sci/test.py

import requests

text = '''Available online at www.sciencedirect.com\n\n## ScienceDirect\n\n[Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802e830](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2023.09.001)\n\n[www.keaipublishing.com/gee](http://www.keaipublishing.com/gee)\n\n#### Review article\n# Development of sustainable and efficient recycling technology for spent Li-ion batteries: Traditional and transformation go hand in hand\n\n### Zejian Liu [a][,][b][,][c], Gongqi Liu [a][,][c], Leilei Cheng [a][,][b][,][c], Jing Gu [a][,][c], Haoran Yuan [a][,][b][,][c][,]*, Yong Chen [a][,][b][,][c], Yufeng Wu [d]\n\na Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Guangzhou, 510640, China\nb School of Engineering Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China\nc Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New and Renewable Energy Research and Development, Guangzhou, 510640, China\nd Faculty of Materials and Manufacturing, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China\n\nReceived 16 May 2023; revised 10 September 2023; accepted 24 September 2023\nAvailable online 27 September 2023\n\nAbstract\n\nClean and efficient recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) has become an urgent need to promote sustainable and rapid development\nof human society. Therefore, we provide a critical and comprehensive overview of the various technologies for recycling spent LIBs, starting\nwith lithium-ion power batteries. Recent research on raw material collection, metallurgical recovery, separation and purification is highlighted,\nparticularly in terms of all aspects of economic efficiency, energy consumption, technology transformation and policy management. Mechanisms\nand pathways for transformative full-component recovery of spent LIBs are explored, revealing a clean and efficient closed-loop recovery\nmechanism. Optimization methods are proposed for future recycling technologies, with a focus on how future research directions can be\nindustrialized. Ultimately, based on life-cycle assessment, the challenges of future recycling are revealed from the LIBs supply chain and\nstability of the supply chain of the new energy battery industry to provide an outlook on clean and efficient short process recycling technologies.\nThis work is designed to support the sustainable development of the new energy power industry, to help meet the needs of global decarbonization\nstrategies and to respond to the major needs of industrialized recycling.\n© 2024 Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communi[cations Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)\n\nKeywords: Spent LIBs; Transformative recycling; LCA analysis; Policy guidance; High value utilization\n\n1. Introduction\n\nGreen energy and environmental friendliness have become\nthe global goal of actively seeking sustainable and rapid\ndevelopment. Developing a circular economy and realizing\ngreen transformation facilitate blood circulation of the world\neconomy and energy [1]. The global consumption of fossil\nfuels in 2021 reached 595.15 EJ, accounting for 82% of the\ntotal primary energy in 2020. Although statistics show that\n\n - Corresponding author. Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese\nAcademy of Sciences (CAS), Guangzhou, 510640, China.\n[E-mail address: yuanhaoran81@163.com (H. Yuan).](mailto:yuanhaoran81@163.com)\n\nfossil fuels still occupy the leading position in the global energy consumption, it is encouraging that the growth rate of\nfossil fuel consumption is extremely low every year [2]. According to the World Energy Outlook of the International\nEnergy Agency (IEA), it is estimated that the total energy\ndemand under the State Policies Scenario (STEPS) will increase to 743.9 EJ in 2050, of which renewable energy will\nonly account for 25.8% (Fig. 1a) [3]. However, as a pillar of\nthe global energy demand, the consumption of fossil fuels\ninevitably releases a large amount of greenhouse gases. In\n2021, the global energy-related total CO2 emissions rebounded\nsignificantly to 36.3 Gt. The use of fossil fuels has led to a\nsignificant increase in carbon emissions, which has aggravated\n\n[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2023.09.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2023.09.001)\n2468 0257/© 2024 Institute of Process Engineering Chinese Academy of Sciences Publishing services by Elsevier B V on behalf of KeAi Communications Co\n\n@1@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 803\n\nFig. 1. (a) Main global energy demand from 2021 to 2050 under the STEPS. Data derived from Ref. [3]. (b) Power generation of the major energy sources in the\nworld from 2010 to 2050 under STEPS. Data derived from Ref. [3]. (c) Global sales of BEVs and PHEVs from 2018 to 2021 Data derived from Ref. [5]. (d) Global\nLIBs metal demand in 2021 and 2030 under the APS. Data derived from Ref. [3].\n\nthe greenhouse effect [4]. To solve the environmental, energy\nand security problems due to fossil energy combustion, many\nnew energy sources, such as solar photovoltaic, wind, water,\nbiomass, and geothermal energy, have been created and converted into flexible electric energy to reduce the carbon\nemissions associated with fossil energy and to improve energy\nsustainability (Fig. 1b) [3]. However, since the conversion of\nnew energy from the natural environment into direct energy\nhighly depends on environmental conditions, new energy exhibits obvious intermittent characteristics when supplied to\nhumans. In response, the government and enterprises are the\nbest options for employing carbon-neutral electric transport\nfacilities on a large scale in transportation electrification.\nTherefore, researchers have made great efforts to develop\nadvanced electric energy storage facilities and improve the\nservice lifespan of electric vehicles (EVs).\nTo maintain a sustainable harmony between energy and the\nenvironment, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly\nlithium-ion batteries (LIBs) stand out among power sources.\nMany countries hope that this advanced technology can provide a strong impetus for their development within the context\nof carbon neutrality, reduce the use of local fossil fuels, and\nprovide corresponding incentive policies To date the market\n\nshares of LIBs in certain industries, such as electric vehicles\n(EVs), portable devices, and defense, are significantly\nincreasing annually. A total of 6.6 million battery electric\nvehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)\nwere sold worldwide in 2021, with the most significant growth\nin BEVs reaching approximately 70% (Fig. 1c) [5]. In\nparticular, the 3.3 million EVs on the road in China in 2021\nexceeded the global sales of EVs in 2020. This increase is\nclosely linked to various actions in China, including rapidly\nbuilding charging infrastructure and creating economic subsidies. Europe has exhibited a notable growth trend since\n2020, with EVs accounting for 65% of the total vehicles on the\nroad. The U.S. saw a 60% increase in sales during the first\nquarter of 2022 relative to the first quarter of 2021. Within the\ncontext of the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) EV30@30,\nthe EV inventory is expected to exceed 85 million units in\n2025 and 270 million units in 2030. The demand for batteries\nwill reach 3.5 TWh, and the demand for cathode materials will\nreach 20 Mt. Such a significant increase in EV sales will lead\nto a tight supply chain of minerals for manufacturing batteries\n(Fig. 1d) [5].