Cited by 246Extraction and Separation ProcessesRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesMineral Processing and Grinding

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chemical and process mineralogical characterizations of spent lithium-ion batteries: An approach by multi-analytical techniques

Zhang, Tao, He, Yaqun, Wang, Fangfang, Ge, Linhan, Zhu, Xiangnan, Li, Hong·2014·Waste Management

Abstract

Mineral processing operation is a critical step in any recycling process to realize liberation, separation and concentration of the target parts. Developing effective recycling methods to recover all the valuable parts from spent lithium-ion batteries is in great necessity. The aim of this study is to carefully undertake chemical and process mineralogical characterizations of spent lithium-ion batteries by coupling several analytical techniques to provide basic information for the researches on effective mechanical crushing and separation methods in recycling process. The results show that the grade of Co, Cu and Al is fairly high in spent lithium ion batteries and up to 17.62 wt.%, 7.17 wt.% and 21.60 wt.%. Spent lithium-ion batteries have good selective crushing property, the crushed products could be divided into three parts, they are Al-enriched fraction (+2 mm), Cu and Al-enriched fraction (-2+0.25 mm) and Co and graphite-enriched fraction (-0.25 mm). The mineral phase and chemical state analysis reveal the electrode materials recovered from -0.25 mm size fraction keep the original crystal forms and chemical states in lithium-ion batteries, but the surface of the powders has been coated by a certain kind of hydrocarbon. Based on these results a flowsheet to recycle spent LiBs is proposed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.01.002

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 246

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, T., He, Y., Wang, F., Ge, L., Zhu, X., & Li, H.
Affiliations
China University of Mining and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
He, Yaqun
Venue
Waste Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1051-1058
ISSN
0956-053X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971707472
Cited by
246
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Waste Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • Graduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu Province
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Metals and Alloys › Extraction and Separation Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Mineral Processing and Grinding
Keywords
spent lithium-ion batteries, battery recycling, process mineralogy, chemical characterization, mechanical separation, cobalt recovery, copper recovery, aluminum recovery, graphite, electrode materials
MeSH terms
Lithium, Electric Power Supplies, Spectrometry, X-Ray Emission, Recycling

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.

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