(Invited) Recycling and Upcycling Electrode Materials from Spent Lithium-Ion and Alkaline Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) and alkaline batteries have been widely used in electric vehicles and portable electronics, dominating the energy storage market for decades, [1] but their recycling/upcycling has lagged far behind. Re/up-cycling batteries is urgently needed because it can not only preserve raw materials such as Li, Co, Ni, Mn, Al, and Cu for LIBs as well as Zn, Mn, Fe for alkaline batteries but also reduce hazardous wastes towards the environment. [2] Despite previous efforts made on re/up-cycling LIBs and alkaline batteries, there remains an urgent demand for simple, economic, environmentally benign, and energy-saving approaches. For LIB recycling, the dominated recycling methods including pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy are destructive and criticized of high energy consumption, undesirable economic outputs, and water contamination. By contrast, non-destructive methods such as solid-state sintering [3] and hydrothermal treatment coupled with short annealing (HT-SA) [4-5] are more promising. However, these emerged direct recycling approaches are deficient at regenerating outdated cathode materials to meet current market need. As such, upcycling (i.e., upgraded regeneration of cathodes) through surface engineering (coating [6] and doping [7-9] ) or bulk reconstruction [10] has been developed. In our work, we demonstrate one upcycling approach to regenerate LiCoO 2 cathode through an improved HT-SA approach in which a coating layer is prepared accompanied with the regeneration process. The upcycled cathode material shows improved electrochemical performance surpassing the pristine electrode materials. For alkaline battery recycling, the major recycling still focuses on hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy. Hydrometallurgical processes generally follow different steps of pre-treatment and subsequent leaching and separation of different metals by electrolysis, extraction or precipitation. [11] Another approach for treating spent alkaline battery materials is upcycling towards other applications such as supercapacitors, [12] catalysis [13] , micronutrient fertilizer, [14] Mn alloy fabrication. [14] In our work, for the first time, we directly upcycle both zinc anode and Mn-based cathode for their use in rechargeable Zn-MnO 2 batteries by a simple yet efficient annealing procedure. Zn was regenerated in a reductive atmosphere and the regenerated Zn shows high Coulombic efficiency and long life in symmetric cells while the regenerated Mn-based cathode shows superior performance than fresh MnO 2 with regards to capacity, rate, and life. Under optimized N/P ratio, the regenerated Zn and MnO 2 was paired to make rechargeable Zn-MnO 2 batteries delivering excellent performance, comparable or even superior to state-of-the-art Zn-MnO 2 batteries. Reference [1] Li, M.; Lu, J.; Chen, Z.; Amine, K. Advanced Materials 2018, 30 , 1800561. [2] Rarotra, S.; Sahu, S.; Kumar, P.; Kim, K.-H.; Tsang, Y. F.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, P.; Srinivasan, M.; Veksha, A.; Lisak, G. ChemistrySelect 2020, 5 , 6182. [3] Fan, M.; Chang, X.; Guo, Y.-J.; Chen, W.-P.; Yin, Y.-X.; Yang, X.; Meng, Q.; Wan, L.-J.; Guo, Y.-G., Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14 (3), 1461-1468. [4] Xu, P.; Dai, Q.; Gao, H.; Liu, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, M.; Chen, Y.; An, K.; Meng, Y. S.; Liu, P.; Li, Y.; Spangenberger, J. S.; Gaines, L.; Lu, J.; Chen, Z., Joule 2020, 4 (12), 2609-2626. [5] Shi, Y.; Chen, G.; Liu, F.; Yue, X.; Chen, Z., ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3 (7), 1683-1692. [6] Meng, X.; Cao, H.; Hao, J.; Ning, P.; Xu, G.; Sun, Z., ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6 (5), 5797-5805. [7] Wu, J.; Lin, J.; Fan, E.; Chen, R.; Wu, F.; Li, L., ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2021, 4 (3), 2607-2615. [8] Fan, X.; Tan, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Huang, Y.; Pan, Q.; Zheng, F.; Wang, H.; Li, Q. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 410 , 124610. [9] Xu, B.; Dong, P.; Duan, J.; Wang, D.; Huang, X.; Zhang, Y., Ceram. Int. 2019, 45 (9), 11792-11801. [10] Gaines, L.; Dai, Q.; Vaughey, J. T.; Gillard, S. Recycling 2021, 6 (2). [11] Ferella, F.; De Michelis, I.; Vegliò, F. Journal of Power Sources 2008, 183 , 805. [12] Farzana, R.; Hassan, K.; Sahajwalla, V. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 , 8982. [13] Gallegos, M. V.; Falco, L. R.; Peluso, M. A.; Sambeth, J. E.; Thomas, H. J. Waste Management 2013, 33 , 1483. [14] Hu, X.; Robles, A.; Vikström, T.; Väänänen, P.; Zackrisson, M.; Ye, G., Journal of Hazardous Materials 2021, 411 , 124928.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".