\nThus, the strategy for carbon reduction in electricity faces\nthe challenges of limited mineral resources and high prices\n\n@2@\n804 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nincreasing the national demand for more efficient EVs and\ncontinuously driving the battery industry toward LIBs sustainability. According to the United States Geological Survey\n(USGS), 8900 kt of lithium resources exist in the world; in\nrecent years, mining has exceeded 10 kt to meet the high\ndemand in the LIBs market [6,7]. The lifespan of both EVs\nand portable devices is approximately 5 years, and the bull\nmarket of LIBs will likely generate many spent LIBs and\nwidespread environmental pollution, hence the growing\nconcern for clean and efficient recycling systems. According\nto global spent LIBs recovery market forecast, from 2021 to\n2030, the spent LIBs recovery market will grow from US $4.6\nbillion to US $22.8 billion [8]. According to GII statistics, the\ntheoretical decommissioning volume of LIBs in China reached\n512,000 tons in 2021, with 49.5% recycled and 8% laddered,\nand the remaining unknown amount of LIBs were recycled by\nsmall workshops or abandoned as garbage [9]. Moreover, there\nare fire safety threats stemming from stacked spent batteries\nand noncompliant recycling methods, personal health threats\nand groundwater contamination resulting from toxic electrolyte leakage. Therefore, the proper disposal of spent LIBs and\nefficient recycling of electrode materials are crucial to for the\nsustainable development of a harmonious coexistence between\nhumans and the environment in within the context of carbon\nneutrality policies.\nLithium and cobalt, which are expensive metals, exhibit the\ncharacteristics of low relative abundance and high demand in\nthe field of LIBs. Therefore, studies on spent LIBs electrode\nmaterials have focused on methods for developing an efficient,\ninexpensive and pollution-free recovery system. However, the\nvariety of LIBs is rapidly changing, and the corresponding\nrecycling processes are facing unprecedented challenges. Over\nthe past five years, research into the recycling of used batteries\nhas rapidly progressed. There has been an increase in research\nrelated to the recycling of spent batteries in laboratories and\nindustry (Fig. 2). However, a sustainable recycling strategy is\n\ngreatly limited once economic, political, environmental and\nsafety factors are taken out of the equation.\nTherefore, when considering the high value and urgency\nof recycling spent LIBs, it is imperative to enable more\ninterdisciplinary and innovative technologies to fully understand the existing key recycling equipment for transforming the future direction of recycling technologies and\nfor achieving the sustainable development goal of disruptive\nand clean recovery of all components. It is vital to promote\nthe rapid development of society, economy, science and\ntechnology. First, based on the recycling of spent LIBs\nelectrode materials, the importance of spent battery recycling\nis explained in depth from several key perspectives,\nincluding development, application, safety, environment,\nprocess and policy. Recent advances in different recovered\ncathode materials are highlighted, including traditional hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy, in particular transformative organic leaching and bioleaching, thereby\nsummarizing the challenges and latest developments in\nvarious recovery systems and proposing sustainable development strategies for the corresponding recovery technologies. Finally, the above aspects are systematically analyzed\nusing life-cycle assessment (LCA) to further propose future\ndirections for the spent LIBs recycling system based on the\nfour roles of the government, suppliers, consumers and recyclers and to holistically provide an outlook on future\nrecycling methods.\n\n2. Spent LIBs failure mechanism\n\n2.1. LIBs progress\n\nCommercial LIBs first appeared in the 1970s. The anode\nand cathode are defined in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.\n\nLi/Li[þ] e[<EFBFBD>] anode 1\nþ ð Þ ð Þ\n\nFig 2 Development history of spent LIBs industrial recovery\n\n@3@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 805\n\nTable 1\nComprehensive comparison of commercial LIBs.\n\nTypes of Li-ion LCO LMO NCM LFP NCA LTO\nbatteries\n\nCathode LiCoO2 LiMn2O4 LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 LiFePO4 LiNixCoyAlzO2 LiNiMnCoO2/\n\nAnode Graphite Graphite Graphite Graphite Graphite Li2TiO3\n\nStructure\n\nCycle life 500e1000 300e700 1000e2000 2000 500 3000e7000\nMarket share Outdated. Portable Small. EVs. Growing. Evs and Growing. EVs, energy Steady. Evs Limted. PHEV,\nelectronic devices portable electronic storage and power BRT\ndevices. tools\n\nActual specific 130e140 90e120 150e200 130e165 170e200 150e160\ncapacity (mAh g[<EFBFBD>][1])\n\nDischarge (C-rate) Discharge current\nabove 1 C shortens\nbattery life\n\n1 C, 10 C and 30 1 C and 2 C 1 C and 25 C 1 C 10 C\nC\n\nSafety Low Medium Medium High Medium High\nEnergy density High Low Higher Medium Higher Low\nReferences [57] [58] [59] [58] [60] [15]\n\nLi[þ]þ e[<EFBFBD>] þ MnO2/LiMnO2 ðcathodeÞ ð2Þ\n\nAfter the success of primary LIBs, there has been an increase\ninsecondarychargingLIBs.Fromthe firstrelease ofrechargeable\ntitanium disulfide (TiS) batteries [10] to the commercialization of\n\nLiCoO2 (LCO) [11], the energy density, lifetime, and safety of\nLIBs have been rapidly improved. The discharge reaction processes of the anodes and cathodes of rechargeable batteries can be\nexpressed as Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively.\n\nLiCx ↔ Cx þ Li[þ] þ e[<EFBFBD>] ðanodeÞ ð3Þ\n\nFig. 3. (a) Relationship between the energy density of NIBs and the average voltage and energy density. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [17]. Copyright\n(2014) American Chemical Society. (b) Comparison of the reversible capacity and average voltage values of Li, Na and K half cells. Reprinted with permission\nfrom Ref. [20]. Copyright (2017) Royal Society of Chemistry. (c) Schematic of the charging and discharging mechanisms of the Al/graphite battery. (d) Relationship between MIB capacity and voltage. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [25]. Copyright (2016) Wiley. (e) New Al-based battery. (c) and (e) are reprinted\nwith permission from Ref [26] Copyright (2015) Springer Nature (f) Comparison of LIBs NIBs and KIBs\n\n@4@\n806 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nLiCoO2 ↔ Li1<EFBFBD>xCoO2 þ xLi[þ] þ xe[<EFBFBD>] ðcathodeÞ ð4Þ\n\nRechargeable batteries have become key means supporting\ninformation technology, strategic deployment, decarbonized\nelectricity, and energy storage. Common commercial LIBs are\ncompared Table 1, from various aspects for battery types\ncomprising of various material systems that have emerged. In\ncontrast, there are no perfect LIBs yet. LCO became popular\nin portable electronic devices, followed by Tesla's first generation of electric sports cars; however, EVs placed a greater\nemphasis on the battery cycle time and energy density, while\nEV suppliers later subsequently replaced the battery type with\nLiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2(NCM) or LiNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA) [12,13].