used to prevent the short-circuiting against each other as well as the sides of metal packaging.
170
Approved packaging container viz., metal drum, wooden box, fiberboard or other materials are
171
used for this purpose. Separated packing is required for leakage of vented cells (Miller and Bill
172
McLaughlin, 2001). The batteries are then placed into an approved packaging group II container
173
with suitable cushioning (vermiculite) to reduce vibration and shock. The inside of the
174
packaging should be lined with a heavy plastic/polypropylene liner. The outside of the package
175
should be labeled with a "Miscellaneous" Class 9 label.
176 177
2.4. Effect during battery usage and maintenance: By increasing roundtrip efficiency and,
178
minimizing the amount of energy that is lost during these charging cycles, the environmental
179
impacts incurred by the energy used to charge batteries could be reduced.
180
8
181
2.5. Effects during recycling: Numerous companies around the world are licensed and currently
182
working in the field of battery recycling. The major firms engaged in LIBs recycling are Accurec,
183
Umicore process, Batrec AG, Sony-Sumitomo, Toxco and many more as mentioned in Table-6.
184
The primary aim of recycling batteries at the industrial and laboratory is to extract metals like
185
cobalt, lithium, nickel, and manganese. Recycling of lithium-ion batteries is more common than
186
Ni-Cd and Ni-MH batteries (Ellis and Mirza, 2011).
187
The advanced battery chemistries of LIBs offer improved systems because they incorporate less
188
hazardous materials and may use hydrometallurgical rather than pyrometallurgical or smelting
189
processes for recycling. In addition to increasing efficiency in the use of resources, recycling
190
provides direct environmental benefits. For instance, the GHG emissions of an LMO lithium-ion
191
battery could be reduced by up to 50% over its lifetime if it uses recycled cathode, aluminium,
192
and copper instead of virgin materials (Dunn et al., 2012). Moreover, recycling LCO batteries
193
results in a reduction in SOx emissions by almost 100%, largely because it avoids the SOx-
194
intensive smelting step of virgin cobalt recovery (Dunn et al., 2015). LCA analysis when
195
compared among the outputs of battery production from pyro-metallurgy and hydrometallurgy
196
via-a-vis raw material production, pyro-metallurgy exceeding production from raw materials in
197
electricity consumption and double release of PM2.5 and VOCs than that of hydrometallurgy
198
(Arambarri et al., 2019).
199
Another very important parameter that should become an integral part of the life cycle and
200
environmental impact assessment study for batteries is the form of the material in the battery
201
system itself. While evaluating the effects of battery materials, the focus presumably shifts to
202
the toxic nomenclatures of Ni, Co, Cd, Mn, Zn as they translocate easily in the environment. The
9
203
battery manufacturers frequently modify their battery chemistries, which makes it difficult to
204
incorporate recovered materials. For example, the compound normally used in a Ni-Cd battery
205
is an insoluble cadmium oxide but assumptions are made based on the highly soluble cadmium
206
chloride existing in the literature on toxicology. The MnO2 and Mn3O4 phase of manganese,
207
ZnMn2O4 phases of zinc and LiNiO2 phase of nickel in spent LIBs are not so easily soluble in
208
normal temperature and pressure, and thus must be a decisive factor when assessing their
209
effects too. This problem is yet to be addressed in life cycle analyses of battery systems, and it
210
is difficult to state how much it might affect them when it is addressed. The new chemistries
211
replace the old ones irrespective of geographical locations. Apart from Europe and China, India
212
has become a prominent destination for e-waste recyclers. Indian mobile manufacturing
213
industry is expected to touch Rs 160,000 crore by the end of 2019. In 2017, the Indian mobile
214
manufacturing industry produced 22 million mobile phones and the industry would produce 50
215
million mobile phones by 2020. The service life of LIBs is generally 3 - 4 years or average life is
216
1000 cycles (Chen et al., 2018).
217 218 219
3. The necessity of environmentally benign recycling methods
220
Several methods have been proposed for the extraction of valuable metals from waste/spent
221
LIBs. These can be categorized into pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and bio-hydrometallurgy.
222
Out of these, hydrometallurgy is a superior process in terms of high concentration of recycled
223
metal, low energy cost, and low emission. Nowadays the use of LIBs tends to increase rapidly
224
for the upcoming years, hence new recycling techniques should be developed and existing 10
225
processes should be optimized to treat spent Li-ion batteries to obtain sustainability (Renault et
226
al., 2014). Numerous researchers have developed techniques for extraction of metals from
227
waste LIBs by using inorganic acids like HCl (Wang et al., 2009; Shuva and Kurny, 2013; Guzolu
228
et al., 2017), HNO3 (Lee and Rhee, 2002) and H2SO4 (Meshram et al., 2014; Chen and Ho, 2018).
229
To diminish the negative impact of inorganic acids, reducing environmental pollution and to
230
find environmentally friendly treatment, many researchers in recent years use green recycling
231
tools like organic acids viz., citric acid (C6H8O7) (Zheng et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2016), oxalic acid
232
(H2C2O4) (Sun and Qui, 2012; Zeng et al., 2015), DL-malic acid (C4H5O6) (Li et al., 2010a; Sun et
233
al., 2017), L-tartaric acid (C4H6O6) (He et al., 2017; Cheng, 2018). To reduce the hazardous risks
234
to humans as well as to the environment, in recent times some effort has been made by the
235
researcher to develop an efficient and eco-friendly technique for extracting valuable metals and
236
recycle the spent LIBs. The use of organic acid for leaching to dissolve valuable metals like
237
lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese from waste LIBs have to gain more attention.
238
Nonetheless, this overview also gives a comprehensive record of comparison between
239
inorganic and organic acid along with, extensive usage of organic acid as green leaching
240
reagents for recycling and extracting metals from spent of LIBs. Gao et al (2018) compare both
241
the lixiviants to stress upon the use of inorganic media for higher extraction and organic media
242
for better selectivity based on the pH and dissociation constant, however the mechanism
243
missing is evident in this review. Lv et al., (2017) describe the procedure for recycling lithium-
244
ion is divided into two basic categories of the simple procedure and combination process as
245
shown in Fig.3.
246
11
247
3.1. Discharging and dismantling and pre-treatment of LIBs: This is an important component in
248
battery recycling in general. The first basic step before dismantling is to discharge the LIBs
249
completely to avoid explosion or self-ignition. Different researchers have opted various
250
methods as described in Table-S2. LIBs can be dismantled manually using a plier and a
251
screwdriver (generically can be referred as cutting device) and split into components like plastic
252
shells, metallic shells, polymer, PVC, anodes foil, and cathodes foil. Metallic components, plastic
253
parts, and separators can be directly recycled. The high purity plastic and metallic crusts and
254
the organic separators comprise relatively homogeneous components. They can be directly
255
centrally collected, compacted, and then sent to specialized plants for further reuse in new
256
products. Most of the researchers preferred a single-stage pretreatment technique for
257
dismantling of LIBs by directly crushing them into small sizes, followed by magnetic separation
258
to separate metallic parts. In the end, fine crushing and sieving process was employed to obtain
259
cathode active material as a feed to the leaching process. The dismantling process vis-à-vis the
260
components is presented in Fig.4. Many researchers employed different methods for extracting
261
cathode material from Al foil and concluded that pretreatment methods always play a vital role
262
which includes solvent dissolution method, ultrasonic separation, thermal treatment method,
263
and mechanical methods which are shown in Table-S3 along with its merits and demerits. With
264
the rapid development of mechanization, the mechanical and automatic dismantling of WEEE is
265
recently becoming a hot spot. Nowadays some new attempts to automatically disassemble
266
mobile phones are emerging (Zhang et al., 2018). Elaborative dismantling via full automatic
267
machines is expected to be the desired ideal operation for spent LIB recycling.
12
268
After separating cathode active material from Al foils, it is used for subsequent leaching process
269
as feed. Table-6 shows the composition of different cathode active material used by different
270
researchers. The literature survey shows that mechanical treatment, hydrometallurgy
271
(Meshram et al., 2014), pyrometallurgy (Paulino et al., 2008), and biotreatment (Brandl and
272
Faramarzi, 2006; Kim et al., 2016) are the main available recycling methods for extracting the
273
valuable metals from waste LIBs. Apart from these methods, metals can also be extracted by
274
bacteria and fungi (Horeh et al., 2016; Mishra et al., 2008; Xin et al., 2009). Among all the
275
available recycling approaches, hydrometallurgy method dominates due to being simple, high
276
recovery and options of closed-loop operations. Biotreatment has also created some attention
277
due to the selective and green recovery of some metals from the waste lithium-ion batteries.
