The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Process Development for the Recycle of Spent Lithium Ion Batteries by Chemical Precipitation
Abstract
Recycling of spent lithium ion batteries (LIBs) has received increasing attention in recent years, because of the increasing usage of LIBs in electronic products and the potential leakage of heavy metals to the soil when they are disposed to the landfills. Chemical precipitation has been widely applied in the recycling process of spent LIBs. However, most processes are developed based on trial and error, leading to the possibility of recovering the wrong product in the precipitation process or excess usage of chemicals. Solid–liquid equilibrium (SLE) phase behavior governs the products to be recovered from the precipitation process and can be used to guide and optimize the process. Case studies on the recycling of LiFePO 4 and LiCo x Mn 1– x O 2 have been studied in this paper to demonstrate how the SLE phase behavior can be used to design the recovery process. Both case studies illustrate that pure metal salts can be recovered from the precipitation process with high recovery. The case studies also demonstrate how the SLE phase behavior helps to rationalize the separation process developed by previous researchers based on trial and error. The SLE phase behavior can be utilized to determine the optimal operating conditions such as the amount of precipitant to be added to the system. With the insights provided from the SLE phase behavior, new process alternatives can be generated. Process alternatives can be compared with the base case process to determine the optimal process for recycling metal salts from spent LIBs.
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
Recent developments in lithium ion batteries
Wakihara, M. (2001) · Materials Science and Engineering R Reports · doi:10.1016/s0927-796x(01)00030-4 · Cited by 719
Global Lithium Availability: A Constraint for Electric Vehicles?
Gruber, P. W., Medina, P. A., Keoleian, G. A., Kesler, S. E., Everson, M. P., & Wallington, T. J. (2011) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00359.x · Cited by 620
Cited by
Toward sustainable and systematic recycling of spent rechargeable batteries
Zhang, X., Li, L., Fan, E., Xue, Q., Bian, Y., Wu, F., & Chen, R. (2018) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c8cs00297e · Cited by 1,038
Or, T., Gourley, S. W. D., Kaliyappan, K., Yu, A., & Chen, Z. (2020) · Carbon Energy · doi:10.1002/cey2.29 · Cited by 559
Jung, J. C.-Y., Sui, P.-C., & Zhang, J. (2021) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2020.102217 · Cited by 549
Li, H., Xing, S., Liu, Y., Li, F., Guo, H., & Kuang, G. (2017) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01594 · Cited by 523
Recent progress on the recycling technology of Li-ion batteries
Wang, Y., An, N., Wen, L., Wang, L., Jiang, X., Hou, F., Yin, Y., & Liang, J. (2021) · Journal of Energy Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.jechem.2020.05.008 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- Cai, G., Fung, K. Y., Ng, K. M., & Wibowo, C.
- Venue
- Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-11-13
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 47
- Pages
- 18245-18259
- ISSN
- 0888-5885 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5045
- OpenAlex
- W2003914715
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.