\nThese materials have the advantages of three types of metal\nmaterials, including the excellent cycle performance of LCO,\nthe high specific capacity of LiNiO2 and the notable stability\nof LiMn2O4(LMO) [14]. LCO is expensive, which greatly\nlimits its large-scale commercialization. However, compared\nto LCO, LiFePO4 (LFP) and LMO dominate the main EV\nmarket due to their lower prices. LMO batteries were the\npreferred power batteries for early EVs, with certain advantages in terms of rate capability and manufacturing costs.\nHowever, the high-temperature and cycling capacity disadvantages limited their long-term development. LFP is widely\nsought after in today's EV and energy storage system markets\ndue to its long cycle life, low cost, and high safety performance [15,16]. Na[þ] batteries (NIBs) (Fig. 3a) [17,18], K\nbatteries (KIBs) (Fig. 3b) [19,20], Mg[2][þ] batteries (MIBs)\n(Fig. 3d) [21–25], and Al-based batteries (AIBs) (Fig. 3c and\ne) [26,27] show the possibility of replacing LIBs in the\ncommercial development of batteries because of their\noutstanding advantages. For example, Contemporary Amperex\nTechnology (CTAL) launched a new generation of ultrahigh\n\nenergy density NIBs in 2021 [28]. However, due to the lack of\nlithium's ultra-high specific capacity (3860 mAh g[<EFBFBD>][1]), low\nredox reaction potential ( 3.04 eV vs. standard hydrogen\n<EFBFBD>\nelectrodes), and other advantages that make LIBs stand out in\nthe battery industry (Fig. 3f). Therefore, it has been established that metallic lithium is an essential component of\nrechargeable batteries [29]. Recently, LiF nanocrystalenriched solid-state electrolyte membranes (SEIs) have been\nutilized in anode-free lithium metal batteries (LMBs), suppressing Li dendrite growth and facilitating rapid Li[þ] transfer\n\n[30]. The research and development of ultralong-lifespan\nLMBs have opened possibilities for the LIBs market in the\nfuture.\nHowever, the vigorous development of LIBs is accompanied by large amounts of spent LIBs, and the service life and\nfailure are the main reasons for spent. Therefore, ascertaining\nthe failure mechanisms of LIBs is very important for optimizing the recycling of spent LIBs.\n\n2.2. Failure mechanisms\n\nThe main feature of scrapped LIBs is electrochemical\nperformance failure, and the failure state is closely related to\nthe recovery technology in the pretreatment process and the\nmetallurgical technique. For example, Fig. 4 shows a diagram\nof the electrochemical performance failure mechanism, which\nis mainly due to the failure of key materials such as the\ncathode, anode, electrolyte, and diaphragm [31–34]. The reaction triggers can be divided into mechanical, electrochemical and thermal triggers (Fig. 4a). The side reaction of\ngas production increases; under the influence of the internal\npressure, the outer packaging can burst; and overcharging and\n\nFig. 4. Schematic of the electrolyte failure mechanism. (a) Out-of-control heat causes the electrolyte to dry. (b) Electrolyte consumption in the Mn[2][þ] catalytic\nreaction (c) Decomposition of electrolyte LiPF\n\n@5@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 807\n\noverdischarging can cause the risk of heat generation (Fig. 4b).\nThe decomposition of lithium salt LiPF6, solvolysis, or the\nconsumption of decomposed solvent molecules embedded in\nthe graphite layer can explain electrolyte failure (Fig. 4c).\nIn general, regarding spent LIBs, the focus should be on\nconfirming the failure state and dividing the failure level to\nrealize efficient cleaning and recycling of available spent\nbattery components. Therefore, it is very important to explore\nthe failure mechanism of LIBs and establish failure models for\nefficient dismantling and recycling of spent LIBs.\n\n3. Traditional to transformative LIBs recycling\ntechnology\n\nBased on a thorough understanding of traditional recycling\ntechnologies, we should comprehensively improve key factors,\nsuch as the environment, economy, safety, and technology,\ntransform traditional recycling technologies, and establish a\nnovel clean and efficient recycling system for all components\nof spent LIBs.\n\n3.1. Environment\n\nThe whole entire recycling process of spent power batteries\nretired from EVs can be divided into three stages, entailing the\nconsumption of multiple types of energy (Fig. 5a) [35],\nnamely, collection and transport (Stage 1), pretreatment and\ndismantling (Stage 2), and recycling and integrated use (Stage\n3). These stages generate a multifaceted coupled adverse\n\nimpact. At Stage 1, the use of rail and truck transport reduces\ngreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 23%–45%. The potential\nthreat of thermal runaway from spent LIBs, the high weights\nof LIBs, and the high GHG emissions resulting from the\nelectrolytic corrosion of railway equipment make long-distance rail transport to recycling facilities unattractive (Fig. 5c)\n\n[36,37]. In addition, Thomas and colleagues skillfully combined LCA and geographical profiles and conducted modeling\nanalysis to comprehensively understand the impact of recycling infrastructure on the environment. The trucking of spent\nLIBs and the use of advanced dismantling infrastructure,\nbased on the identification of optimal locations for recycling\nfacilities, could significantly increase the economic benefits of\nrecycling. At Stage 2, pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy\nhave been evaluated in regard to end-of-life (EoL) battery\nrecycling systems. The results show that the final recovery of\nvaluable materials from both metallurgical methods could\nreduce the environmental damage of LIBs production.\nNotably, Yang et al. [38] systematically analyzed the GHG\nemissions of components of recycled and spent LIBs; they\nfound that recycled aluminum could release higher GHG\nemissions. From detailed data of GHG emissions, pyrometallurgy releases higher GHG emissions than hydrometallurgy\n(Fig. 5b) [38].\nPyrometallurgical recovery methods (pyrometallurgy, vacuum reduction roasting and inert gas reduction roasting) and\nhydrometallurgical recovery methods (inorganic acid leaching\nand organic acid leaching) have been compared using\nOpenLCA software to evaluate the environmental impacts of\n\nFig. 5. (a) Various energy consumption levels of recycled and spent LIBs. (b) Recycling GHG emissions stemming from various structures of spent LIBs. (c)\nCollection and transmission costs of spent LIBs. (b) and (c) are reprinted with permission from Ref. [38]. Copyright (2021) Elsevier. (d) Relationship between the\nrecovery amount of spent LIBs, number of dismantling facilities, recovery capacity and marginal cost when using road transport. (a) and (d) are reprinted with\npermission from Ref [35] Copyright (2015) IOP Publishing Ltd (e) GHG emission contributions of hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy\n\n@6@\n808 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nthe different recovery methods, with the global warming potential (GWP) as the midpoint and quantitative analysis based\non the total GHG emissions [39]. The GWP can be assessed by\ntwo parameters, i.e., the energy reduction rate (xE) and the\nGHG reduction rate (xG), which can be calculated with Eqs.