Life cycle assessment considering water-energy nexus for lithium nanofiltration extraction technique
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nanofiltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nanofiltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nanofiltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nanofiltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidification potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nanofiltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofiltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet>Inner Mongolia>Sinkiang>Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
2 of 24 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged
- Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Information on LCA of lithium extraction is still limited.
“Although the environmental impact of conventional lithium extraction methods has been paid attention (Flexer et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020), information on LCA of lithium extraction is still limited.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The environmental emission of this process followed the order CO2 > SO2 > CH4 > NOX > CO > PM10 > VOC > N2O.
“The environmental emission of this process followed the order of CO2 > SO2 > CH4 > NOX > CO > PM10 > VOC > N2O.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage contributed 51.84% of POCP.
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
GWP values were 1.56×10^-2, 1.08×10^-2, and 2.59×10^-3 kg CO2 eq at nanofiltration, hyperfiltration, and electrodialysis stages, respectively.
“GWP was the highest index in the lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with 1.56 -10 2 , 1.08 -10 2 , and 2.59 -10 3 kg CO2 eq at nano fi ltration, hyper fi ltration and electrodialysis stages, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage accounted for the largest proportion of AP, with 7.85×10^-5 kg SO2 eq.
“Compared with the other stages, nano fi ltration stage accounted for the largest proportion with 7.85 -10 5 kg SO2 eq for AP, 5.5 -10 5 kg NOX eq for NE, and 1.51 -10 5 kg PM10 for SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage accounted for the largest proportion of SA, with 1.51×10^-5 kg PM10.
“Compared with the other stages, nano fi ltration stage accounted for the largest proportion with 7.85 -10 5 kg SO2 eq for AP, 5.5 -10 5 kg NOX eq for NE, and 1.51 -10 5 kg PM10 for SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The environmental emissions and environmental impact indexes at different stages showed the similar trend of nanofiltration > hyperfiltration > electrodialysis > MVR evaporation > dry.
“The environmental emissions and environmental impact indexes at different stages showed the similar trend of nano fi ltration > hyper fi ltration > electrodialysis > MVRevaporation > dry.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration and hyperfiltration stages generally produced a large quantity of environmental load.
“The nano fi ltration and hyper fi ltration stages generally produced large quantity of environmental load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysis
The cost of nanofiltration and hyperfiltration accounted for 80.37% of external cost.
“Cost of nano fi ltration and hyper fi ltration accounted for 80.37% of external cost.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysis
Emissions of other pollutants accounted for only a small fraction of LCCEx.
“Emission of the other pollutants only accounted for a small fraction of LCCEx.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofiltration technique in different regions followed the order Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai.
“The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The nanofiltration stage was the key process producing environmental burden, based on higher GWP, AP, POCP, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment compared with other stages.
“The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis · plain
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis · plain
- Findingown data§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process.
“Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage contributed 48.79% of GWP.
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
Emission amount followed the order nanofiltration > hyperfiltration > MVR evaporation > electrodialysis > dry for CO2, CH4, N2O, and PM10.
“Emission amount followed the order of nano fi ltration > hyper fi ltration > MVR evaporation > electrodialysis > dry for CO2, CH4, N2O, and PM10 while that followed the order of nano fi ltration > hyper fi ltration > electrodialysis > MVRevaporation > dry for the remaining pollutants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysis
PM10, NOX, and SO2 emissions accounted for similar proportions of LCCEx.
“PM10, NOX, and SO2 emissions accounted for the similar proportion of LCCEx.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The dry stage generally had the lowest emissions.
“Dry stage generally had the lowest emissions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage contributed 50.49% of NE.
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The major contributing factor of environmental load at the nanofiltration and hyperfiltration stages was power consumption.
“The major contributing factor of environmental load at these two stages was power consumption based on the key process identi fi cation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
GWP was the highest environmental impact index in the lithium nanofiltration extraction technique.
“GWP was the highest index in the lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with 1.56 -10 2 , 1.08 -10 2 , and 2.59 -10 3 kg CO2 eq at nano fi ltration, hyper fi ltration and electrodialysis stages, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
CO2 emission at the dry stage was only 0.19% of that at the nanofiltration stage.
“CO2 emission at dry stage was only 0.19% of that at nano fi ltration stage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
CO2, CH4, SO2 and NOX were the main pollutants with relatively high emission amounts.
“CO2, CH4, SO2 and NOX were the main pollutants with relatively high emission amounts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysis
Expenditure on treating NOX, SO2 and PM10 was the main factor of LCCEx.
