Latest Advances in Hydrometallurgical Recycling Routes for Primary Alkaline Batteries: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review presents the advances regarding the recovery and purification of zinc (Zn) and manganese (Mn) from alkaline batteries via hydrometallurgical processes. The characteristics of alkaline batteries are defined, and a comparison among leaching processes of spent batteries is presented, including the reactions that take place during the leaching process and the most influential operating parameters. Hydrometallurgical processes for recycling batteries arise as an advantageous alternative for spent batteries management. Data reported from the literature shows that alkaline and complexation‐assisted leaching are more focused on the selective extraction of Zn. To attain a high Mn dissolution, an acid‐reductive leaching is necessary, but this technique is not selective and simultaneously dissolves both Mn and Zn. To finish, metal separation and purification processes to recover high‐quality metals from the leachates are discussed. Precipitation, solvent extraction, ion exchange resins, and electrodeposition are the main operations presented in this work. It has been proven that more than one separation or purification techniques are required to obtain the separation of these metals with high purity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".