\n(5) and (6), respectively:\n\nxE ¼ [E][v][ <EFBFBD>]En [E][r] ð5Þ\n\nxG ¼ [G][v][ <EFBFBD>]Gn[G][r] ð6Þ\n\nwhere Ev is the raw material production energy consumption,\nEr is the recycling energy consumption, Gn is the raw material\nproduction process of GHG emissions and Gr is the recycling\nprocess of GHG emissions. Quantitative results have indicated\nthat the differences in the GHG emissions resulting from the\nrecovery of 1 functional unit (FU) of LCO between the two\nmethods are not significant, ranging from 80.5–361.5 CO2-eq\nFU[<EFBFBD>][1]. The GHG emissions resulting from the recycling of 1\nFU are significantly lower than those produced by industry\nresulting from the production of an equivalent amount of LCO\nfrom virgin materials. These results demonstrate the significant potential of recovering LIBs in terms of GHG emission\nreduction. A sensitivity analysis was conducted of the extent\nand trend of the impacts of two key factorsdthe metal ion\nrecovery rate and energy mixdon the system energy consumption and GHG emissions. These quantities can be\ncalculated with Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively:\n\ndE ¼ [E][0][ <EFBFBD>]E[0] [E][i] ð7Þ\n\ndG ¼ [G][0]G[ <EFBFBD>][0] [G][i] ð8Þ\n\nwhere E[0] and G[0] denote the initial values of the system energy\nconsumption and GHG emission indicators, respectively, E[i]\n\nand G[i] denote the corresponding system energy consumption\nand GHG emissions, respectively, after key factor variation,\nand dE and dG denote the rates of change of the system energy\nconsumption and GHG emission indicator values, respectively.\nDunn and colleagues found that the energy consumption\nassociated with the production of LCO from new materials is\n147 MJ kg[<EFBFBD>][1] [40]. Furthermore, there were no significant\ndifferences between the various methods at the collection and\ntransport stage. The energy consumption of the different recovery methods is identical at Stages 1 and 2, at 781 and\n474 MJ FU[<EFBFBD>][1], respectively, accounting for 3% (hydrometallurgy) to 8% (pyrometallurgy) of the total energy consumption\n(Fig. 5e). Regarding pyrometallurgy, both the conversion and\nregeneration phases are major contributors to energy consumption. In general, sound recovery of spent LIBs should\ninvolve a combination of the advantages of multiple recovery\n\nmethods. For example, by combining the advantages of multiple metallurgical methods for LIBs recovery and applying\nLCA to a corporate LIBs recovery system, the advantages of\neach recovery method can be weighted and combined to\nestablish an optimal recovery technology [41–44]. Accurec\nRecycling GmbH Co., Ltd., uses vacuum roasting to recover\nand treat spent LIBs [45]. Pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy were combined in pretreatment, and the sintered cobaltbased alloy was recycled [46]. Sony and Sumitomo adopted a\ntechnical partnership approach to the recycling of spent LIBs\n\n[47]. Sony completed the preprocessing dismantling magnetic\nseparation step via calcination at 1000 [<EFBFBD>]C to remove plastic\nand electrolyte materials. The electrode material was hydrometallurgically recycled by Sumitomo into high-purity CoO\nthat meets the standard for the direct preparation of new cells.\nThe combination of these technologies demonstrated\noutstanding advantages in terms of reduced waste liquid and\nwater consumption during hydrometallurgical recovery and\nreduced waste gas and electricity consumption during thermal\nrecovery.\n\n3.2. Economic factors\n\nThe economic viability of recovery technology determines\nthe potential for large-scale LIBs recovery, and recovery\ntechnology constitutes the cornerstone of large-scale\ncommercialization. Relative to long-distance rail transport,\nroad transport allows a more flexible approach for recycling,\nsuch as loading spent batteries at smaller recycling sites when\ntraveling to the recycling site to increase the recycling revenue. However, the issue of high costs over long distances must\nstill be addressed. For example (Fig. 5d), when comparing the\ncosts of heavy truck transportation in different countries, the\ntrend exponentially increases with distance traveled [35].\nThe economic benefits of spent LIBs recovery result from\nthe cascade utilization and recovery of electrode materials.\nGenerally, the evaluation method of discounted cash flow\neconomic benefits is used to analyze the economic feasibility\nthrough the relationship between the availability price and the\nmarket price for each battery structure [48,49]. First, this can\nbe achieved based on the reserves, market price, and recovery\ncost of producing LIBs resources. Then, combined with the\ndiscount rate, the economic feasibility can be evaluated based\non the price relationship between the recovery and treatment\ncosts and benefits. Finally, the discounted cash flow method\ncan be used to analyze the availability in each year. This\nmethod can provide considerable support for achieving the\ndouble carbon target and formulating recycling policies from\nnational economic strategy and social and human environment\nperspectives. The resource availability price can be calculated\nwith Eqs. (9) and (10), where W is the resource stock of each\ntype of spent LIBs, CR is the average recycling treatment cost,\ni is the discount rate (5%), n is the year and P is the resource\navailability price.\n\n@7@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 809\n\nXn\n\n½ðP <EFBFBD> WÞ<EFBFBD> CR<EFBFBD> $ ð1 þ iÞ[<EFBFBD>][t] ¼ 0 ð9Þ\n\nt¼1\n\ncells could exhibit significant EoL needs. Therefore, the\nrecycling of LFP batteries has a very promising value.\nNCM batteries suffer from low thermal stability and\nnotable waste liquid generation, which renders safe mechanical dismantling extremely challenging and reduces the economic nature of recycling. Ma et al. [53] calculated that one\nregenerated NCM battery could save $2510 t[<EFBFBD>][1]. They determined that the cost of recovering 1 t of NCM at full load was\n$2742. However, the role of Mn and Co in the cathode remains\ncontroversial, and numerous issues have limited their market\nadoption on a large scale and reduced the recovery scale [54].\nNCM batteries require high temperatures for pyrometallurgical recovery and complex and lengthy hydrometallurgical recovery processes, and few detailed economic analysis studies\nhave been performed targeting the recovery process. Direct\nleaching with inorganic acids, by exploiting the low price and\nhigh efficiency of leaching, is the main method used by\ncompanies to recover valuable substances from NCM batteries. In terms of recovering Co, extraction can generate a\nrelatively high yield of CoCO3 [55]. From economic, efficiency and green recycling perspectives [56], predicted that\nthe future NCM recycling process system should be as follows: alkaline solution dissolution / calcination pretreatment\n/ H2SO4 leaching / H2O2 reduction / NCM coprecipitation regeneration.\nUnder the LFP scenario, Li reaches a maximum availability\nof 85,200 t at an availability price of $76,428.67. Cu, Al and\nFe are available at prices above the market price, and all\nindicate unavailability. Overall, the resource availability prices\nof Ni/Co/Mn under three scenarios are much lower than the\nmarket prices. The resource availability levels of LIBs under\nthe baseline and LFP scenarios show clear advantages by\nimproving the resource recovery efficiency, which is closely\nrelated to the types of metals contained in LIBs.