“Expenditure on treating NOX, SO2 and PM10 was ascribed to the main factor of LCCEx.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
Emission amount followed the order nanofiltration > hyperfiltration > electrodialysis > MVR evaporation > dry for pollutants other than CO2, CH4, N2O, and PM10.
“Emission amount followed the order of nano fi ltration > hyper fi ltration > MVR evaporation > electrodialysis > dry for CO2, CH4, N2O, and PM10 while that followed the order of nano fi ltration > hyper fi ltration > electrodialysis > MVRevaporation > dry for the remaining pollutants.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage contributed 39.36% of SA.
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration and hyperfiltration stages generally produced large quantities of environmental load.
“The nano fi ltration and hyper fi ltration stages generally produced large quantity of environmental load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysis
The external cost (LCCEx) of the process was much less than the internal cost (LCCIn).
“In general, LCCEx of the process was much less than LCCIn.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 2. Nanofi ltration extraction of lithium from salt-lake brine
The Mg-Li ratio of the raw brine was 9.86.
“The Mg e Li ratio of the raw brine was 9.86.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The nanofiltration stage contributed 50.52% of AP.
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
The total cost of producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet with the first step water price was about 1290.99, 1258, 1249.71, and 1505.07 USD, respectively.
“The total cost of producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet with the fi rst step water price was about 1290.99, 1258, 1249.71, and 1505.07 USD, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
The fresh water separated in hyperfiltration, electrodialysis and MVR evaporation stages was 180.83 L, 59.35 L and 11.89 L, respectively.
“The fresh water separated in hyper fi ltration, electrodialysis and MVR evaporation stages was 180.83 L, 59.35 L and 11.89 L, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
The water consumption cost of Tibet and Qinghai were relatively low under the same production scale.
“The water consumption cost of Tibet and Qinghai were relatively low under the same production scale.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
Based on the first step price, the water cost for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet was 159.04, 186.87, 145.52, and 122.46 USD, respectively.
“Based on the fi rst step price, the water cost for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet was 159.04, 186.87, 145.52, and 122.46 USD, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
According to the second step price, the water cost for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet reached 262.41, 279.90, 145.52, and 183.69 USD, respectively.
“In contrast, the water cost according to the second step price for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet reached 262.41, 279.90, 145.52, and 183.69 USD, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
The main substance circulating in the process is water.
“The main substance circulating in the process is water so that it is necessary to make a mass balance of water in the extraction process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
The largest proportion (94.39%) of LCCIn was the consumption of Na2CO3 used in the lithium deposition stage.
“The largest proportion (94.39%) of LCCIn was the consumption of Na2CO3 used in the lithium deposition stage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
A total 6.25 L of solution after hyperfiltration, electrodialysis and MVR evaporation stages was obtained to contain 27.8 g/L of Li+.
“A total 6.25 L of solution after hyperfi ltration, electrodialysis and MVR evaporation stages was obtained to contain 27.8 g/L of Li þ .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
Different from water prices, electricity consumption costs of Tibet and Qinghai were relatively high.
“Different from water prices, electricity consumption costs of Tibet and Qinghai were relatively high.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
The total amount of brines and fresh water reached 560.95 L before the nanofiltration separation.
“The total amount of brines and fresh water reached 560.95 L before the nano fi ltration separation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
Power supply was the most important item influencing a nanofiltration plant targeting chromium removal from water.
“Power supply was proved to be the most important item in fl uencing the nanofi ltration plant targeting at removing chromium in water (Giagnorio et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Giagnorio et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis
The major environmental load of the lithium nanofiltration extraction technique was power consumption.
“Therefore, major environmental load of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique was power consumption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Magnesium and lithium separation using a desalination nanofiltration membrane is highly dependent on pH, operating pressure, and Mg2+/Li+ ratio.
“The results indicated that magnesium and lithium separation was highly dependent on the pH, operating pressure, and Mg 2 þ /Li þ ratio.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sun et al., 2015 source
- Premisecitation§ 2. Nanofi ltration extraction of lithium from salt-lake brine
Separation efficiency of the nanofiltration process reached the best with operating pressure 3.4 MPa and dilution ratio 15.
“Separation ef fi ciency of this process reached the best with the operating pressure of 3.4 MPa and the dilution ratio of 15 based on the previous study (Kang et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Kang et al., 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Sun et al., 2015 source
- Interpretationreasoning§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis
The cost of the lithium nanofiltration extraction technique would significantly decrease if non-industrial Na2CO3 or other agents could be used as alternatives.