278 279
3.2. Hydrometallurgical Processing of LIBs: Hydrometallurgical processing of spent LIBs is a
280
simple and efficient method for extracting all valuable metals. In the hydrometallurgical
281
technique, number of processes are carried out to dissolve and extract metals from an aqueous
282
medium; i.e., acid leaching (Meshram et al., 2015a; Paulino et al., 2008), chemical precipitation
283
(Guzolu et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017), solvent extraction (Yang et al., 2017; Paulino et al.,
284
2008), and electrochemical separation (Chagnes and Pospiech, 2013; Garcia et al., 2017; Xu et
285
al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2013). The first basic step is to dissolve Co, Li, Ni, and Mn by acid
286
leaching, and then these metals are extracted from the solution (leach liquor) by a suitable
287
method. Fig.5 shows the typical flowchart for the recycling of waste lithium-ion batteries
288
through the hydrometallurgical process.
289
hydrometallurgical treatments to extract valuable metals from solution as they are more
There
13
are lots
of
advantage
by
using
290
flexible and reliable, eco- friendly, energy consumption is less, good rate of reaction, high purity
291
and extract all the metals present in spent LIBs (Garcia et al., 2017; Sun and Qiu, 2011; Sun et
292
al., 2017). The most widely used method to extract valuable metals from waste LIBs is acid
293
leaching. There are different parameters on which the leaching rate of different metals like
294
cobalt, lithium, nickel, and manganese depends on lixiviant concentration, pulp density,
295
reaction temperature, time.
296
The lixiviants are mainly classified as inorganic and organic acids; merits and demerits of which
297
are described in Table-7. The use of inorganic acids can lead to high consumption of water,
298
chemicals, and in long term adding to the corrosion of equipment and generation of secondary
299
wastes (Tesfaye et al., 2017; Innocenzi et al., 2017). Rocchetti et al., (2013) also explained the
300
gas emission from the inorganic acid to recycle waste LIBs, and conclude that the gas like CO2,
301
Cl2, SO2, ethane, and phosphorus will be emitted. Another disadvantage of using inorganic acid
302
is the pH of the solution (leach liquor) is very low and metals cannot be extracted directly from
303
the solution hence the process becomes more complicated (Yao et al., 2018). With inorganic
304
acids, disposal of water containing acid,
305
problems leading to economic and energy losses.
306
Whereas organic acids termed as “GREEN LIXIVIANTS” are easy to manage, as they are
307
biodegradable, do not emits harmful gases to the atmosphere (He et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018).
308
Chen et al., (2015); Horeh et al., (2016); explain about the advantage of organic acid and the
309
use of organic acids as eco-friendly and efficient lixiviant, more to that there are no harmful
310
gases emitted, delayed the corrosion of equipment as well as it is for the operators, and few
311
organic acids gives selective leaching of valuable metals present in waste LIBs. A most
hazardous fumes, acidic leachates are the main
14
312
important factor associated with organic acids is, they can be recycled after leaching processes
313
(Chen et al., 2015). Golmohammadzadeh et al., (2017) and Rocchetti et al., (2013) reported that
314
organic acids are costlier than the inorganic acids, still it's usage is cost-effective as it avoids
315
negative impact on the environment which is mostly associated with inorganic acids.
316
Numerous researchers used inorganic acid like sulfuric acid (Meshram et al., 2015b; Chen and
317
Ho, 2018), hydrochloric acid (Guzolu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2009; Shuva and Kurny, 2013),
318
nitric acid (Lee and Rhee, 2003; ), Phosphoric acid (Pinna et al., 2017) and hydrofluoric acid
319
(Suarez et al., 2017) as a leaching reagent and showed very high recovery of metals from spent
320
lithium-ion batteries. Some selected work is listed in Table-8 using inorganic acid as a lixiviant
321
for spent LIBs, and Fig.6 shows the schematic recovery process by using different inorganic acid
322
as the lixiviant.
323
Hydrochloric acid has an excellent leaching efficiency as compared to another inorganic acid
324
(Joulie et al., 2014), but Cl2 was produced and leads to a potential environmental problem as
325
shown in Eq. (1).
326 327
2LiCoO2 + 8HCl 2CoCl2 + Cl2 + 2LiCl + 4H2O
(1)
328 329
Sulfuric acid is mostly used in the presence of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a reducing agent as
330
it enhances the leaching efficiency. Eq. (2) shows the chemical reaction of cathode active
331
material with hydrogen peroxide:
332
2LiCoO2 + 3H2SO4+ 3H2O2 2CoSO4 + Li2SO4
(2)
333
15
334
In spite of the fact inorganic acids are stronger oxidants than organic ones; the latter is
335
thermally stable, leaves no negative impact on the environment, and usually form strong
336
chelates (Deng et al., 2015). Different organic acids, including oxalic acid (Sun and Qui, 2012;
337
Zeng et al., 2015), DL-malic acid (Sun et al., 2018; Li et al., 2013), tartaric acid (Chen et al., 2018;
338
Cheng, 2018; He et al., 2017) and citric acid (Li et al., 2010b; Fan et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2015;
339
Zheng et al., 2016) shows similar leaching performance as with inorganic acids, which signifies
340
that these eco-friendly lixiviants can efficiently recover metals from spent LIBs. Few reviews
341
(Zhang et al. 2018, Huang et al. 2018, Zeng et al., 2014) have emphasized the merits of selected
342
work on the use of organic acids in recycling of spent LIBs; however, the following section
343
attempts to discuss and deliberate all such work carried out and their mechanism using organic
344
lixiviants.
345 346
3.2.1. Citric Acid: Some of the research that used citric acid for leaching of LIBs vis-à-vis
347
conditions is summarized in Table-9. A hydrometallurgical process to recover metals by using
348
citric acid and H2O2 based on leaching was introduced by Li et al., (2010b). Citric acid can leach
349
90% of cobalt and 100% of lithium by using 1% H2O2, citric acid of 1.25M at 90 oC with 20 g/L
350
pulp density in 30 min. The extraction of Li and Co from waste LIBs in presence of C6H8O7·H2O
351
and H2O2 can be presented by Eq. (3)
352 353 354
6H3Cit (aq) + 2LiCoO2 (s) + H2O2 (aq) 2Li+ (aq) + 6H2Cit- (aq) + 2Co2+ (aq) + 4H2O + O2 (g)
355
16
(3)
356
Comparison of citric acid with two different organic acid namely aspartic and malic is reported
357
by Li et al. (2013) by using hydrogen peroxide as a reducing reagents and reported that 100 % Li
358
and > 90% Co were recovered using malic and citric acids whereas by using aspartic acid the
359
recovery is very low because of its low acidity. Golmohammadzadeh et al. (2017) reported by
360
comparing four different organic acids (DL-malic, oxalic, citric and acetic acid) finds the best
361
sequence is citric acid > DL-malic > acetic > oxalic acid, in terms of their efficiency to recover
362
cobalt and lithium from spent LIBs.
363
Extraction of valuable metals by hydrometallurgical process from cathode active material
364
(LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2) of spent LIBs using citric acid was investigated by Chen and Zhou, (2014). It
365
was observed that about 98% Ni, and Mn, 89% Li and 97% Co was recovered by using 2 M citric
366
acid in presence of 2% H2O2 and 50 g/L pulp density in 80 min at 70 oC. For the recovery
367
process, a combined method of selective precipitation and solvent extraction was performed to
368
separate and recover each metal from the leach solution. Firstly, cobalt and nickel were
369
selectively precipitated by ammonium oxalate ((NH4)2C2O4) and dimethylglyoxime (C4H8N2O2)
370
sequentially Fig. 7. Then manganese was extracted by Na-D2EHPA and stripping was carried out
371
with sulfuric acid. The manganese was recovered as MnSO4 in the aqueous phase and D2EHPA
372
could be reused after saponification. Finally, lithium was precipitated by 0.5 M Na3PO4 and
373
about 89% of the lithium was recovered as Li3PO4.