\nIn summary, the metal content, structure, and cost of the\ndifferent spent LIBs vary. The recycling scale is positively\nrelated to recycling economic benefits. Appropriate recycling\nmethods should be selected according to the capacity of the\nspent LIBs and the scale of recycling enterprises to improve\nthe economic benefits. Pyrometallurgy is often difficult to\napply for collecting high-purity metal materials, and the\nproducts are mostly alloys of Ni, Co, and Mn. To recover a\nsingle metal, one often must combine hydrometallurgy with\n\nCRij ¼ CR$Wi1$Pi1 þ WWi2ij$$PPi2ij þ …Wij$Pij ð10Þ\n\nBased on Commodity Futures Trading Commission metal\nprices, the treatment cost and availability price range for each\ntype of resource in the recovered spent LIBs can be calculated,\nwhere CRij is the resource recovery cost, CR is the average\nrecovery treatment cost and Wij is the resource quality. Based\non research data of recycling waste battery enterprises and\ncombined with the above equations, the cost and availability\nprice range values of eight resources for the recycling and\nprocessing of mainstream LIBs can be calculated, as summarized in Table 2. By assuming that the collected ternary\nlithium batteries, i.e., LFP and LMO batteries, are of the same\nquality and all weigh one ton, they are mechanically pretreated, after which they are processed by pyro- or hydrometallurgical methods to obtain various valuable resources\n\n[50,51]. The recovery profit considers material, security, labor\nand environmental costs. Clearly, ternary lithium batteries gain\napproximately 28% of the market price cost due to the relatively high Co and Li contents. The average cost of LFP\nbatteries reaches a maximum value of $76,408.92, recovering\n14% of the cost. Ref. [52] suggested that the more common\nacetic acid leaching process chosen for LFP batteries is the\nbest option for improving economics. The profit difference\nbetween the LMO and LFP recovery methods of Li is not\nsignificant. However, the cost to recover 1 t of LMO for\nobtaining Mn is $3114.57, which is much higher than the\ndirect purchase price of $2200.40. According to the above\ncalculations, the low or even negative profits due to Mn recovery can be avoided in the recycling process. Additionally,\nnew challenges are encountered in the development of efficient and inexpensive LFP and LMO recovery technologies.\nThe prices and reserves of Li and Co indicate that ternary LIBs\nrich in these metals are of high economic value. However, the\nmanufacturing of LFP batteries does not require Co addition,\nwhich significantly reduces the manufacturing cost. By\ncomparing the costs of plastic (polyethylene (PE)) and Mn,\nLFP batteries exhibit a very high economic potential for\nrecycling. Furthermore, EVs that use LFP batteries as power\n\nTable 2\nResource recovery processing cost and availability price range.\n\nResource Market Ternary lithium LFP LMO Average cost Available price range (3 situations)\n(1 t) price battery\n\nBenchmark Ternary lithium LFP\nbattery\n\nNi $17,083.31 $4869.47 e e $4869.47 $1111.12e$17361.14 $3472.26e$17361.12 $5277.78e$18055.56\nCo $55,069.47 $15,995.92 e e $15,995.92 $14583.37e$56389 $14027.78e$55569.45 $14583.33e$55694.44\nMn $2200.42 $645.53 e $3114.57 $1880.06 $1833.53e$2236 $1833.30e$2222.21 $1840.28e$2222.22\nLi $74,305.54 $21,582.60 $103,500.92 $104,143.22 $76,408.92 $65069.44e$74514 $65152.78e$74305.56 $61111e$76428.67\nCu $8990.97 $2611.64 $12,523.69 $12,601.68 $9245.67 $8722.22e$9000 $8944.44e$8993.06 $8750e$9027.78\nAl $2375.00 $689.96 $3308.19 $3328.36 $2442.17 $2367.78e$2375.69 $2368.06e$2375 $2305.56e$2386.11\nFe $156.25 e $217.56 e $217.56 $161.12e$211.11 $155.69e$211.11 $141.67e$157.72\nPe $972.22 $282.18 $1354.17 $1362.57 $999.64 $694.44e$875 $791.67e$979.17 $277.78e$930.56\n\n@8@\n810 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nother processes. Compared to spent ternary LIBs, LMO and\nLFP batteries contain less expensive metals and exhibit a high\nproduction value within the context of LCA. Therefore, the\ncombination of mechanochemical pretreatment, roasting,\nleaching, coprecipitation, and reloading could achieve the goal\nof efficiently recovering the valuable target materials.\n\n3.3. Traditional to transformative recycling processes\n\nThe goal of recycling spent LIBs is the laddering of EoL\nbatteries or the conversion of valuable components into valuable materials at maximum recovery rate. Similar to the\nrecycling of electrode materials, academia and the business\ncommunity are constantly seeking to maximize ladder utilization rates. Our comprehensive review of the literature on the\ntreatment of spent LIBs today falls into two broad technology\ncategories: ladder utilization and material extraction. At the\nearly stages of research on the recycling of spent LIBs, cells\nare typically inactivated at the pretreatment stage, eliminating\npotential thermal and electrocution risks, e.g., through\ndischarge treatment [61,62] and low-temperature stripping and\ndismantling in an inert environment. Cryogenic inert gas\ntechnology is widely used in companies to eliminate the\nthermal risk of the residual charge occurring in warehouses\nand transportation. However, through a ladder utilization\napproach, when the battery EoL stage is reached after energy\nexhaustion, batteries are physically dismantled or chemically\nroasted. Then, precursor materials are recovered through\ndifferent metallurgical and impurity removal techniques to\nfinally complete the reloading and reuse of spent LIBs,\nforming a closed recycling loop, as shown in Fig. 6.\n\n3.3.1. Ladder utilization and pretreatment\nBefore recycling, spent LIBs are subjected to ladder utilization according to their remaining capacity, degree of damage\nand remaining lifetime, aiming to maximize the recycling of\nreusable individual cells from used battery packs and increase\nthe battery life cycle [43]. Obsolete power packs that have\nreached the end of their useful life have low energy levels and\npower densities, and they cannot properly propel EVs. However, dismantled battery modules can be used in energy storage devices, household appliances and portable electronic\ndevices. Ladder utilization has been vigorously promoted by\nthe business community and the government and has been\nincluded in compulsory measures. Ref. [36] found that 1000\ntons of batteries was utilized in echelons, reducing the battery\nsupply by 2%. Industry has tended to opt for more automated\nmechanical crushing, and the crushed mixed fraction is\nscreened and subjected to flotation and magnetic separation,\nwhich is conducive to obtaining positive and negative materials [63–71]. However, ladder utilization inevitably involves\nthe use of manual disassembly, which increases the cost [72].