“Therefore, the cost of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique would signi fi cantly decrease if the non-industrial Na2CO3 or other agents could be used as alternative.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
The most important resources consumed in the lithium nanofiltration extraction process were water and energy.
“The most important resources consumed in the lithium nano fi ltration extraction process were water and energy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysis
It was more economically friendly to produce lithium carbonate in Qinghai province, where electricity prices were low and water reserves were large.
“It was more economically friendly to produce lithium carbonate in Qinghai province, where electricity prices were low and water reserves were large.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
“Qinghai was more suitable to produce lithium carbonate than the other regions due to lower cost of water and energy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
- May combine two claims. 33
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisNew technologies for lithium recovery from brines have been widely explored.
“Therefore, new technologies for lithium recovery from brines have been widely explored (Flexer et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Flexer et al., 2018 source
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisPOCP reached 2.21×10^-6, 1.52×10^-6, and 3.65×10^-6 kg C2H4 eq at nanofiltration, hyperfiltration, and electrodialysis stages, respectively.
“POCP reached 2.21 -10 6 , 1.52 -10 6 , and 3.65 -10 6 kg C2H4 eq at nano fi ltration, hyper fi ltration and electrodialysis stages, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisSteam loss and dust generation during evaporation and dry processes were components of the environmental load.
“Moreover, steam loss and dust generation during evaporation and dry processes were also considered as components of the environmental load.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisEnvironmental emission at the nanofiltration stage was the largest, followed by the hyperfiltration stage.
“Environmental emission at the nano fi ltration stage was the largest, and then followed by that at hyper fi ltration stage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisThe nanofiltration stage accounted for the largest proportion of NE, with 5.5×10^-5 kg NOX eq.
“Compared with the other stages, nano fi ltration stage accounted for the largest proportion with 7.85 -10 5 kg SO2 eq for AP, 5.5 -10 5 kg NOX eq for NE, and 1.51 -10 5 kg PM10 for SA, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential.
“Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Water and energy consumption of the nanofiltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively.
“The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisThe main energy consumption of the nanofiltration extraction process was electricity, and auxiliary devices such as high-pressure pumps consumed large amounts of energy.
“The main energy consumption of nano fi ltration extraction process was electricity and some auxiliary devices such as high-pressure pumps were used to consume lots of energy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 2. Nanofi ltration extraction of lithium from salt-lake brineThe raw brine from a salt lake in Qinghai Province had lithium concentration 0.58 g/L and magnesium concentration 5.68 g/L.
“The concentration of lithium and magnesium in the raw brine was 0.58 and 5.68 g/L, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD, with internal cost accounting for 99.99%.
“The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysisThe cost of precipitation reached 17 USD, accounting for 94.41% of internal cost during the whole process, although this stage produced little environmental load and emission.
“The cost of the precipitation reached 17 USD to account for 94.41% of internal cost during the whole process although this stage only produced a little environmental load and emission.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisThe total LCC was 18.01 USD, with LCCIn accounting for 99.99%.
“The total LCC was 18.01 USD with LCCIn accounting for 99.99%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisThe electricity consumption cost for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet were 1028.58, 978.1, 1104.18 and 1321.38 USD, respectively.
“The electricity consumption cost for producing 1 t Li2CO3 in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet were 1028.58, 978.1, 1104.18 and 1321.38 USD, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisThe total water consumption reached 546.51 L for producing 1 kg Li2CO3, with direct water consumption in the production process of 523.55 L, which was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption.
“The total water consumption reached 546.51 L for producing 1 kg Li2CO3 with the direct water consumption in the production process of 523.55 L that was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisThe water and electricity consumption for producing 1 t Li2CO3 reached 546.51 t and 8674 Kwh, respectively.
“The water and electricity consumption for producing 1 t Li2CO3 reached 546.51 t and 8674 Kwh, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisElectricity and water expenditure covered 3.9% and 1.7% of total internal cost, respectively.
“Electricity and water expenditure covered 3.9% and 1.7% of total internal cost, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisWater containing concentrated Mg2+ after the separation process accounted for 54% of the total water, was not involved in further process, and was used for further magnesium extraction.
“Water containing concentrated Mg 2 þ after separation process accounting for 54% of the total water was not involved in further process and was used for further magnesium extraction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisWater consumption at the nanofiltration stage accounted for 98.05% of total water consumption, and energy consumption at the nanofiltration stage accounted for 53.95% of total energy consumption.
“Water/energy consumption at nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05%/53.95% of corresponding total consumption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysis180.83/59.35 L of solutions with low ion content were separated at hyperfiltration/electrodialysis stage, accounting for 33.09%/10.86% of the direct water consumption.
