The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste
Open accessAbstract
Rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) and lithium-polymer (Li-poly) batteries have recently become dominant in consumer electronic products because of advantages associated with energy density and product longevity. However, the small size of these batteries, the high rate of disposal of consumer products in which they are used, and the lack of uniform regulatory policy on their disposal means that lithium batteries may contribute substantially to environmental pollution and adverse human health impacts due to potentially toxic materials. In this research, we used standardized leaching tests, life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and hazard assessment models to evaluate hazardous waste classification, resource depletion potential, and toxicity potentials of lithium batteries used in cellphones. Our results demonstrate that according to U.S. federal regulations, defunct Li-ion batteries are classified hazardous due to their lead (Pb) content (average 6.29 mg/L; σ = 11.1; limit 5). However, according to California regulations, all lithium batteries tested are classified hazardous due to excessive levels of cobalt (average 163,544 mg/kg; σ = 62,897; limit 8000), copper (average 98,694 mg/kg; σ = 28,734; limit 2500), and nickel (average 9525 mg/kg; σ = 11,438; limit 2000). In some of the Li-ion batteries, the leached concentrations of chromium, lead, and thallium exceeded the California regulation limits. The environmental impact associated with resource depletion and human toxicity is mainly associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver, whereas the ecotoxicity potential is primarily associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver. However, the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models. These findings support the need for stronger government policy at the local, national, and international levels to encourage recovery, recycling, and reuse of lithium battery materials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Majeau-Bettez, G., Hawkins, T. R., & Strømman, A. H. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es103607c · Cited by 662
Cited by
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
Environmental impacts, pollution sources and pathways of spent lithium-ion batteries
Mrozik, W., Rajaeifar, M. A., Heidrich, O., & Christensen, P. (2021) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d1ee00691f · Cited by 1,028
Meshram, P., Pandey, B. D., & Mankhand, T. R. (2014) · Hydrometallurgy · doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.10.012 · Cited by 982
Novel approach to recover cobalt and lithium from spent lithium-ion battery using oxalic acid
Zeng, X., Li, J., & Shen, B. (2015) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.02.064 · Cited by 571
A review on the recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) by the bioleaching approach
Roy, J. J., Cao, B., & Madhavi, S. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130944 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Kang, D. H. P., Chen, M., & Ogunseitan, O. A.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2013-05-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 5495-5503
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2314178181
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es400614y
- The paper
- Kang, D. H. P., Chen, M., & Ogunseitan, O. A. (2013). Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es400614y
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.