374
Several researchers work on citric acid and proposed that 90 °C is the optimum temperature for
375
extraction of cobalt and lithium (Fan et al., 2016; Li et al., 2010b; Li et al., 2013; Zheng et al.,
376
2016). To avoid the negative influence related to high-temperature, several researchers
377
reported that 60-80 oC as the preferred temperature range for extraction of valuable metals
17
378
like cobalt and lithium (Chen et al., 2015; Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2017). While Aaltonen et
379
al., (2017) investigated that at room temperature (25 oC) citric acid is able to leach 97% of
380
cobalt, 89% of lithium along with 98%, and 93% of manganese and nickel respectively by using 1
381
% H2O2, with 50 g/L pulp density in 24 h. Recently, Ma et al., (2017) reported that the citric acid
382
is beneficial for the selective dissolution of metals in the mixed battery waste as compared to
383
the sulfuric acid as leaching reagent. They reported that citric acid with hydrogen peroxide as
384
oxidant favored valuable metals dissolution (Co and Ni) but not promoted the dissolution of
385
Mn, Fe, Zn, and the other metals. They also showed with thermodynamic calculations that
386
metals precipitate more easily in a sulfuric acid system than in the citric acid system. Recently,
387
Musariri et al (2019) used citric acid to evaluate their effect on metal leaching rate from spent
388
LIBs. They concluded that with the increase in the acid concentration of citric acid from 1M to
389
1.5M at 95 °C, an increase in metal leaching rate was observed. Maximum recovery of 95% Co,
390
97% Li and 99% Ni recoveries within 30 min were obtained in 1.5M citric acid.
391 392
3.2.2. Tartaric Acid: Tartaric acid acts as a good buffer in a wide pH range 2.1-7.4
393
(Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2018). The acid has been reported as an efficient chelating agent.
394
Very few researchers have been worked on tartaric acid in the recovery of metals from waste
395
lithium-ion batteries as mentioned in Table-10.
396 397 398
18
399
The leaching reaction of tartaric acid with LiCoO2 in presence of H2O2 can be represented in Eq.
400
(4):
401 402
2LiCoO2 (s) +3C4H6O6 (aq) + H2O2 (aq)
403 404
C4H4O6Li2 (aq) + 2C4H4O6Co (aq) + 4H2O (l) + O2 (g)
(4)
405 406
For increasing the rate of dissolution, the addition of reducing reagent (H2O2) was essential.
407
H2O2 helps in the dissolution of cobalt and lithium as two metals are contained in the same
408
oxide compound. In the absence of H2O2, the aforementioned recoveries were about less than
409
31%, while with 4 % H2O2 at 70 o C in 30 min and 17 g/L pulp density, the recoveries of all the
410
metals (Co, Mn, Ni, and Li) increased to > 98% (He et al., 2017). Results also showed that
411
tartaric acid produces a solution environment with lower pH as compared to ascorbic acid, DL-
412
malic acid, succinic acid, and L-aspartic acid.
413
Nayaka et al., (2016) dissolve more than 95% of LiCoO2 in presence of tartaric and ascorbic acid
414
by employing a reductive complexing mechanism. Eq. (5) shows the dissolution process of
415
LiCoO2 with C4H4O6 and confirms the reduction of Co(III)-tartrate (CoC4H5NO4) to form Co(II)-
416
tartrate (CoC4H2O4), followed by cobalt precipitation as cobalt oxalate.
417 418
4LiCoO2 + 12C4H4O6 4LiC4H3O6+ 4 Co(C4H3O6)2+ 6 H2O
419
The effect of different reductants (glucose, ascorbic acid, and hydrogen peroxide) on leaching
420
of lithium and cobalt from LIBs in tartaric acid solution was reported by Cheng et al (2018). The
19
(5)
421
group reported that among these three reducing agents, hydrogen peroxide exhibits a higher
422
ability to convert Co3+ of the cathode active materials to soluble Co2+. The recovery rate of Li
423
and Co was 98% and 97% respectively in the presence of 0.6 M tartaric acid with 3 % H2O2 at 80
424
°C in 30 min.
425 426
3.2.3. Malic Acid: An environmental friendly recycling technique for recovery of lithium and
427
cobalt from waste LIBs by using malic acid was reported by Li et al., (2010a) and results showed
428
that 93% Co and 94% Li can be leached using 1.5 M DL-malic acid in presence of 2.0 % H2O2, 20
429
g/L pulp density in 40 min at 90
430
recovery by using malic acid. Result also showed that the leaching efficiency of Li and Co
431
increases with an increase in reaction time and temperature. The leaching reaction of waste
432
LiCoO2 with malic acid can be represented in Eq. (6) as follows:
o
C. Table-11 summaries the optimal condition for metal
433 434
4LiCoO2(s) + 12C4H6O5 (as) 4LiC4H5O5 (aq) + 4CoC4H5O5 (aq) + 6H2O (l) + O2 (g)
(6)
435 436
Li et al., (2010a) also confirmed that for increasing the rate of dissolution, the addition of
437
reducing reagent (H2O2) was essential because the two metals were present in the same oxide
438
phase. Eq. (7) shows the reaction of waste cathode powder in the presence H2O2:
439 440 441
2LiCoO2(s) + 6C4H6O5 (aq) +H2O2 4LiC4H5O5 (aq) + 2CoC4H5O5 (aq) + 4H2O (l) + O2 (g)
442
20
(7)
443
Under similar conditions by just decreasing the reaction time from 40 min to 30 min, Li et al
444
(2013) reported the extraction of Li and Co from waste LIBs with DL-malic acid as leaching
445
reagent. With pure malic acid, ~54% Li and 37% Co could be extracted. However, by adding 2 %
446
H2O2, the recovery rate increased drastically to 99% Li and 90% Co adding to the embodied
447
energy of the process. The presence of two carboxyl functional groups and its higher solubility
448
in water improved the metal solubilization from spent LIBs (Li et al., 2010a).
449
Sustainable extraction of metals from spent LIBs in the presence of malic acid was investigated
450
by Sun et al (2017). At 40g/L pulp density, 80 oC in 30 min, 98.9 % Li and 94.3 % Co were
451
extracted using 1.2 M acid concentration. Golmohammadzadeh et al (2017) used room
452
temperature to extract 90.9 % Li and 80% Co and elucidated the two-step mechanism of
453
leaching in Eq. (8) and Eq. (9), where two moles of H+ released from DL-malic acid plays a vital
454
role to enhance the efficiency of leaching (Li et al., 2014).
455 456
H2C4H4O5 HC4H4O5- + H+
(8)
HC4H4O5- C4H4O52- + H+
(9)
457 458 459 460
Musariri et al (2019) used malic acid to evaluate their effect on metal leaching rate from spent
461
LIBs. Malic acid concentration did not affect leaching, and 1M concentration was most
462
appropriate to achieve 98% Co, 96% Li and 99% recoveries in 30min.
463
21
464
3.2.4. Oxalic Acid: Oxalic acid has been a widely used leaching agent for extraction and
465
chelation of metals from various secondary wastes, especially WEEE. Oxalic acid acts as an
466
agent for leaching as well as precipitation in hydrometallurgical studies. In this view, Zeng et al
467
(2015) attempted to extract Li and Co from waste LIBs by synchronous leaching and
468
precipitation using 2 M oxalic acid with 15 g/L pulp density at 95 °C for 150 min, achieving a
469
high recovery rate of 98% Li and 97% Co. Similarly, combined oxalate leaching and vacuum
470
pyrolysis for recovery of Li and Co from the waste LIBs were reported by Sun and Qiu (2012).
471
They used oxalate ion as a leaching agent to achieve 98% leaching efficiency using 1M oxalic
472
acid with 15% H2O2 (Eqs. 10 and 11) and 25 g/L pulp density at 80 °C for 120 min. The
473
separation was aided by differences in the solubility properties of lithium oxalates and cobalt
474
oxalates; as latter was insoluble in acid and thus precipitated, whereas the former being soluble
475
could be separately precipitated at high pH. Table-12 summaries the examples of various work
476
done to use oxalic acid for metal recovery from LIBs.
477 478
4H2C2O4 +2LiCoO2 LiHC2O4 +2CoC2O4 (s) +4H2O + 2CO2 (g)
(10)
3H2C2O4 +2LiCoO2 (s) +H2O2 Li2C2O4 +2CoC2O4 (s) +4H2O+O2 (g)
(11)
479 480 481 482
Recently, Aaltonen et al (2017) reported leaching of metals at room temperature using 1M
483
oxalic acid along with 1% H2O2 and found that oxalic acid can selectively recover lithium. This
484
value falsifies the claims of many researchers (Sun and Qiu, 2012, Zeng et al., 2015).
485
22
486
3.2.5. Other organic acids: Some other commonly used acids, though significantly less applied
487
to leach of spent LIBs, are succinic acid, ascorbic acid, aspartic acid, lactic acid, formic acid.
488
Table-13 mentions the optimized conditions for metal extraction from spent LIBs by using
489
different organic acids.