“In addition, 180.83/59.35 L of solutions with low ion content were separated at hyper fi ltration/electrodialysis stage, accounting for 33.09%/10.86% of the direct water consumption.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisThe cost of water, Na2CO3 and electricity in LCCIn reached 0.31, 17, and 0.68 USD, respectively.
“The cost of water, Na2CO3 and electricity in LCCIn reached 0.31, 17, and 0.68 USD, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisExtraction of 1 kg Li2CO3 requires more than 500 L fresh water for dilution and large quantity of energy is consumed in the nanofiltration, hyperfiltration and electrodialysis stages.
“Extraction of 1 kg Li2CO3 requires more than 500 L fresh water for dilution and large quantity of energy is consumed in the nano fi ltration, hyperfi ltration and electrodialysis stages based on the investigation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Raw brine must be diluted before nanofiltration membrane separation to prevent membrane fouling.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisNa2CO3 used in this study was industrial grade with purity of 99% and its price was relatively high.
“Na2CO3 used in this study was industrial grade with purity of 99% and its price was relatively high.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisA little water and no electricity were consumed at the MVR evaporation stage.
“A little water and no electricity were consumed at MVR evaporation stage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysisA hybrid assessment of LCA and LCC for ceramic tile production showed that the total cost of $2.77/m2 was mainly caused by raw material use and that enhancing resource utilization efficiency was effective for decreasing environmental cost in that industry.
“A hybrid assessment of LCA and LCC for ceramic tile production was performed to show that the total cost of $2.77/m2 was mainly caused by the use of raw materials and enhancement of resource utilization ef fi ciency was effective for decreasing the environmental cost in this industry (Ye et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ye et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The widely used methods for extracting lithium from salt-lake brines (precipitation, ion-exchange, liquid-liquid extraction) are relatively simple but consume relatively high chemical reagents and energy.
“These methods are relatively simple while the consumption of chemical reagents and energy is relatively high (Swain, 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Swain, 2017 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisA previous LCA study of water treatment plants reported that a treatment plant with a nanofiltration unit exerted less environmental impact than a conventional treatment plant.
“Previous study regarding LCA of water treatment plants reported that treatment plant with nano fi ltration unit exerted less environmental impact than the conventional treatment plant (Bonton et al., 2012).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bonton et al., 2012 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The competitive coefficient is susceptible to the Mg2+/Li+ ratio, which should be less than 20.
“The competitive coef fi cient was susceptible to the Mg 2 þ /Li þ ratio which should be less than 20 (Sun et al., 2015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sun et al., 2015 source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisCompared with the traditional lithium extraction process, the nanofiltration membrane process was more environmentally friendly because it did not directly consume large amounts of fossil resources.
“Compared with the traditional lithium extraction process, nanofi ltration membrane process was more environmentally friendly since it did not directly consume large amounts of fossil resources.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.More than 60% of global lithium products are produced from brines.
“more than 60% of the global lithium products are produced from brines (Tadesse et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tadesse et al., 2019 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisAn LCA study on multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell production showed that increasing the use proportion of renewable energy sources and improving power generation consumption efficiency was crucial because energy consumption mainly contributed to high-score global warming potential.
“LCA study on multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell production exhibited that it was crucial to increase the use proportion of renewable sources of energy and to improve the consumption ef fi ciency of power generation since energy consumption mainly contributed to the high-score global warming potential (Hong et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hong et al., 2016 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysisA membrane with covalent binding had much lower environmental impacts than activated carbon made from coal for a water membrane purification system.
“Membrane with covalent binding also had much lower environmental impacts than activated carbon made from coal for water membrane puri fi cation system (Manda et al., 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Manda et al., 2014 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysisLCC analysis can effectively reflect the economic rationality of a process to determine whether it is economically friendly.
“LCC analysis can effectively re fl ect the economic rationality of the process to determine whether a process is economically friendly (Ye et al., 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ye et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisereasoning§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Nanofiltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines.
“Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines.”
- Also stated in: § a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. · boosted
“In recent years, membrane process as a promising lithium extraction technique has been gradually used to extract lithium from salt lakes because this technique allows univalent ions to pass through the membrane to trap divalent/ polyvalent ions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. · boosted
May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.2. Life cycle cost analysisImprovement of resource utilization efficiency and dust-removing equipment will significantly reduce environmental governance costs and increase life cycle economic performance.
