Electrochemical leaching of critical materials from lithium-ion batteries: A comparative life cycle assessment
Name:
ECL LCA Paper Final Revised.pdf
Embargo:
2025-03-21
Size:
867.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Author
Adhikari, BirendraChowdhury, Nighat A.
Diaz, Luis A.
Jin, Hongyue
Saha, Apurba K.
Shi, Meng
Klaehn, John R.
Lister, Tedd E.
Affiliation
Department of Systems and Industrial and Engineering, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2023-03-21Keywords
Economics and EconometricsWaste Management and Disposal
Circular economy
Environmental impact
Peroxide-based leaching
SO2 leaching
Value recovery
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Elsevier BVCitation
Adhikari, B., Chowdhury, N. A., Diaz, L. A., Jin, H., Saha, A. K., Shi, M., ... & Lister, T. E. (2023). Electrochemical leaching of critical materials from lithium-ion batteries: A comparative life cycle assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 193, 106973.Rights
© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) requires critical materials such as cobalt (Co) and lithium (Li) that are essential for clean-energy products including electric vehicles. Because of their rapidly increasing demand and limited supply, the recycle and reuse of these materials from end-of-life LIB have garnered a lot of interest. Electrochemical leaching has emerged as a sustainable method to extract critical materials out of LIB, so life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the environmental impacts with traditional peroxide-based leaching and another emerging technology – SO2-based leaching. The results showed that electrochemical leaching reduces the global warming potential (GWP) by 80%−87% compared to peroxide-based leaching due to a lower acid consumption, avoidance of hydrogen peroxide, and regeneration of reducing agent iron (II) sulfate and compares well with SO2-based leaching in most impact categories. The analysis suggested renewable energy can further reduce the environment footprint of electrochemical leaching.Note
24 month embargo; first published 21 March 2023ISSN
0921-3449Version
Final accepted manuscriptae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106973