490
Li et al (2012) developed a hydrometallurgical process using ascorbic acid for the extraction of
491
lithium and cobalt from waste LIBs, where ascorbic acid worked as a leaching as well as the
492
reducing agent. Ascorbate ion with high reducing potential can avoid the use of deleterious
493
hydrogen peroxide to enhance leaching efficiency. Nearly 98.5% Li and 94.8% Co was recovered
494
as respective metal ascorbates using 1.25 M ascorbic acid with 25 g/L pulp density at 75 °C in 20
495
min. The leaching reaction is represented in Eq. (12) as follows:
496 497
4C6H8O6 + 2LiCoO2 C6H6O6 + C6H6O6Li2 + 2C6H6O6Co + 4H2O
(12)
498 499
Succinic acid was also used as a leaching reagent for cathode active material of LIBs. Li et al
500
(2015) reported nearly 100% Co and 96% Li extraction in presence of 1.5 M succinic acid, 4%
501
H2O2 and 15 g/L pulp density at 70 oC in 40 min. However, in the absence of reducing agent
502
(H2O2), only 41.98% Li and 19.72% Co were recovered in similar conditions.
503
Li et al. (2013) reported that due to the weak acidity and low solubility of aspartic acid in the
504
water, it is an inefficient agent for recovery of lithium and cobalt from spent LIBs and recovered
505
only 60 % lithium and cobalt. A closed-loop process for recovery of lithium carbonate from
506
cathode scrap of spent LIBs by using formic acid and it can be used as leachate and reductant
507
(Gao et al., 2017). The recovery rates of Li, Ni, Co, and Mn were found to be 95.46%, 98.22%,
23
508
99.96%, 99.96%, and 99.95% respectively. The chemical reactions during the leaching process
509
can be described in Eq. (13)
510 511
6LiNi1⁄3Co1⁄3Mn1⁄3O2(s)+21HCOOH(aq) →2C2H2NiO4(aq)+2C2H2CoO4(aq)+2C2H2MnO4(aq)
512
+6CHLiO2(aq)+3CO2 (g)+12H2O(aq) (13)
513 514 515
Recently, in a few studies, the leaching of LIBs with an acetic acid solution in the presence of
516
H2O2 is also reported (Natarajan et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2018). The reaction of the LCM type of
517
cathode material in acetic acid in the presence of H2O2 can be represented by equation (14) as
518
follows:
519 520
Li2CoMn3O8(s) + 10CH3COOH(aq) + 10H2O2(aq) 2CH3COOLi(aq)+ Co(CH3COO)2(aq) +
521
3Mn(CH3COO)2 (aq) + 8 H2O + 3O2
(14)
522 523
Natarajan et al. (2018) used acetic acid as lixiviant and H2O2 as a reductant for leaching of
524
mobile phone batteries. It was found that with 3 M Acetic acid and 7.5 vol % H2O2 as reducing
525
agent 99.9% Li, 98.7% Co, and 99.5% Mn were leached out from cathode material in 40 min at
526
70 oC and a pulp density of 20 g/L. Finally, Cobalt was recovered as cobalt sulfide with 99.2%
527
purity, and, MnCO3 and Li2CO3 being 98.7% and 99.4% pure respectively. Similarly, Gao et al.,
528
(2018) also use acetic acid as a lixiviant for selective recovery of valuable metals from spent
529
lithium-ion batteries and reported that the introduction of reductant accelerates the leaching
24
530
speed but decreases the influence of the acid concentration and S/L ratio. About 93.62% Co,
531
99.97% Li, 96.32% Mn and 92.67% Ni were recovered using 3.5 M acetic acid and 4% H2O2 in 1 h
532
at 60 oC with S/L ratio of 40 g/L. Li2CO3 was precipitated by adding a saturated Na2CO3 solution.
533
Lactic acid, which is widely distributed in nature and miscible with water, is also chosen for the
534
leaching of LIBs. The industrial production of lactic acid is also a green process, mainly through
535
fermentation. Given this, a green process was developed for the recycling of cathode material
536
of spent lithium-ion batteries using lactic acid (Li et al., 2017). The results showed that the
537
leaching efficiencies of Li, Ni, Co, and Mn reached >97% using 1.5 M lactic acid in presence of
538
0.5% H2O2 at 20 g/L pulp density in 20 min at 70 °C.
539
The examples of proven work on the use of green reagents in leaching of spent LIBs highlight
540
the organic acids as effective lixiviants and they have the potential to replace inorganic acids
541
owing to environmentally benign for processing of spent LIBs. The most important reason for
542
recycling batteries is to reduce environmental burden apart from meeting critical metal
543
demand. Thus, environmental impact assessment of the recycling process must be clearly
544
understood before choosing a process for it to be less energy-intensive as compared to virgin
545
processes to get the raw materials. The energy consumption is mainly affected by the choice of
546
leachant used. Inorganic leaching uses a reductant along with oxidizing acids, which increases
547
the embodied energy of the process as their production sustains environmental encumbrances.
548
As reported by Li et al., 2013, the energy consumption in producing citric acid is 35MJ/kg which
549
is 1/10 of the energy required to produce same concentration of sulfuric acid or butane. Apart
550
from this, the need for high temperatures is very less using organic acids. It is also possible to
551
recover the acid for recycling by decreasing the solution pH, causing the metals to precipitate
25
552
and reviving the acid by filtration. The waste organic acid would not pose a serious
553
environmental threat because it is a relatively benign substance used in foods, beverages, and
554
detergents. The use of inorganic acids with high concentration and temperature would result in
555
process emissions like sulfur, chloride, and nitrous oxides. The energy consumption of the
556
process of recycling with organic acids (Fig.7) vis-à-vis inorganic acid (sulfuric) was calculated as
557
9.3 and 14 MJ/kg (Li et al., 2013). There are possibilities to increase process energy efficiency by
558
further optimizing acid concentrations, and maximizing acid recycling.
559
The energy intensity of NMC cathode material manufacturing from virgin materials is 132
560
MJ/kg, which is nearly 25% less by organic acid-based recycling. Finally, using organic acid
561
enables this process to be competitive with producing virgin cobalt on an energy consumption
562
basis. The GHG emissions to extract 90% Co using a process with organic acids stands to be
563
close to 500 g/CO2
564
leaching process.
565
The selectivity for leaching Li over Co by oxalic acid is an additional advantage for processing
566
LiCoO2 cathodes. There lies another advantage of acids like citric and aspartic, which can avoid
567
oxidants and their effects during downstream processing. The onus now lies on developing
568
optimized process flow sheets to recover the extracted metals from the leach solutions as
569
saleable products.
570
4. Future Directions of Research
571
With the rise in the application of LIBs in electronics, the number of spent LIBs generated also
572
surmounts which need a recycling process to conserve the sustainable resource and save the
573
environment. Based on the above assessment, it can be ascertained that the being hazardous
eq
per kg Co, which is nearly 4000g/CO2eq per kg Co using an inorganic acid
26
574
term with batteries, if handled and processed properly, can't be generically applied. The various
575
portals of battery processing ranging from raw material extraction to recycling in a closed-loop
576
cycle have its merits and demerits; but with the advent of technological changes and processing
577
options, battery recycling by safe mode is not a hard task to accomplish. Each cathode material
578
will be processed by a definite route, which governs its economics, energy consumption and
579
impact. We cannot recycle all LIBs by one technique, which ultimately leads to complications in
580
downstream processing and thus paves way for proper segregation of its type and properties.
581
Owing to large scale discarding of used LIBs, few successful examples worldwide can be a good
582
reference point for waste battery management for the developing world. By targeting a
583
complete waste battery collection system, improving EPR and promoting consumers to submit
584
spent batteries to assigned collection points; the uncontrolled collection issue can be sorted.
585
Battery dismantling must employ mechanized ways to separate crusts from cathode material.
586
The available literature survey related to recycling of spent LIBs highlights that mechanical
587
treatment, pyro-metallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and bio-treatment are the main major routes for
588
recycling of the waste lithium-ion batteries, hydrometallurgy dominates as compare to other
589
recycling technique as it an exploitable technology for the extraction of precious metals from
590
waste LIBs. Organic acids (effective and environmentally green leaching agents) have been
591
demonstrated to play a vital role in the extraction of lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese
592
from spent LIBs. Though they are weaker than inorganic ones, still organic acids have been
593
examined to a greater extent for leaching of spent LIBs thus helping to avoid oxidizing agents,
594
lowering complexity of managing the pregnant liquor and thus diminishing the energy loss. The
595
GHG emissions to extract 90% Co using a process with organic acids stands to be close to 500
27
596
g/CO2
597
process. Efforts need to be envisaged in separating the leached metals from these organic acid
598
media, to create a win-win situation of economics and environmental benefits.
eq
per kg Co, which is nearly 4000g/CO2eq per kg Co using an inorganic acid leaching
599 600 601 602
References • M. Aaltonen, C. Peng, B. Wilson and M. Lundström, Recycling, 2017, 2, 20, 2040020. DOI: 10.3390/recycling2040020
603
• H. Aral and A. Vecchio-Sadus, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety, 2008, 70, 349-356.
