Toward a cell‐chemistry specific life cycle assessment of lithium‐ion battery recycling processes
Open accessAbstract
On the basis of a review of existing life cycle assessment studies on lithium‐ion battery recycling, we parametrize process models of state‐of‐the‐art pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical recycling, enabling their application to different cell chemistries, including beyond‐lithium batteries such as sodium‐ion batteries. These processes are used as benchmark for evaluating an advanced hydrometallurgical recycling process, which is modeled on the basis of primary data obtained from a recycling company, quantifying the potential reduction of environmental impacts that can be achieved by the recycling of different cell chemistries. Depending on the cell chemistry, recycling can reduce significantly the potential environmental impacts of battery production. The highest benefit is obtained via advanced hydrometallurgical treatment for lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide‐type batteries, mainly because of the recovery of cobalt and nickel. Especially under resource depletion aspects, recycling of these cells can reduce their impact to an extent that even leads to a lower “net impact” than that of cells made from majorly abundant and cheap materials like lithium iron phosphate, which shows a more favorable performance when recycling is disregarded. For these cells, recycling does not necessarily provide benefits but can rather cause additional environmental impacts. This indicates that maximum material recovery might not always be favorable under environmental aspects and that, especially for the final hydrometallurgical treatment, the process would need to be adapted to the specific cell chemistry, if one wants to obtain maximum environmental benefit.
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
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.
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?
While materials from battery recycling are expected to reduce environmental damage, raw material extraction will need to provide the lion's share of battery materials in the foreseeable future.
“While materials from battery recycling are expected to reduce environmental damage, raw material extraction will need to provide the lion’s share of battery materials in the foreseeable future41–47.”
From Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 · Cited by 5,564 · see citing works
A cost and resource analysis of sodium-ion batteries
Vaalma, C., Buchholz, D., Weil, M., & Passerini, S. (2018) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2018.13 · Cited by 2,613 · see citing works
Self-citationComparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau‐Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x · Cited by 1,670 · see citing works
Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries
Ciez, R. E., & Whitacre, J. F. (2019) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0222-5 · Cited by 965 · see citing works
The environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters – A review
Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J., & Weil, M. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039 · Cited by 856 · see citing works
Self-citationDunn, J. B., Gaines, L., Kelly, J. C., James, C., & Gallagher, K. G. (2015) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c4ee03029j · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Dunn, J. B., Gaines, L. L., Sullivan, J. L., & Wang, M. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es302420z · Cited by 457 · see citing works
Recycling rechargeable lithium ion batteries: Critical analysis of natural resource savings
Dewulf, J. P., der Vorst, G. V., Denturck, K., Langenhove, H. R. V., Ghyoot, W., Tytgat, J., & Vandeputte, K. (2009) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.004 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment of sodium-ion batteries
Peters, J. F., Buchholz, D., Passerini, S., & Weil, M. (2016) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c6ee00640j · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Self-citationDiekmann, J., Hanisch, C., Froböse, L., Schälicke, G., Loellhoeffel, T., Fölster, A.-S., & Kwade, A. (2016) · Journal of The Electrochemical Society · doi:10.1149/2.0271701jes · Cited by 333 · see citing works
Life Cycle Assessment of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery
Weber, S., Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., et al. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b02073 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Self-citationHao, H., Qiao, Q., Liu, Z., & Zhao, F. (2017) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.005 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Providing a common base for life cycle assessments of Li-Ion batteries
Peters, J. F., & Weil, M. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.016 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Self-citationHendrickson, T. P., Kavvada, O., Shah, N., Sathre, R., & Scown, C. D. (2015) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014011 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Baumann, M., Peters, J. F., Weil, M., et al. (2016) · Energy Technology · doi:10.1002/ente.201600622 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Self-citationMetal oxide coated cathode materials for Li ion batteries – A review
Shobana, M. K. (2019) · Journal of Alloys and Compounds · doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.06.194 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Peters, J. F., & Weil, M. (2016) · Resources · doi:10.3390/resources5040046 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Self-citationEkberg, C. H., & Petraniková, M. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801417-2.00007-4 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
The Issue of Metal Resources in Li-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles
Weil, M., Ziemann, S., & Peters, J. (2018) · Green Energy and Technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69950-9_3 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationEmilsson, E., & Dahllöf, L. (2019) · Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.29735.70562 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-ion Batteries for Plug-in Hybrid Buses
Olofsson, Y., & Romare, M. (2013) · Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Rothermel, S., Winter, M., & Nowak, S. (2017) · Sustainable production, life cycle engineering and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70572-9_1 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Woehrle, T. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53071-9_9 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., & Weil, M. (2018) · Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) · doi:10.5445/ir/1000085778 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Rothermel, S., Winter, M., & Nowak, S. (2018). Background. In A. Kwade & J. Diekmann (Eds.), Recycling of lithium-ion batteries (pp. 1-31). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chen, Q., Lai, X., Gu, H., Tang, X., Gao, F., Han, X., & Zheng, Y. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133342 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Gutsch, M., & Leker, J. (2024) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Engels, P., Cerdas, F., Dettmer, T., Frey, C., Hentschel, J., Herrmann, C., Mirfabrikikar, T., & Schueler, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130474 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Degen, F., & Schütte, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129798 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Dunn, J., Kendall, A., & Slattery, M. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106488 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Abdelbaky, M., Peeters, J. R., & Dewulf, W. (2021) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.032 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Towards sustainable extraction of technology materials through integrated approaches
Pell, R., Tijsseling, L., Goodenough, K., Wall, F., Dehaine, Q., Grant, A., Deak, D., Yan, X., & Whattoff, P. (2021) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-021-00211-6 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials
Peiseler, L., Schenker, V., Schatzmann, K., Pfister, S., Wood, V., & Schmidt, T. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54634-y · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Carbon and water footprint of battery-grade lithium from brine and spodumene: A simulation-based LCA
Mas-Fons, A., Horta Arduin, R., Loubet, P., Pereira, T., Parvez, A. M., & Sonnemann, G. (2024) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142108 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mohr, M., Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., & Weil, M.
- Affiliations
- Helmholtz-Institute Ulm (DE)
- Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres (DE)
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Peters, Jens F.
- Venue
- Journal of Industrial Ecology
- Published
- 2020-06-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1310-1322
- ISSN
- 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9290
- OpenAlex
- W3036757788
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 16.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2021-02-10)
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- e_Buah (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- KITopen (cc-by)
- Funders
- Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association within the Network of Excellence on post-Lithium Batteries (ExNet-0035)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
- Keywords
- lithium-ion battery recycling, life cycle assessment, cell chemistry, hydrometallurgical recycling, pyrometallurgical recycling, sodium-ion batteries, beyond-lithium batteries, cobalt recovery, nickel recovery, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium iron phosphate, resource depletion, environmental impact, material recovery
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