\nIn laboratory studies, spent LIBs have been manually disassembled in a safe environment; binder removal is difficult\nduring the separation of collector fluid from the electrode\nmaterial. Organic adhesives, such as polyvinylidene fluoride\n(PVDF), are often used, and organic solvents, such as Nmethyl-pyrrolidone (NMP) [73–75], dimethylformamide\n(DMF) [76], and dimethylacetamide (DMAC) [77], are\ncommonly used. However, organic solvents are expensive and\ntoxic, and the cathode material is encapsulated in organic\nmaterial, making dewatering very difficult and preventing its\nwidespread adoption by industry. Heat treatment methods are\n\nFig 6 Schematic diagram of closed loop recycling of spent LIBs\n\n@9@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 811\n\nwidely employed in industrial production; however, the generation of large amounts of exhaust gases and the high energy\nconsumption remain unresolved [78–80]. Moreover, alkaline\nsolutions could explode due to the hydrogen produced in the\nrecovery process, and the large equipment requires a high\ncorrosion resistance. For this reason, strong alkaline leaching\nis limited to the laboratory scale [81]. With the continuous\ninnovation of technology, the use of electromagnetic waves\nwith frequencies ranging from 300 MHz to 300 GHz to\nstimulate intermolecular interactionsdmicrowave-assisted\nenhanced disassemblydhas been widely adopted [82–84].\nIn general, ladder utilization increases the recycling and use\nvalues of spent LIBs and reduces the processing capacity and\npollution due to the recycling process. Additionally, spent\nLIBs are closely structured with various valuable components\nand exhibit a diverse electrolyte composition, and these battery-specific problems add to the recycling challenge.\nResearch on the electrolytes of spent LIBs should focus on\nmaximizing the value of the recovered electrolyte for other\napplications or modifying it into other industrial byproducts,\nrather than producing complex electrolytes and reloading\nbatteries. Manual dismantling maximizes the recovery rate,\nbut this method is not widely adopted by the industry due to\nthe high cost and inefficiency.\n\n3.3.2. Transformative technology for extracting valuable\nmaterials\n\n3.3.2.1. Cathode. High-temperature pyrometallurgy: Hightemperature pyrometallurgical recovery technology aims to\npretreat spent LIBs with high-temperature roasting for molten\nmetal recovery or hydrometallurgical separation recovery from\nthe treatment product. To date, thermal treatment is divided into\nthree main categories based on the recovery technology: hightemperature cracking, high-temperature reduction roasting\nand low-temperature molten salt roasting. Umicore Co., Ltd.\ndirectly places scrap batteries in their original form in a smelting\nfurnace and collects Co–Ni–Cu (Mn) alloy metal products [85].\nHowever, the boiling point of Li is relatively low, and the high\ntemperaturesand lengthy recovery processes increase the amount\nlost. Bak et al. [86] investigated the migration preferences of\ncations in high-temperature roasted ternary electrode materials at\nthe spinel structure position, where Co ions preferentially\nmigrated to the tetrahedral 8a position of the spinel structure at\ntimes. He analyzed the effect of different high-temperature environments on crystal structure transformation and the fugacity\nof valuable metals, laying the foundation for pyrometallurgical\nrecovery of spent ternary LIBs. Pyrolysis is a recovery technology that involves the use of high temperatures to convert previously unstable electrode materials into stable states. Ref. [87]\nreduced LiNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 to metal Co and Ni at high temperatures ranging from 500 to 700 [<EFBFBD>]C. Zhang et al. [88] employed\nhigh-temperature calcination of spent LCO batteries at 550 [<EFBFBD>]C to\nultimately recover 30% Li and 50% Co and obtained stable LCO\nprecursor materials Li2CO3 and Co3O4. This indicates that\nwhen using high-temperature recovery of spent LIBs, it is\nnecessary to select an appropriate temperature range based on the\n\nthermodynamic stability zone of the metal. However, high temperatures could generate significant energy consumption. To\nreduce the reaction energy consumption, researchers have often\nadded inexpensive reducing agents to reduce the high-temperature reduction energy consumption and increase the recovery\nefficiency. Hu et al. [89,90] mixed cathode LCO material with\nanode graphite material and used halide doping (CaF2 and CaCl2)\nas a variable condition to reduce and calcine the positive electrode material. Co ions were reduced to monomers and recovered\nby magnetic separation. Li was recovered in gaseous and halide\nforms (LiF and LiCl, respectively). Vacuum roasting of anode\ngraphite and cathode LMO materials at 800 [<EFBFBD>]C yielded 91.3%\nLCO, confirming the notable role of spent graphite in pyrometallurgical recovery of valuable cathode metals [91]. To further\nreduce energy consumption and improve the recovery rate, researchers have continuously adjusted the doping ratio and temperature interval of the electrode material and reducing agent for\nroasting purposes and have recovered valuable metals by water\nleaching [91–93], evaporation crystallization [94], and acid solution leaching [95]. The reduction roasting techniques all yielded metal recovery rates exceeding 90%. From a crystal structure\nperspective, the high affinity of graphite for oxygen is more likely\nto destabilize the oxygen octahedra of LCO. Moreover, regarding\nthe coupled reaction of graphite combustion and metal compound pyrolysis, the reaction pathway is expressed in Eqs. (12)–\n(14), and the mechanism of lamellar structure decomposition\ncollapse is shown in Fig. 7a and b.\n\n4LiCoO2 þ C / 2Li2O þ CO2 þ 4CoO ð11Þ\n\n4LiCoO2 þ 2C / 2Li2O þ 2CO þ 4CoO ð12Þ\n\nCO þ CoO þ Li2O / Co þ Li2CO3 ð13Þ\n\nC þ 2CoO þ Li2O / 2Co þ Li2CO3 ð14Þ\n\nThe recycling idea of recovering cathode waste through\nreduction with anode graphite waste is more widely adopted in\nreduction roasting technology versus purchasing additional\nreducing agents. In addition, the dismantling of spent LIBs yields\nbinders, aluminum foil, electrolyzed organic material, diaphragms, and high-sulfur flue gas from boiler houses, coal and\nslag. All of these solid wastes can be used to reduce cathode\nmaterials to metal oxides, monomers, alloys, acid salts and other\nforms. Low-cost waste biomass as a reducing agent is a future\ndirection for the recycling of spent LIBs. However, attention\nshould be given to the impact of their complex organic structures\non ecological stability. Moreover, the shortcomings of pyrometallurgy, such as high energy consumption, difficult collection of\nmetallic materials and polluting gases, and dependence of\nbiomass reduction on high temperatures, limit its application.\nConsequently, to further improve the technology, these shortcomings can be overcome by coupling multiple recycling techniques. At present, combined pyrometallurgical and\nhydrometallurgical recovery techniques have been developed and\nsupplemented with external conditions, such as microwaves, ultrasound and heating, to compensate for the shortcomings of\nthese two traditional recovery techniques (Table 3).\n\n@10@\n812 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nFig. 7. Collapse model of recycling metals from LiCoO2 batteries by roasting: (a) Crystal structure of LiCoO2 and basic cells of LiCoO2. Reprinted with permission\nfrom Ref. [96]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier. (b) Pyrolysis of LiCoO2 and reduction of LiCoO2 by C. (c) Plausible pathways for the conversion of cathode powder from\nspent LiCoO2 batteries. (b) and (c) are reprinted with permission from Ref. [97]. Copyright (2019) Royal Society of Chemistry.