604
• D.G. Barceloux, Clinical Toxicology, 1999, 37(2), 201-216.
605
• H. Brandl and M.A. Faramarzi, China Particuol., 2006, 4, 93-97.
606
• A. Chagnes and B. Pospiech, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 2013, 88, 1191-1199.
607
• L. Chen, X. Tang, Y. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Hydrometallurgy, 2011, 108, 80-86.
608
• W. Chen and H. Ho, Key Eng. Mater., 2018, 775, 419-426
609
• X. Chen, D. Kang, L. Cao, J. Li, T. Zhou and H. Ma, Sep. Pur. Technol., 2018, 210, 690-697.
610
• X. Chen, C. Luo, J. Zhang, J. Kong, and T. Zhou, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2015, 3, 3104-3113.
611
• X. Chen, H. Ma, C. Luo, and T. Zhou, J. Hazard Mater., 2017, 326, 77-86.
612
• Q. Cheng, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 2018, 192, 012007.
613
• D. Corbus and C.J. Hammel, Current status of environmental, health, and safety issues of
614 615
lithium polymer electric vehicle batteries, NREL/TP-463-7540 (1995). • J. Deng, S. Wen, J. Deng, D. Wu and J. Yang, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 2015, 48, 538–544.
28
616
• J.B. Dunn, L. Gaines, J.C. Kelly and K.G. Gallagher, in. REWAS 2016, ed. R.E. Kirchain,
617
B.Blanpain, C.Meskers, E.Olivetti, D.Apelian, J. Howarter, A. Kvithyld, B. Mishra, N.R.
618
Neelameggham and J. Spangenberger, Springer, Cham (2016), 73-79.
619
• J.B. Dunn, C. James, L.G. Gaines, K. Gallagher, Q. Dai and J.C. Kelly, Material and Energy Flow
620
in the Production of Cathode and Anode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries. ANL, IL,
621
USA (2014).
622
• T.W. Ellis and A.H. Mirza, Battery Recycling: Defining the market and identifying the
623
technology required to keep high-value materials in the economy and out of the waste
624
dump (2011)
625
• D.C.R. Espinosa, A.M. Bernardes and J.A.S. Tenório, J. Power Sources, 2004, 135, 311-319.
626
• B. Fan, X. Chen, T. Zhou, J. Zhang and B.Xu, Waste Manag. Res., 2016, 34, 474–481.
627
• Ferreira, D.A., Prados, L.M.Z., Majuste, D., Mansur, M.B., 2009. J. Power Sources 187, 238–
628 629 630 631 632
246. • W. Gao, J. Song, H. Cao, X. Lin, X. Zhang, X. Zheng, Y. Zhang and Z. Sun, J. Clean. Prod., 2018, 178, 833–845. • W. Gao, X. Zhang, X. Zheng, X. Lin, H. Cao, Y. Zhang and Z. Sun, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51, 1662-1669.
633
• E.M. Garcia, U. Federal, D.S. Carlos and E.C. Pereira, J. Power Sources, 2017, 185, 549–553.
634
• T. Georgi-Maschler, B. Friedrich, R. Weyhe, H. Heegn and M.Rutz, J. Power Sources, 2012,
635 636 637
207, 173–182. • R. Golmohammadzadeh, F. Farajia, and F. Rashchi, Resour. Conserv.Recycl., 2018 136, 418435. 29
638
• R. Golmohammadzadeh, F. Rashchi, and E. Vahidi, Waste Manag., 2017, 64, 244–254.
639
• E. Gratz, Q. Sa, D. Apelian, and Y. Wang, J. Power Sources, 2014. 262, 255-262.
640
• J.S. Guzolu, M. Gharabaghi, M. Mobin and H. Alilo, J. Inst. Eng. Ser. D, 2017, 98, 43–48.
641
• H. Hao, Z. Mu, S. Jiang, Z. Liu and F. Zhao, Sustainability, 2017, 9, 504.
642
• L.P. He, S. Sun, Y.Y. Mu, X. Song, and J. Yu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2017, 5, 714−721.
643
• N.B. Horeh, S.M. Mousavi and S.A. Shojaosadati J. Power Sources, 2016, 320, 257–266.
644
• IARC Working Group Report (1991)
645
• IARC Working Group Report (2006)
646
• V. Innocenzi, I. De Michelis, F. Vegliò, Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2017, 80, 769–778.
647
• M. K. Jha, A. Kumari, A. K. Jha, V. Kumar, J. Hait and B.D. Pandey, Waste Manag., 2013, 33,
648
1890–1897.
649
• M. Joulié, R. Laucournet and E. Billy, J. Power Sources, 2014, 247, 551-555.
650
• D.H.P. Kang, M. Chen and O.A. Ogunseitan, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 5495-5503.
651
• M.Z.H. Khan, M.I. Alam, M.S. Khatun, M.R. Hasan, M.R. Al-Mamun, M.F. Islam, M. Khan, S.
652
Aktar, S. Akther and K. Fatema, Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag., 2016, 17, 203–215.
653
• M.J. Kim, J.Y. Seo, Y.S. Choi and G.H. Kim, Waste Manag., 2016, 51, 168–173.
654
• H. Ku, Y. Jung, M. Jo, S. Park, S. Kim, D. Yang, K. Rhee, E. M. An, J. Sohn and K. Kwon, K., J.
655
Hazard. Mater., 2016, 313, 138–146.
656
• D. Kushnir, ESA REPORT # 2015:18. Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden (2015)
657
• N.E.A. Latif and A.M. Ahmed, Eng. Technol. J., 2017, 35, 139-148.
658
• C.K. Lee and K.I. Rhee, J. Power Sources, 2002, 109, 17-21.
659
• C. K. Lee and K.I. Rhee, Hydrometallurgy, 2003, 68, 5–10. 30
660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669
• J.H. Li, X.H. Li, Y.H. Zhang, Q.Y. Hu, Z.X. Wang, Y.Y. Zhou and F.M. Fu, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 2009, 19, 751–755. • L. Li, Y. Bian, X. Zhang, Q. Xue, E. Fan, F. Wu, and R. Chen, J. Power Sources, 2018, 377, 70– 79. • L. Li, J.B. Dunn, X. X. Zhang, L. Gaines, R.J. Chen, F. Wu and K. Amine, J. Power Sources, 2013, 233, 180–189. • L. Li, E. Fan, Y. Guan, X. Zhang, Q. Xue, L. Wei, F. Wu and R. Chen, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2017, 5, 5224–5233. • L. Li, J. Ge, R. Chen, F. Wu, S. Chen and X. Zhang, Int. J. Integr. Waste Manag., 2010a, 30, 2615–2621.
670
• L. Li, J. Ge, F. Wu, R. Chen, S. Chen and B. Wu, J. Hazard. Mater., 2010b, 176, 288–293.
671
• L. Li, J. Lu, Y. Ren, X.X. Zhang, R.J. Chen, F. Wu and K. Amine, J. Power Sources, 2012, 218,
672 673 674 675 676 677 678
21–27. • L. Li, W. Qu, X. Zhang, J. Lu, R. Chen, F. Wu and K. Amine, J. Power Sources, 2015, 282, 544– 551. • W. Lv, Z. Wang, H. Cao, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang and Z. Sun, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 1504-1521. • L. Ma, X. Xi, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang and J.P.Chen, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 2017, 170, 012024.
679
• M.C. McManus, Appl. Energy, 2012, 93, 288-295.
680
• P. Meshram, Abhilash, B.D. Pandey, T.R. Mankhand and H. Deveci, Indian J. Chem. Technol.,
681
2018, 25, 368-375. 31
682
• P. Meshram, B.D. Pandey and T.R. Mankhand, Hydrometallurgy, 2014, 150, 192–208.
683
• P. Meshram, B.D. Pandey and T.R. Mankhand, Waste Manag., 2015a, 45, 306–313.
684
• P. Meshram, B.D. Pandey and T.R. Mankhand, Chem. Eng. J., 2015b, 281, 418–427.
685
• D.G. Miller and B. McLaughlin, in. Used battery collection and recycling, ed. G. Pistoria, J.P.
686
Wiaux, and S.P. Wolsky, Elsevier, 2001, 10, 263-291.
687
• D. Mishra, D. J. Kim, D. Ralph, J. G. Ahn, and Y.H. Rhee, Waste Manag., 2008, 28, 333–338.