“Therefore, improvement of resource utilization ef fi ciency and dust-removing equipment will signi fi cantly reduce the environmental governance costs and increase life cycle economic performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.2. Methodology, LCI, and data sources LCA focuses on evaluating the use of natural resources and environmental pollution. It is important to identify the key factor affecting the ecosystem and put forward the corresponding suggestions for improving rational exploitation of salt-lake resources. LCA on lithium extraction from salt lakes only considered the impact on the ecosystem and resource consumption because the exploitation and production of lithium resources in salt lakes possessed simple process, short transportation distance, and waste disposal without occupying lands. Therefore, eight kinds of environmental pollutants (CO2, CH4, SO2, NOX, N2O, CO, VOC, and PM10) and fi ve kinds of environmental impact assessment indicators including global warming potential (GWP), acidi fi cation potential (AP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), soot and ashes (SA), and nutrient enrichment (NE) were selected for LCA on lithium nano fi ltration extraction. The emission of individual pollutant in each impact type was weighted by emission coef fi cient to obtain a uniform unit value for analyzing each category of environmental impact. The emission coef fi cients and water consumption coef fi cient of various energy sources referred to Chinese life cycle database (CLCD) (Liu et al., 2010). The analysis of life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle water consumption (LCWC) in this study was performed on the basis of the system boundary of LCA and the calculation model referred to the previous study (Xiang, 2016). The environmental pollutants selected in this study included CO2, CH4, SO2, NOX, N2O, CO, VOC and PM10. The emission of pollutants was calculated by the following Eq. (1):Equipment loss and maintenance were not considered in the LCC because the functional unit was 1 kg Li2CO3 and the process was at small trial scale.
“However, the function unit in this study was 1 kg Li2CO3 products, which was a small yield and belonged to small trial scale. Therefore, the loss and maintenance of equipment were not considered in this study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The cost of the nanofiltration membrane device (about 29,100 USD) generally accounts for most of the process cost.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in salt lakes.
“Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes.”
- Also stated in: § a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. · plain
“Lithium is an important strategic resource and mainly distributed in the QinghaiTibet Plateau of China with LiCl total reserves of 15.2 -10 6 t and 80% of lithium resource existing in the salt lakes of Qaidam Basin (Shi et al., 2018; Song et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2013).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- Also stated in: § a b s t r a c t Lithium is an important strategic resource and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau possesses abundant liquid lithium resources in the salt lakes. Nano fi ltration is a promising technique for lithium extraction from salt-lake brines. However, no information on the environmental impact of lithium nano fi ltration extraction is available. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC) and water consumption (LCWC) methods to evaluate the environmental burden of lithium nano fi ltration extraction technique with the functional unit of 1 kg Li2CO3 products. The results showed that nano fi ltration stage was the key process to produce the environment burden based on higher values of global warming potential, acidi fi cation potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, soot & ashes, and nutrient enrichment in comparison with the other stages of lithium extraction. Electricity consumption was the major contributor to global warming potential. The total life cycle cost was 18.01 USD with internal cost accounting for 99.99%. Direct water consumption was 22 times higher than indirect water consumption in this process. The water and energy consumption of nano fi ltration stage accounted for 98.05% and 53.95% of total consumption, respectively. The total cost of energy and water consumption for nanofi ltration technique in different regions followed the order of Tibet > Inner Mongolia > Sinkiang > Qinghai. This study provided quantitative data and theoretical basis for lithium resource exploitation in the ecologically-fragile regions in the world. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisMore than 60% of global lithium production is extracted from brines.
“More than 60% global lithium production is extracted from brines (Tadesse et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tadesse et al., 2019 source
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisThe consumption of non-domestic water in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet is charged by a 2-step water price with the second step price higher than the first step price, while non-domestic water in Qinghai is charged by an identical price.
“The consumption of non-domestic water in Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet is charged by 2-step water price with the second step price higher than the fi rst step price while nondomestic water in Qinghai is charged by the identical price.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites NBS, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisThe fresh water could be recycled to dilute the brines.
“The fresh water could be recycled to dilute the brines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationreasoning§ 5. ConclusionsThis study provides a theoretical basis for the lithium industry, especially in ecologically fragile regions in the world.
“This study provides theoretical basis for the lithium industry especially in ecologically fragile regions in the world.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Information on LCA and sustainability of brine processing is still scarce.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisWater separated at hyperfiltration/electrodialysis stages could also be recycled for diluting the raw brines.
“Water separated at hyper fi ltration/electrodialysis stages could also be recycled for diluting the raw brines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisIndirect water consumption was reported to account for a larger proportion in total water consumption of olefins production, contrary to the results of this study.
