MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415167925 · doi:10.3390/min15101072

The Recycling of Plastics and Current Collector Foils from End-of-Life NMC-LCO Type Electric Vehicle Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Selective Froth Flotation

2025· article· en· W4415167925 on OpenAlexaff
Fulya Mennik, Nazlım İlkyaz Dinç, Beril Tanç, Zoran Štirbanović, Ronghao Li, Fırat Burat

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersIstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
KeywordsCasingCathodeCopperCurrent (fluid)Froth flotationAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent increase in end-of-life (EoL) lithium-ion batteries (LiBs) has become a significant concern worldwide. Most studies in the literature have primarily focused on recovering cathode active metals from black mass (BM), whereas the separation of anode–cathode foils, plastics, and casing metals which are the essential components of LiBs has received relatively little attention. To reduce costs and maximize the recovery of valuable metals in subsequent hydrometallurgical or pyrometallurgical processes, EoL LiBs require appropriate pre-treatment. This study aims to scrape off the BM adhering to the electrode foils resulting from gradual crushing and subsequently separate the plastics and copper (Cu) from other metals through a two-step selective flotation process. The results demonstrated that plastics, due to their natural hydrophobicity, could be effectively removed using a frother, achieving more than 95% recovery with less than 5% metallic contamination. Following plastic flotation, Cu particles were floated in the presence of 3418A, yielding a Cu concentrate containing 65.13% Cu with a recovery rate of 96.4%. Additionally, the aluminum (Al) content in the non-floating material, remaining in the cell, increased to approximately 77%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207