688
• B. Musariri, G. Akdogan, C. Dorfling and S. Bradshaw, Miner. Eng., 2019, 137, 108–117
689
• S. Natarajan, A.B. Boricha and H.C. Bajaj, Waste Manag., 2018, 77, 455–465.
690
• G.P. Nayaka, K.V. Pai, G. Santhosh and J. Manjanna, Hydrometallurgy, 2016, 161, 54–57.
691
• M. Nordberg, G.F. Nordberg, B.A. Fowler, and L. Friberg, Handbook on the Toxicology of
692
Metals, Elsevier (2011).
693
• J. Ordoñez, E.J. Gago and A. Girard, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2016, 60, 195-205.
694
• J.F. Paulino, N.G. Busnardo and J.C. Afonso, J. Hazard. Mater., 2008, 150, 843–849.
695
• E.G. Pinna, M.C. Ruiz, M.W. Ojeda and M.H. Rodriguez, Hydrometallurgy, 2017, 167, 66-71.
696
• R. Qadir and F. Gulshan, Mater. Sci. Appl., 2018. 9, 142-154.
697
• L. Rocchetti, F. Vegliò, B. Kopacek and F. Beolchini, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 1581–
698
1588.
699
• M. Rojas and H. Zea, Aust. J. Basic and Appl. Sci., 2016, 10, 140-147.
700
• F. Saloojee and J. Lloyd, Lithium Battery Recycling Process. Department of Environmental
701 702 703
Affairs Development Bank of South Africa, Project No. DB-074/RW1/1016 (2015). • S. M. Shin, N. H. Kim, J. S. Sohn, D. H. Yang and Y.H. Kim, Hydrometallurgy, 2005, 79, 172181. 32
704
• M.A.H. Shuva and A. Kurny, Amer. J. Mater. Eng. Technol., 2013, 1, 8-12.
705
• D.S. Suarez, E.G. Pinna, G.D. Rosales and M.H. Rodriguez, Minerals, 2017, 7, 81,
706
doi:10.3390/min7050081.
707
• C. Sun, L. Xu, X. Chen, T. Qiu, and T. Zhou, Waste Manag. Res., 2018, 36, 113–120.
708
• Sun, L., Qiu, K., Waste Manag., 2012, 32, 1575–1582.
709
• Z. Sun, H. Cao, Y. Xiao, J. Sietsma, W. Jin, H. Agterhuis and Y. Yang, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.,
710 711 712 713 714
2017, 5, 21–40. • F. Tesfaye, D. Lindberg, J. Hamuyuni, P. Taskinen and L. Hupa, Min. Eng., 2017, 111, 209221. • C.M. Toma, G.V. Ghica, M. Buzatu, M.I. Petrescu, E. Vasile and G. Jacob, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 2017, 209, 012034.
715
• US Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January (2019)
716
• L.J. Vimmerstedt, S. Ring and C.J. Hammel, Current status of Environmental, health and
717
safety issues of the lithium-ion electric vehicle batteries, NREL/TP-463-7673 (1995).
718
• R. Wang, Y. Lin and S. Wu, Hydrometallurgy, 2009, 99, 194-201.
719
• B. Xin, D. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Xia, F. Wu, S. Chen and L. Li, Bioresour. Technol., 2009, 100,
720 721 722
6163–6169. • J. Xu, H.R. Thomas, R. W. Francis, K.R. Lum, J. Wang and B. Liang, J. Power Sources, 2008, 177, 512–527.
723
• L. Yang and G. X. Xi, J. Electron. Material, 2016, 45, 301-306.
724
• Y. Yang, S. Xu, and Y. He, Waste Manag., 2017, 64, 219–227.
33
725 726 727 728
• Y. Yao, M. Zhu, Z. Zhao, B. Tong, Y. Fan, and Z. Hua, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 1361113627. • R. Younesi, G.M. Veith, P. Johansson, K. Edström, and T. Vegge, Energy, Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 1905-1922.
729
• X. Zeng, J. Li and B. Shen, J. Hazard. Mater., 2015, 295, 112–118.
730
• X. Zeng, J. Li, and N. Singh, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 44, 1129–1165.
731
• T. Zhang, Y. He, F. Wang, L. Ge, X. Zhu, and H. Li, Waste Manag., 2014, 34, 1051–1058.
732
• W. Zhang, C. Xu, W. He, G. Li and J. Huang, Waste Manag. Res., 2018, 36, 99–112
733
• X. Zhang, Y. Xie, X. Lin, H. Li, and H. Cao, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag., 2013, 15, 420–430.
734
• Y. Zheng, H.L. Long, L. Zhou, Z.S. Wu, X.Zhou, L. You, Y. Yang and J.W. Liu, Int. J. Environ.
735
Res., 2016, 10,159–168.
736
• Y. Zheng, W. Song, W-t. Mo, L. Zho and J.W. Liu, RSC Adv., 2018, 8, 8990-8998.
737
• S.G. Zhu, W.Z. He, G.M. Li, X. Zhou, X.J. Zhang, and J.W. Huang, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc.
738
China, 2012, 22, 2274–2281.
739
• H. Zou, E. Gratz, D. Apelian and Y. Wang, Green Chem., 2013, 15, 1183-1191.
740
• X. Zhang, L. Li, E. Fan, Q. Xue, Y. Bian, F. Wu, R. Chen, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2018, 47, 7239-7302.
741
• B. Huang, Z. Pan, X. Su, L. An, J. Power Sources, 2018, 399, 274-286.
742
• H. Kim, Y.C. Jang, Y. Hwang, Y. Ko, H. Yun, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(3), 3
743
• N.J. Boxall, S. King, K.Y.Cheng, Y. Gumulya, W. Bruckard, A.H. Kaksonen, Miner. Eng., 2018,
744 745
128, 45-55. • S. Renault, D. Brandell, K. Edstrom, Chem. Sus. Chem., 2014, 7, 2859-67.
34
746 747 748 749 750 751
• J. Song, W. Yan, H. Cao, Q. Song, H. Ding, Z. Lv, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, J. Cleaner Prod., 2019, 215, 570-581. • G.G. Gaustad, The Bridge, 48 (1), 2018, pp. 13-19 (National Academy of Engineering Press, Washington, USA) • J. Arambarri, J.Hayden, M.Elkurdy, B.Meyers, Z. S. Abu Hamatteh, B.Abbassi, W. Omar, Environ. Eng. Res. 2019 24(4), 699-710
752 753 754 755
35
Figure Captions Fig.1: Life cycle assessment of lithium ion battery Fig.2: World map showing the reserves of Li, Co, Mn, Ni, and Graphite Fig.3: Different processes for recycling of spent LIBs Fig.4: Dismantling process for spent lithium-ion batteries Fig.5: Hydrometallurgical processing of spent LIBs Fig.6: Schematic recovery process by using different inorganic acid as lixiviant (Pinna et al., 2017; Qadir and Gulshan, 2018; Suarez et al., 2017; Shuva and Kurny, 2013; Guzolu et al., 2017; Chen and Ho, 2018; Chen et al., 2017) Fig.7: Schematic recovery process by using citric acid as lixiviant Table Captions Table-1: Weight of the component of the lithium-ion battery Table-2: Occupational standards for materials present in LIBs Table-3: Location of reserves of Li, Ni, Co, Mn and graphite globally Table-4: Energy consumption for various cathode chemistries in LIB production (Modified from Dunn et al., 2014) Table-5: Commercial process and companies engaged in recycling of batteries Table-6: Composition of different cathode active material used (Li et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Jha et al., 2013; Meshram et al., 2015b; Khan et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2016; He et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2018; Chen and Ho, 2018; Meshram et al., 2018) Table-7: Salient differences among processing parameters among organic and inorganic acid Table-8: Selected literature work on different inorganic acids as a lixiviant for LIBs Table-9: Summary of various published work on metal recovery from LiBs using citric acid Table-11: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using tartaric acid Table-11: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using malic acid Table-12: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using oxalic acid Table-13: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using other organic acids Supplementary Table Captions Table-S1: Parts and Composition of LIBs (Zhu et al., 2012; Gratz et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2014; Younesi et al.,2015; Rojas and Zea, 2016; Toma et al., 2017; Horeh et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Qadir and Gulshan, 2018) Table-S2: Different discharging processes of LIBs Table-S3: Different pre-treatment process and their merits and demerits.