“Indirect water consumption was reported to account for a larger proportion in total water consumption of ole fi ns production (Xing et al., 2016), which was contrary to the results of this study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Xing et al., 2016 source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 5. ConclusionsImprovement in resource utilization efficiency and water recycling were more effective to reduce environmental governance costs and environmental load, even though the nanofiltration extraction technique was relatively environmentally-friendly.
“The results showed that improvement in resource utilization ef fi ciency and water recycling were more effective to reduce the environmental governance costs and environmental load even the nano fi ltration extraction technique was relatively environmentally-friendly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisThe electricity consumption of Sinkiang and Qinghai is charged by step price while that of Inner Mongolia and Tibet is charged by an identical price.
“The electricity consumption of Sinkiang and Qinghai is charge by step price while that of Inner Mongolia and Tibet is charged by the identical price.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites NBS, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 4.3. Water-energy consumption and water mass balance analysisNa2CO3 was the key factor affecting the internal cost and deserved careful selection during the extraction process.
“As a result, Na2CO3 was the key factor affecting the internal cost to deserve careful selection during the extraction process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisThe water resources of Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet were 58, 81, 89 and 362 km3-water/m2-land, respectively.
“The water resources of Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet were 58, 81, 89 and 362 km 3 -water/m 2 -land, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites NBS, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 4.4. Water-energy nexus analysisWater-energy nexus is critical for many industries, and energy consumption had effects on water use policies to subsequently affect the related industry.
“Water-energy nexus is critical for many industries and the previous study also reported that energy consumption had effects on water use policies to subsequently affect the related industry (Xiang and Jia, 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Xiang and Jia, 2019 source
The paper relies on this without support.
Separation of magnesium and lithium is the critical step in lithium extraction.
“Moreover, the separation of magnesium and lithium is the critical step in lithium extraction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Membrane fouling is a frequent problem during nanofiltration extraction of lithium due to high-concentration salts in brine.
“Membrane fouling is the frequent problem during nano fi ltration extraction of lithium due to high-concentration salts in brine.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lithium extraction from salt lakes has a simple process, short transportation distance, and waste disposal that does not occupy land.
“LCA on lithium extraction from salt lakes only considered the impact on the ecosystem and resource consumption because the exploitation and production of lithium resources in salt lakes possessed simple process, short transportation distance, and waste disposal without occupying lands.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cost of the nanofiltration membrane device (about 29,100 USD) generally accounts for most of the process cost.
“Cost of the nano fi ltration membrane device with the price of about 29,100 USD generally accounts for the most of process cost.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Raw brine must be diluted before nanofiltration membrane separation to prevent membrane fouling.
“Raw brine must be diluted before nano fi ltration membrane separation to prevent the membrane fouling.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Information on LCA and sustainability of brine processing is still scarce.
“However, information on LCA and sustainability of brine processing is still scarce.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Electrodialysis POCP exceeds the stage described as dominant
MinorThe reported electrodialysis POCP, 3.65 × 10−6, is greater than the nanofiltration value, 2.21 × 10−6. Nanofiltration therefore cannot also contribute 51.84% of total POCP.
“POCP reached 2.21 -10 6 , 1.52 -10 6 , and 3.65 -10 6 kg C2H4 eq at nano fi ltration, hyper fi ltration and electrodialysis stages, respectively.”
“Nanofi ltration stage contributed to 48.79% of GWP, 50.52% of AP, 51.84% of POCP, 50.49% of NE, and 39.36% of SA, respectively.”