\n\nThe principle of low-temperature molten salt roasting technology is to use the transformation reaction of the cathode material in the molten salt environment, where insoluble\ncompounds are reduced in valence and converted into soluble\nsalts and oxides. SO3 is usually adopted to enhance solubility,\nwhile reducing sulfates (Na2S2O7, NaHSO4, K2S2O7, and\nKHSO4) are employed for roasting with the cathode material to\nreduce the metal valence. The product is subjected to hydrometallurgy and roasting to prepare precursor and electrode materials [98,99]. Nevertheless, the complex process and the\nintroduction of impurity metal ions make it difficult to separate\nand purify the cathode metal material [98,100]. To further\naddress the interference of waste gas, Na and K, researchers have\napplied leaching reagents in separation and purification. Lin\net al. [101] conducted concentrated sulfuric acid roasting after\nLCO pretreatment to selectively separate LiSO4 and Co3O4,\nyielding a very high Li leaching rate and trace amounts of Co.\nThe entire roasting process is environmentally friendly and\nproduces no toxic or harmful emissions. Furthermore, no acidic\nor alkaline wastewater is produced in the leaching process. Fan\net al. [102] added NH4Cl in the roasting process to obtain watersoluble chloride salts of Li and Co by water immersion.\nTransformative leaching: Leaching is a common technical\ntechnique for dissolving stable-state valent metals and converting them into their ionic forms in a solution medium of a\nnegative metal material for subsequent metal separation and\npurification. Transformative leaching technology has been\ndeveloped for using plants, tea (wood cellulose), orange peel,\nand grape seed materials as leaching agents, these kitchen\n\nwaste products after enzymatic fermentation of glucose and\nethanol as reducing agents. The mechanisms of several\ntransformative leaching techniques are shown in Fig. 8.\nTraditional reagents for leaching spent LIBs electrode materials include acids, bases and organic solvents. On this basis, the\nincorporation of auxiliary methods, such as acoustic, mechanical\nforce and chemical methods, has yielded brilliant results in\nimproving recovery rates and reducing energy consumption\nlevels. However, the discharge ofhighlyconcentratedsodiumsalt\neffluent, the lengthy process and the large number ofimpurities in\nthe enrichment solution are the largest challenges for leaching.\nInorganic acids: In conventional hydrometallurgical leaching techniques, the commonly used inorganic strong acid\nleaching agents H2SO4 [118–120], HCl [55,121,122] and HNO3\n\n[55,123] are well established and widely used for dissolving\nvarious electrode materials. Similar to pyrometallurgical recovery, these three types of acid leach recovery systems introduce\ninorganic reducing agents, such as Na2S2O3 [124], Na2SO3 [125]\nor hydrazine sulfate [126], biomass reducing agents, such as\ngrape seeds, tea pomace, glucose, ascorbic acid and straw,\nultrasonication, microwave-assisted conditions, and conventional H2O2 reducing agents to increase leaching rates. Notably,\nsodium bisulfite [127] achieves better leaching in the H2SO4\nsystem, which may be related to the generation of SO2 gas, as\nexpressed in Eq. (15); gas escape enhances the reactivity in the\nlocal environment, increasing the perturbation between the positive material and reducing agent and increasing the heat released\nduring the reaction. The lifting mechanism is similar to that of\nultrasonic treatment.\n\n@11@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 813\n\nTable 3\nSummary of pyro-hydrometallurgical studies with reduction roasting.\n\nMaterial Reductant Leaching Composition (%) Optimized Recovery\nagent parameters efficiency\n(%)\n\nRef.\n\nLCO H2SO4 Water, Co ¼ 55.31, 600 [<EFBFBD>]C, 2 h, Li ¼ 92, [103]\nH2SO4 Li ¼ 6.7, LCO/H2SO4 Co ¼ 100\nNi ¼ 0.1, molar ratio 2:1\nMn ¼ 0.15\n\nH2SO4 Water Co ¼ 56.96, 800 [<EFBFBD>]C, 1 h, Li > 99, [97]\nLi ¼ 6.75, LCO/H2SO4 Co > 98\nNi ¼ 0.03, molar ratio 2:1\nMn ¼ 0.01\n\nGraphite H2SO4 Co ¼ 22.46, 600 [<EFBFBD>]C, Li, Co, [104]\nLi ¼ 5.93, 3 h, 14.3 wt.% Ni > 99,\nNi ¼ 23.01, graphite Mn > 97\nMn ¼ 17.51\n\nAl H2SO4 Co ¼ 56.36, 600 [<EFBFBD>]C, 1 h Li > 93, [105]\nLi ¼ 3.66 Co > 80\n\nLignite H2SO4 Co ¼ 14.9, 55 [<EFBFBD>]C, 2.5 h Ni, [106]\nLi ¼ 5.75, Mn > 98%,\nNi ¼ 21.9, Li > 96%\nMn ¼ 17\n\nNCM H2SO4 Water, Co ¼ 7.87, 550 [<EFBFBD>]C, 3 h, Li ¼ 90, [107]\nH2SO4 Li ¼ 4.38, H2SO4/Li Co ¼ 97,\nNi ¼ 18.7, molar ratio 0.95 Ni ¼ 98,\nMn ¼ 22.26 Mn ¼ 90\n\nGraphite Acid Co ¼ 22.02, 900 [<EFBFBD>]C, 0.5 h, Co, Ni, [108]\nLi ¼ 8.4, 500 W microwave Mn > 96,\nNi ¼ 21.85, power Li > 99\nMn ¼ 22.26\n\nGraphite Water, Co ¼ 22.02, 0.25 h, 500 W Li > 99, [109]\nfumaric Li ¼ 8.4, microwave power, Co, Ni,\nacid Ni ¼ 21.85, 0.75 mol L[<EFBFBD>][1] acid Mn > 97\n\nMn ¼ 22.26\n\nGraphite Water, Co ¼ 17.2, 900 [<EFBFBD>]C, 1 h, Li ¼ 82.2, [110]\nNH3$H2O, Li ¼ 7.1, 5% anode Co ¼ 99.1,\n(NH4)2SO3 Ni ¼ 21.1, Ni ¼ 97.7,\n\nMn ¼ 18.4 Mn ¼ 1.6\n\nGraphite H3PO4 Co ¼ 21.58, 750 [<EFBFBD>]C, 3 h Li ¼ 99.1, [111]\nLi ¼ 6.17, Co ¼ 97,\nNi ¼ 21.96, Ni ¼ 98,\nMn ¼ 16.63 Mn ¼ 96.3\n\nAl H2SO4, Co ¼ 16.53, 520 [<EFBFBD>]C, 1 h Li ¼ 99.78, [112]\nNaOH, Li ¼ 6.47, Co ¼ 99.29,\nNa3PO4 Ni ¼ 16.94, Ni ¼ 98.62,\n\nMn ¼ 13.14 Mn ¼ 99.91\n\nCarbon Water, H2SO4, Co ¼ 20.46, 550 [<EFBFBD>]C, 0.5 h Li ¼ 93.68, [113]\nblack Li ¼ 7.16, Co ¼ 99.87,\nNi ¼ 20.02, Ni ¼ 99.56,\nMn ¼ 19.35 Mn ¼ 99.9\n\nCoke Water, H2SO4, Co ¼ 20.46, 650 [<EFBFBD>]C, 0.5 h, Li ¼ 93.68, [93]\nLi ¼ 7.16, 10% coke Co ¼ 99.87,\nNi ¼ 20.02, Ni ¼ 99.56,\nMn ¼ 19.35 Mn ¼ 99.9\n\nLiNi0.6 Co0.2Mn N2 H2SO4 Co ¼ 6.06, 350 [<EFBFBD>]C, 1.5 h Li, Co, Ni, [114]\n\n0.2[O]2 Li ¼ 4.84, Mn > 99\nNi ¼ 18.82,\nMn ¼ 5.94\n\nLCO, LiNi0.5Mn Graphite Water Co ¼ 35, 885 [<EFBFBD>]C, 59 min, Li:885 [<EFBFBD>]C ¼ 83, [115]\n\n1.5[O]4 Li ¼ 5, 30 vol% C, 870 microwave ¼ 82\nNi ¼ 8, W microwave\nMn ¼ 18 power, 7.8 min\n\n(continued on next page)\n\n@12@\n814 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nTable 3 (continued )\n\nMaterial Reductant Leaching Composition (%) Optimized Recovery\nagent parameters efficiency\n(%)\n\nRef.\n\nLCO, LMO Graphite Water Co ¼ 40, 30 vol% graphite, Li ¼ 84, Co¼72.3, Mn ¼ 15.3 [116]\nLi ¼ 5, 900 W microwave\nMn ¼ 21 power, 10 min\n\nGraphite Water Co ¼ 39.93, Li ¼ 6.02, Mn ¼ 21.07 800 [<EFBFBD>]C, 0.75 h Li ¼ 96.7, Co ¼ 81.6, Mn ¼ 67.3 [117]\nLCO, NCM Lignite H2SO4 Co ¼ 40, Li ¼ 5, Ni ¼ 6, Mn ¼ 17 650 [<EFBFBD>]C, 3 h, 19.9 vol% C Li ¼ 84.7, Co, Ni, Mn > 99 [106]\n\n2NaHSO3 þ H2SO4 ¼ Na2SO4 þ 2SO2[ þ 2H2O ð15Þ\n\nThe leaching agent dosage, reducing agent quantity, temperature, time and auxiliary leaching parameters can be adjusted to\nobtain the optimal process conditions for acid leach recovery.\nThen, a separation process can be used to separate and extract or\n\nregenerate spent LIBs for preparing precursors, achieving full\nrecovery and utilization of valuable metals. Even though these\ninorganic strong acids are extremely efficient at leaching metals,\nthe standards are high for certain factors, such as the operating\nenvironment and equipment and the treatment of wastewater and\n\nFig 8 Schematic diagram of the hydrometallurgical leaching mechanism\n\n@13@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 815\n\nFig. 9. (a) Mechanism of liquid<EFBFBD>liquid extraction. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [160]. Copyright (2019) Elsevier. (b) Extraction mechanism of Li.\nReprinted with permission from Ref. [161]. Copyright (2020) Elsevier.\n\nacidic fumes. In addition to commonly used inorganic strong\nacids, hydrofluoric acid can be used to leach Li and Co from LCO\ndue to its self-coupling ionization at high concentrations [128].