Table-1: Weight of the component of the lithium-ion battery Component
Total Battery assembly Plastic shell Metallic shell Cu electrode Al electrode Cathode material Polymer electrolyte
Weight of component Mobiles Laptops (Rojas and Zea, 2016) (Qadir and Gulshan, 2018) g % g % 17.8 316 1.8 5.2 50 15.8 4.3 12.2 51 16.1 3.5 9.8 17.2 5.4 7.5 2.4 5.4 15.1 130.9 41.4 0.6 1.8 6.8 2.2 1.8 5 20.9 6.6
Table-2: Occupational standards for materials present in LIBs Component Anode
Species
Hazardous Effects
Copper foil
Gastrointestinal issues in form of dust and mist irritate the eyes and mucous membranes Lung damaged by inhalation Respiratory effects, congestion, edema, and hemorrhage of the lung. Lung damage
Graphite
Cathode oxide
Aluminium foil Cobalt oxide
Manganese (VI) oxide
Nickel oxide Lithium
Electrolyte
Binders
LiPF6
Polypropylene
Polyvinylidene fluoride
Limits/Standard/Permissible Exposure Limits 0.1 mg/m3 as fume 1.0 mg/m3 as a dust or mist
Vimmerstedt et al., 1995
15 mg/m3 total particulates
15 mg/m3 as dust 5 mg/m3 as metal 1.0 * 104 TO 1.7 * 106 ng/m3
0.1 mg /m3 (TWA) 5 mg/m3 for manganese compounds as Mn 0.2 mg/m3 for manganese (TWA) 1 mg/m3 (TWA)
Skin carcinogenesis Non-hazardous if ingested with food or water
Toxic fume while heating/burning, (HF, PF5) Decomposes to irritating fumes when burnt Mild toxic when inhaled; Toxic fume while heating/burning (HF, PF5)
References
2.5 mg/m3 as F (long-term value) 15 mg/m3
2.5-5 TWA mg/m3
IARC, 1991; Barceloux, 1999; IARC, 2006
Vimmerstedt et al., 1995
Nordberg et al., 2011 Aral and VecchioSadus, 2008 Kang et al., 2013
Table-3: Location of reserves of Li, Ni, Co,Mn and graphite globally S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Location Greenbushes, AUS Mt Marion, AUS Mt Cattlin, AUS Euriowie, AUS Finniss, AUS Zhabuye, China Qinghai, China DXC, China Jaijika, China Yichun, China Clayton, USA Searles lake, USA Great salt lake, USA Fox Creek, USA Bernic Lake, Canada Fox creek, Canada Wekusko, Canada La Motte, Canada La Corne, Canada H’ Muerto, Argentina Rincon, Argentina Olaroz, Argentina Cauchari, Argentina Bikita, Zimbabwe Atacama, Chile Maricunga, Chile Ethiudna, AUS Mount Gunson, AUS Akkarga, Russia Kola Peninsula, Russia Norilsk, Russia Kolwezi, DRC Kakanda, DRC Kamoya, DRC Konkola, Zambia Nchanga, Zambia Mufulira, Zambia
S. No. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Location S. No. Nkana, Zambia 75 Keely-Frontier, Canada 76 TemagamiLorrain, 77 Canada Blackbird mine, USA 78 Ldaho mine, USA 79 Miramar, Cuba 80 La vega de Taco, Cuba 81 Palawan, Phillipines 82 Surigao, Phillipines 83 Ambatovy , Madagascar 84 Sudbury, Canada 85 Manitoba, Canada 86 Montreal, Canada 87 Québec, Canada 88 Kola Peninsula, Russia 89 Norilsk , Russia 90 Rio Tuba, Phillipines 91 Palawan, Phillipines 92 Toamasina, Madagascar 93 Ambatovy, Madagascar 94 Taolagnaro, Madagascar 95 Vale, Indonesia 96 Halmahera, Indonesia 97 Kidd Creek, S.A 98 Sudbury, S.A 99 Nkomati mine, S.A 100 Queensland, Aus 101 Tasmania, Aus 102 Yilgarn Craton, AUS 103 Taco bay, Cuba 104 Goiás, Brazil 105 Bahia, Brazil 106 Carajás , Brazil 107 Jinchang, China 108 Altay, China 109 Sundergarh, India 110 Balaghat, India 111
Location Ratnagiri, India Durg, India Saldanha Bay, S.A Hotazel, S.A Sishen mine, S.A Richards Bay, S.A Tarkwa Banso, Ghana Franceville, Gabon Nikopol, Ukraine Ushkatyn, Kazakhastan Jezkazgan, Kazakhastan Azul mine, Brazil Espigão d’Oesto, Brazil Corumbá, Brazil Pará, Brazil Port Hedland, AUS Woodie Woodie, AUS Bootu Creek mine, AUS Guiyang, China Wafangzi mine, China Jammu and Kashmir, India Jharkhand, India Kerala, India Tamil Nadu, India Liumao mine, China Pingdu mine, China Bahia, Brazil Tanga, Tanzania Merelani Hills, Tanzania Epanko, Tanzania Sonora, Mexico BalІkesir, Turkey Yozgat, Turkey Konya, Turkey Muğla, Turkey Graphmada, Madagascar Andapa, Madgascar
Table-4: Energy consumption for various cathode chemistries in LIB production (Modified from Dunn et al., 2014) Cathode Structure Weight Energy Preaparation Step Major Chemistry of consumption Energy Contribution contributor to battery (mmBtu/ton) energy consumption of total pack consumption (mmBtu/ton) (%) (kg) NMC Planar/layered 180 135 4.5 3 NiO LMR-NMC
Planar/layered
LCO (Solid state) LCO (Hydrothermal) LFP (Hydrothermal) LFP (Solid state) LMO
Planar/layered
140
Contribution (%)
40
100
3.0
3
CoO
30
150
2.6
2
CoO
88
251
32
13
CoO
53
48
35
71
LFP preparation
71
39
6
16
Fe3O4
40
26
15
56
LMO preparation
56
170 Planar/layered Olivine 230 Olivine Spinel
220
Table-5: Commercial process and companies engaged in recycling of batteries Process Hydrometallurgy
Pyrometallurgy
Pyro Hydrometallurgy
Company (Name and Location) IPGNA Ent. (Recupyl), France
Raw material
Outcome
All Batteries
LiCoO2 and Co(OH)2
Sumitomo-Sony, Japan Toxco, Canada
LIBs Li, Ni-based battery
Co(OH)2 LiCoO2
Eurodieuze, France Zimaval, France
Ni, Cd and steel Zn and Mn
Dowa, Japan Batrec AG, Switzerland
All Zn, Mn, Hg based battery All Batteries Li, Hg based battery
Umicore, Belgium
LIBs and Ni-MH
Co and Ni
Nippon Recycling center, Japan Accurec GmbH, Germany
Ni-Cd, Ni-MH, LIBs
Ni, Co, Cd, Al, Cu
All
Ni, Cd, Fe, LiCO3
INMETCO, US
Ni-Cd
Cd, Ni, Zn
Glencore Plc., Switzerland
LIBs and EV
Cu, Ni, Zn, Li
Ni, Co -
References Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Kushnir, 2015 Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Zhang et al., 2013 Kushnir, 2015 Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Zhang et al., 2013. Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Zhang et al., 2013 Kushnir, 2015 Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Ellis and Mirza, 2011 Kushnir, 2015 Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Zhang et al., 2013 Saloojee and Lloyd, 2015 Zhang et al., 2013 Ellis and Mirza, 2011
Table-6: Composition of different cathode active material used (Li et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Jha et al., 2013; Meshram et al., 2015b; Khan et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2016; He et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2018; Chen and Ho, 2018; Meshram et al., 2018) Metals (wt. %) Cathode Material LiCoO2 LiCoO2 LiCoO2 LiCoO2 LiCoO2 LiCoO2 NCM LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 LiCoO2 LiCoO2 NCM
Co 53.8 26.77 57.94 23.67 74.6 58.76 35.52 20.26 18.65 58.11 25.83 35.8
Li 4.48 3.34 6.76 2.87 4.09 6.78 6.28 7.08 6.15 6.69 8.31 6.5
Ni 0.80 0.34 0.76 0.26 0.58 11.85 20.19 18.32 0.39 26.29 10.6
Mn 0.97 1.1 0.91 0.76 8.15 18.89 17.57 0.14 14.41 11.6
Table-7: Salient differences among processing parameters among organic and inorganic acid Parameters Selectivity Emission of gas Corrosion of equipment’s Separation/ Recovery Free energy (∆ Go) Flammable Overall Cost Example
Inorganic Acid No selectivity can be seen Cl2, Co, CO2 Possible Easy Low Highly flammable Low as compare to organic acid HNO3, HCl, H2SO4, etc.
Organic Acid Selectivity is possible No No Difficult High Non flammable High Citric acid, oxalic acid, etc.