Cites
Recovery and recycling of lithium: a review
Swain, B. (2017) · Separation and Purification Technology · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2016.08.031 · Cited by 1,713 · see citing works
Flexer, V., Baspineiro, C. F., & Galli, C. I. (2018) · Science of the Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.223 · Cited by 768 · see citing works
Lipu, M. S. H., Hannan, M. A., Hussain, A., Hoque, M. M., Ker, P. J., Saad, M. H. M., & Ayob, A. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.065 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Recovery of lithium from Uyuni salar brine
An, J. W., Kang, D. J., Tran, K. T., Kim, M. J., Lim, T., & Tran, T. (2012) · Hydrometallurgy · doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2012.02.008 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Advances in sustainable approaches to recover metals from e-waste-A review
Islam, A., Ahmed, T., Awual, M. R., Rahman, A., Sultana, M., Aziz, A. A., Monir, M. U., Teo, S. H., & Hasan, M. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118815 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
The beneficiation of lithium minerals from hard rock ores: a review
Tadesse, B., Makuei, F., Albijanic, B., & Dyer, L. (2019) · Minerals Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2018.11.023 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
Separation of magnesium and lithium from brine using a Desal nanofiltration membrane
Sun, S.-Y., Cai, L.-J., Nie, X.-Y., Song, X., & Yu, J.-G. (2015) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.06.012 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Cusenza, M. A., Bobba, S., Ardente, F., Cellura, M., & Persio, F. D. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.056 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants
Bonton, A., Bouchard, C., Barbeau, B., & Jedrzejak, S. (2012) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.035 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
The application of nanofiltration membrane for recovering lithium from salt lake brine
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, H., & Wang, M. (2019) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.114081 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product development
Chang, D., Lee, C. K. M., & Chen, C.-H. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.050 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Marques, P., Garcia, R., Kulay, L., & Freire, F. M. C. S. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Extraction of lithium from salt lake brine containing boron using multistage centrifuge extractors
Shi, D., Zhang, L., Peng, X., Li, L., Song, F., Nie, F., Ji, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2018.04.029 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Stamp, A., Lang, D. J., & Wäger, P. A. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.026 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Shao, L., & Jin, S. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119624 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Yu, J., Gao, C., Cheng, A., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., & He, X. (2012) · Ore Geology Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2012.11.001 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment of caustic soda production: a case study in China
Hong, J., Chen, W., Wang, Y., Xu, C., & Xu, X. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.009 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Jiang, S., Zhang, L., Li, F., Hua, H., Liu, X., Yuan, Z., & Wu, H. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110253 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell production in China
Hong, J., Chen, W., Qi, C., Ye, L., & Xu, C. (2016) · Solar Energy · doi:10.1016/j.solener.2016.04.013 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Treatment of landfill leachates by nanofiltration
(2010) · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.007 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Membrane softening versus lime softening in Florida: a cost comparison update
Bergman, R. A. (1995) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/0011-9164(95)00036-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
China’s water-energy nexus: assessment of water related energy use
Xiang, X., & Jia, S. (2019) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.009 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Song, J., Li, X.-M., Zhang, Y., Yin, Y., Zhao, B., Li, C., Kong, D., & He, T. (2014) · Journal of Membrane Science · doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2014.08.010 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Al-Shayji, K. A., & Aleisa, E. (2018) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.077 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Manda, B. M. K., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.045 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Life cycle cost analysis for recycling high-tech minerals from waste mobile phones in China
He, P., Feng, H., Hu, G., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119498 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Water consumption analysis of olefins production from alternative resources in China
Xiang, D., Gao, L., Liu, X., Guo, C., Yang, S., & Qian, Y. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.031 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kang, 2014, Preliminary test of separation of Mg2+/Li+ in salt lake brine by nanofiltration, Inorg. Chem. Ind., 46, 22
- Xiang, D., 2016. reportTechno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-To-Olefins Processes. Ph.D. thesis. South China University of Technology. Guangzhou, China.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review
Arshad, F., Lin, J., Manurkar, N., Fan, E., Ahmad, A. H., Tariq, M., Wu, F., Chen, R., & Li, L. (2022) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106164 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Zhang, Y., Sun, W., Xu, R., Wang, L., & Tang, H. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124905 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Water-energy nexus and energy efficiency: A systematic analysis of urban water systems
Ahmad, S., Jia, H., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Xu, C. (2020) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110381 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Regionalized life cycle assessment of present and future lithium production for Li-ion batteries
Schenker, V., Oberschelp, C., & Pfister, S. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106611 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Nanofiltration Membranes for Efficient Lithium Extraction from Salt-Lake Brine: A Critical Review
Yong, M. S., Yang, Y., Sun, L., Tang, M., Wang, Z., Xing, C., Hou, J., Zheng, M., Chui, T. F. M., Li, Z., et al. (2024) · ACS Environmental Au · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.4c00061 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flexible LATP composite membrane for lithium extraction from seawater via an electrochemical route
Shen, K., He, Q., Ru, Q., Tang, D., Oo, T. Z., Zaw, M., Lwin, N. W., Aung, S. H., Tan, S. C., & Chen, F. (2023) · Journal of Membrane Science · doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2023.121358 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Influences of different bischofite on the properties of magnesium oxychloride cement
Huang, Q., Zheng, W., Dong, J., et al. (2022) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104923 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Lithium and water: Hydrosocial impacts across the life cycle of energy storage
Blair, J. J. A., Vineyard, N., Mulvaney, D., Cantor, A., Sharbat, A., Berry, K., Bartholomew, E., & Ornelas, A. F. (2024) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1748 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“Research areas deserving further attention include LCAs of freshwater use in DLE (Halkes et al., 2024; Huang et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Mousavinezhad et al., 2024; Schenker et al., 2024), as well as cradle-to-cradle impacts from downstream processes (Arshad et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2022).”