Table-8: Selected literature work on different inorganic acids as lixiviant for LIBs Composition (Wt. %)
Lixiviant
LiCoO2
1 M HNO3
LiCoO2
4 M HCl
Co=20.56 Li=3.43 Mn=12.3 Ni=0.72 Co=35.8 Li=6.5 Mn=11.6 Ni=10.06 Co=6.43 Li=4.37
5 M HCl
Leaching Parameter Time Temp S/L o (min) C (g/L) 75 1020 60 80 20
Co
Recovery % Li Mn
Ni
95
95
-
-
97
97
98
97
98
-
-
70
95
10
99
240
95
50
66.2
1.5 M H2SO4 + 15% H2O2
60
60
40
94.07 98.1
Li=4.8, Co=41.5, Mn=2.1 LiCoO2
2% H3PO4
60
90
8
99
15% HF
120
75
20
98
Co=25.83 Li=8.31 Mn=26.2 Ni=14.41
2 M H2SO4 +10% H2O2
-
70
33.3
98.5
1M H2SO4
References
93.4 50.2 96.3
Lee and Rhee, 2003 Wang et al., 2009 Guzolu et al., 2017
Meshram et al., 2015b
-
-
Latif and Ahmed, 2016
88
-
-
80
-
-
Pinna, et al., 2017 Suarez et al., 2017 Chen and Ho, 2018
99.8 98.6 98.6
Table-9: Summary of various published work on metal recovery from LiBs using citric acid Composition (Wt. %)
Lixiviant
Recovery (%)
References
Li-4.48 Co-53.8 Mn-0.97 Ni-0.80 LiCoO2
1.25M Acid + 1% H2O2
30 min
Co=90, Li=100
Li et al., 2010b
1.25M Acid+ 2%H2O2 1.25M Acid+ 1% H2O2
30 min 35 min
90
20
Co=90 Li=100
Li et al., 2013
90
60
Co=90.2, Li=98
Fan et al., 2016
2M Acid+ 2% H2O2
80 min
70
50
Co=99, Li=93
Chen and Zhou, 2014
1M Acid
90 min
80
30
Co=97, Ni=93, Mn=98, Li=89
Chen et al., 2015
2.5M Acid+ 5%H2O2
2h
85
40
Ma et al., 2017
1M Acid+ 1% H2O2
24 h
25
50
Co=85.1 Ni=100 Mn=28.3 Co=97, Ni=93, Mn=98, Li=89
LiCoO2
1% H2O2
5h
90
15
Co=97, Ni=93, Mn=98, Li=89
Zheng et al., 2016
LiCoO2
2M Acid+ 1% H2O2 1.5M citric acid
5h
50
30
Li=99.80 Co=96.46
30min
95
10
Li=97 Co=95 Ni=99
Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2017 Musariri et al., 2019
Li-6.78 Co-58.76 Mn-0.76 Ni-0.58 Li-4.48 Co-53.8 Mn-0.97 Ni-0.80 Li-6.81 Co-58.79 Mn-0.76 Ni-0.58 Co-0.24 Ni=1.01 Mn-35 Co-23 Li-3 Ni,Mn-5
Li-9.73 Co-28.82 Mn-24.39 Ni-33.91 Cu-0.11 Al-1.48
Time
Parameters Temp. Pulp (oC) density (g/L) 90 20
Aaltonen et al., 2017
Table-10: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using tartaric acid Composition (Wt. %)
Lixiviant
Reductant
Li-6.28 Co-35.52 Ni-11.85 Mn-8.15 LiCoO2
0.4M Acid
----
300
80
-
LiCoO2
1M Acid
20 g/L Glucose
90
80
10
Li-6.69 Co-58.11 Ni -0.39 Mn-0.14
4% H2O2
Parameters Time Temp. S/L (min) (o C) ratio(g/L) 30 70 17
0.6M Acid + 3 H2O2%
Recovery (%)
References
Co=98.64 Li=99.07 Ni=99.31 Mn=99.3 Co>95
He et al., 2017
Li=82.7 Co=46.6
30 g/L Ascorbic
Li=84.3 Co=47.3
10% H2O2
Li=82.4 Co=53.2 Co=98 Li=97
30 ---
80
33.3
Nayaka et al., 2016 Cheng, 2018
Chen et al., 2018
Table-11: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using malic acid Composition (Wt. %)
Li 7.08 Co 20.26 Mn 18.89 Ni 20.19
Lixiviant Time (min)
Parameters Temp. Pulp (o C) density (g/L) 80 40
Recovery (%)
References
Li=98.9 Co=94.3
Sun et al., 2017
1.2M Acid + 1.5% H2O2
30
Li 4.48 Co 53.8
1.5M Acid +2% H2O2
40
90
20
Li=100 Co=90
Li et al., 2010a
LiCoO2
1.5M Acid + 2% H2O2
30
90
20
Li=100 Co=90
Li et al., 2013
LiCoO2
1M Acid
-
25
15
Li=90.89 Co=80.22
Li-9.73 Co-28.82 Mn-24.39 Ni-33.91 Cu-0.11 Al-1.48
1M acid
30min
95
10
Li=96 Co=98 Ni=99
Golmohammadzadeh et al., 2017 Musariri et al., 2019
Table-12: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using oxalic acid Composition (Wt. %)
Lixiviant
Parameters Temp. Pulp (oC) density (g/L) 120 80 50 min
LiCoO2
1M Acid + 15%, H2O2
Co- 24.5 Li-3.52
1 M Acid
150 min
95
Co-23 Li-3 Ni and Mn-5
1M Acid +1% H2O2
24 h
25
Recovery (%)
References
98
Sun and Qui., 2012
15
Li=98, Co=97
Zeng et al., 2015
5
Li=74 Co=2
Aaltonen et al., 2017
Time
Table-13: Summary of selective work on metal recovery from LIBs using other organic acids Composition (Wt. %)
Lixiviant
LiCoO2
1.25M Ascorbic acid
20
Parameters Temp. Pulp (oC) density (g/L) 70 25
Li=6.76, Co=57.94, Ni=0.76, Mn=0.91 LiCoO2
1.5 M Succinic Acid + 4% H2O2
40
70
1.5M Aspartic Acid + 2%H2O2
30
Li=6.79, Co=17.68, Mn=16.46, Ni=17.58
1.5M Lactic acid + 0.5 % H2O2
Li=6.15, Co=18.65, Mn=17.57, Ni=18.32 Li=6.15, Co=18.65, Mn=17.57, Ni=18.32
Time (min)
Recovery (%)
References
Li=98.5 Co=94.8
Li et al., 2012
15
Li=96 Co=96
Li et al., 2015
90
20
Li =60 Co=60
Li et al., 2013
20
70
20
Li= 97.7 Co=98.9 Mn=98.4 Ni=98.2
Li et al., 2017
2M Formic Acid + 2% H2O2
120
70
50
Gao et al., 2017
3.5M Acetic Acid + 4% H2O2
60
60
40
Li= 99.97 Co=93.97 Mn=96.32 Ni=92.67 Li= 99.97 Co=93.97 Mn=96.32 Ni=92.67
Gao et al., 2018
Fig.1: Life cycle assessment of lithium ion battery
Fig. 2: World map showing the reserves of Li, Co, Mn, Ni, and Graphite
Fig 3: Different processes for recycling of spent LIBs
Fig.4: Dismantling process for spent lithium ion batteries
Fig 5: Hydrometallurgical processing of spent LIBs
Fig. 6: Schematic recovery process by using different inorganic acid as lixiviant (Pinna et al., 2017; Qadir and Gulshan, 2018; Suarez et al., 2017; Shuva and Kurny, 2013; Guzolu et al., 2017; Chen and Ho, 2018; Chen et al., 2017)
Fig 7: Schematic recovery process by using citric acid as lixiviant
Research Highlights •
Global distribution of Li, Ni, Co, Mn and graphite depicted
•
Major ongoing processes vis-à-vis strategies described
•
Discussed about various organic acids used and mechanism of leaching
•
An overview on green processing perspective of LIBs recycling is presented.
To, The Co-Editor-in-Chief(s) Chemosphere
Dated: 24th Sep 2019
Subject: Declaration of No-Conflict of Interest (CHEM63222) Dear Sir, I am glad to submit the revision to the review article entitled “ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SPENT LITHIUM ION BATTERIES AND GREEN RECYCLING PERSPECTIVES BY ORGANIC ACIDS”, authored by Pratima Meshram, Abhilash Mishra, Abhilash, and Rina Sahu, for consideration to publication in “Chemosphere” Journal. We declare to have no conflict of interest and certify that the manuscript has been revised and submitted with our concurrence. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, (Pratima Meshram) (Abhilash Mishra) (Abhilash) (Rina Sahu)