InfluentialSchenker, V., & Pfister, S. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c12619 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Zhong, H., Zhao, Q., Lai, Z., Xu, D., Ji, Y., Wang, S., & Qin, Q. (2024) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.202418358 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Sustainable production of lithium salts extraction from ores in China: Cleaner production assessment
Gu, G., & Gao, T. (2021) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102261 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Oyarce, E., Roa, K., Boulett, A., Salazar-Marconi, P., & Sánchez, J. (2022) · Separation and Purification Technology · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2022.120715 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
(2023) · doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2023.119248 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationde Souza, R. G., Domingues, A. M., Spindlegger, A., Mair‐Bauernfeind, C., & Part, F. (2024) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.031 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Material-energy Nexus: A systematic literature review
Hu, X., Wang, C., & Elshkaki, A. (2023) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2023.114217 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Li, H., Li, L., & Li, W. (2020) · Chemical Physics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2020.138249 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
(2021) · doi:10.1007/s10098-021-02092-1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationCheng, N., Jiang, R., Cheng, Y., Hu, L., Jiang, S., Li, M., Yang, J., Wang, H., Wang, J., Li, G., et al. (2025) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2025.166666 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sustainable lithium production from sedimentary rock deposits: Carbon reduction and EV synergies
Mousavinezhad, S., Fahimi, A., Sharifian, S., & Vahidi, E. (2025) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108271 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
(2024) · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139354 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationZheng, W., Dong, J., Wen, J. L., et al. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11094193 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Li, L., Ge, F., Jiang, Y., An, Z., Li, N., Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Li, J., & Liang, D. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17010121 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-to-Liquid Process
(2021) · doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01252-z · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Yin, Z., Zhao, Y., Wang, G., Guo, B., Sun, J., & Ji, P. (2025) · Sustainable materials and technologies · doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2025.e01556 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Preparation of magnesium phosphate cement by salt lake magnesium slag and its hydration process
Zheng, W., Dong, J., Li, B., Li, Y., Wang, Q., Wen, J. L., & Chang, C. (2025) · Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cjche.2025.05.007 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationMachado, P. G., Ribeiro, C. D. O., & do Nascimento, C. A. O. (2023) · International Journal of Energy and Water Resources · doi:10.1007/s42108-023-00261-0 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Li, Y., Li, B., Zheng, W., Zhou, J. L., Wen, J., Dong, J., Chang, C., & Wang, Q. (2024) · Carbon Capture Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100301 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationRegionalized life cycle assessment of present and future lithium production for Li-ion batteriesPreprint
Schenker, V., Oberschelp, C., & Pfister, S. (2022) · doi:10.31223/x5ts7f · Cited by 2 · see citing works
How to maximize the chilean government's revenue with the National Lithium Strategy?
Olivares, F., Lagos, G. E., & Singer, M. (2025) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105600 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Tang, J., Liu, Y., Gao, L., Li, Z., Yin, S., Sun, X., & Huang, X. (2026) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2026.120508 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Chen, C., Zhai, M., Wei, H., Ding, J., & Wu, Y. (2026) · Fundamental Research · doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2026.04.021
Aljarrah, S., Al‐Rawajfeh, A. E., Shahid, M. K., & Islam, Q. U. (2023) · Recent Innovations in Chemical Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Chemical Engineering) · doi:10.2174/0124055204266229230927035347
Pretreatment Strategies for Direct Lithium Extraction from Brines: A Systematic Review
MacDonald, L., Camarillo, M. K., Stringfellow, W., & Busse, M. M. (2026) · Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review · doi:10.1080/08827508.2026.2690395 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Li, B., Wu, J., & Lu, J.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Ludong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wu, Jun
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 261
- Pages
- 121152
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3012367065
- Semantic Scholar
- 29a0cf09ebb1790aa3b8ff3591ce93dc67ed3e1f
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 2.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
- Knowledge Repository of Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, CAS (Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research) (submittedVersion)
- Knowledge Repository of Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, CAS (Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
- Keywords
- lithium recovery, nanofiltration, salt lake brine, water-energy nexus, environmental impact, global warming potential, acidification, water consumption, life cycle cost, Tibetan Plateau, ecologically fragile areas, lithium carbonate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review