\nThe leaching solution is precipitated using NaOH to adjust the\npH, and it is roasted and concentrated through evaporation to\nremove F ions as CaF2, resulting in a final recovery of 98% Li and\n80% Co. However, the low acidity and nonoxidizing, nonreducing acidic nature of HF at low concentrations reduces the\nleaching rate. In recent studies, the use of chemically stable\nH3PO4 leaching systems has been replaced to solve the problem\nof volatile acidic fumes. Notably, the NCM cathode material was\nroasted at 60 [<EFBFBD>]C for 60 min with a H3PO4 concentration of\n2 mol L[<EFBFBD>][1], a solid-to-liquid ratio (L/S) of 20 mL g[<EFBFBD>][1] and a H2O2\nvolume fraction of 4%. The leaching rates of Li, Ni, Mn and Co\nall exceeded 96%, and in some cases, Li could even be\ncompletely recovered. Moreover, researchers have added metal\nions to the leaching solvent and obtained a recyclable phosphoric\nacid solution after coprecipitation. More importantly, the influence strengths of the leaching factors for the phosphoric acid\nsystem are as follows: reducing agent > phosphoric acid\nconcentration > time z solid–liquid ratio > leaching temperature. Many scholars have compared the leaching effects of\nvarious types of strong acids, and the HCl system is the best\nleaching agent in terms of cost [129–131]. The systems for LCO,\nLFP, and LMO leaching differ in the temperature, nitric acid\nconcentration, and reductant dosage. Therefore, further research\n\nTable 4\nCommon extraction methods of valuable metals.\n\nis needed on the composition of spent LIBs and the application of\nrecovery systems.\nGreen organic acids: The trivalent waste of the inorganic\nacid leaching system damages the environment and is contrary\nto today's green recycling concept of sustainability. To solve\nthis problem, Li's group first proposed the use of organic acids\nto recycle spent LIBs by exploiting their eco-friendliness and\ndegradability; they comprehensively investigated the leaching\nmechanisms and acid dissociation constants (pKa) of organic\nacid functional groups [132]. This system shifts the focus of\nfuture hydrometallurgical recovery research to green organic\nacid leaching to increase the leaching efficiency and reduce\nthe contamination level. By using the chelating function between the functional groups of organic acids and metal elements and the reducing properties of certain specific groups,\nthe main organic acids with chelating functions are citric acid\n\n[132], aspartic acid [133], succinic acid [134] and malic acid\n\n[135]. Reducing functional organic acids can be used with less\nof the reducing agent H2O2; ascorbic acid [136] and lactic acid\n\n[137] are commonly used. Except aspartic acid, each chelated\nfunctional organic acid can leach over 90% of Li and Co for\nspent LCO recovery. Oxalic acid [138] and carrot acid [139],\nwhich provide precipitation functions, can be recovered by a\nmechanism that uses organic groups to leach valuable metals\nto produce precipitates. The leaching properties follow the\norder of succinic acid > citric acid > ascorbic acid > malic\n\nElement Extraction solvent Extractant Stripping agent\n\nLi High magnesium lithium brine 60% TBP-40% 200[#] Kerosene HCl\nNi Ni-containing sulfate solution Carbonate 10 acid þ LIX84-I H2SO4\nSulfate solution of Ni and Co P507 H2SO4\nSulfate solution of Ni and Co Cyanex27 þ 5%TOA2, O/A ¼ 1.3 (pH 6.8e7.1) H2SO4\nAmmoniacal solution LIX64N, LIX84, LIX84I, SME-529, LIX87QN, LIX973N, ACORGA M5640 e\nCo Leaching solution of Li[þ], Co[2][þ] and Mn[2][þ] Cyanex272 þ PC-88A H2SO4\nLeaching solution of Li[þ] and Co[2][þ] PC-88A þ Kerosene H2SO4\nSulfate solution of Ni and Co P507 H2SO4\nSulfate solution of Ni and Co Cyanex272 (pH 6.3e6.5) H2SO4\nMn Leaching solution of Li[þ], Co[2][þ] and Mn[2][þ] Cyanex272 þ PC-88A þ EDTA H2SO4\n\n@14@\n816 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nacid > aspartic acid. Citric acid exhibits excellent leaching\nproperties and is inexpensive and readily available.\nOther functional organic acids: Natural biomass rich in\nacids is extracted from acidic solutions for leaching, such as\nrich complexing agents in citrus juice and apple juice. When\nrecovering NCM, certain counter ions, such as Na[þ], Mg[2][þ],\nand Ca[2][þ], can indirectly improve the leaching efficiency of\norganic acids. The recovery rates of valuable metals can\nexceed 94%. Acid leaching methods for maleic acid [140],\nacetic acid [140], tartaric acid [141], trichloroacetic acid\n\n[142], benzenesulfonic acid [143], formic acid [144], iminodiacetic acid [145], etc., have gradually entered the research\nfield of spent LIBs recycling.\nHowever, Li recovery could be guaranteed to exceed 90%,\nwhile the leaching rates of all other metals are low. From the\nperspective of recycling, organic acids are more environmentally friendly. However, the leaching process has high requirements on the acid concentration and dosage, inhibiting\nthe industrial application of organic acidic wastewater that\ncannot be quickly degraded, while the ecological species\nbalance cannot be maintained, which remain real challenges\nfor large-scale applications.\nSelective extraction and chemical precipitation: After the\ncathodically active material of spent LIBs is acid leached by\ninorganic/organic acids, valuable metals are enriched in the\nleaching solution. Afterward, the separation, recovery, purification, dehybridization and preparation of precursors are\nrealized to finally achieve valuable metal recovery of spent\nLIBs. The leaching solution contains Ni, Co, Mn, Li and other\nvaluable metal ions and Fe, Al, Cu and other impurity metal\nions. To date, the methods for separating various valuable\nmetals are selective extraction, precipitation, ion exchange and\nelectrolytic deposition.\nSelective extraction: Spent LIBs are extracted mainly in\nliquid–liquid form, consisting of organic extractants and\nreactive reagents (Fig. 9a), which can selectively extract specific metal ions from the aqueous phase to the organic phase to\nachieve selective separation. The frequently used selective\nextraction techniques are listed in Table 4.\nThe extraction effect is closely related to the reaction kinetic condition parameters. Ref. [146] used 3% isodecanol as a\nphase modifier in Cyanex272 and kerosene system extraction\nand obtained 99.99% cobalt in vapor extraction relative to\n95% in the extract. More importantly, an extremely acidic\nenvironment does not indicate an extremely high extraction\nrate. In PC-88A and kerosene extraction systems, the separation of Co and Ni cations becomes increasingly effective with\nincreasing pH; however, the separation effectiveness decreases\nwith decreasing pH [147]. In particular, according to the\nrelevant mechanism of metal extraction technology (Fig. 9b),\nnickel and cobalt are located very close to each other in the\nperiodic table, and both are transition elements. Separating\nthese metals is extremely challenging and requires high costs.\nHowever, the expensive extractant and harsh extraction operating environment reduce the profits of recycling spent LIBs.\nTherefore, it is possible to combine multiple extraction systems and separation techniques to obtain inexpensive\n\nextraction materials for reducing the recovery cost and\nimproving the purification and separation rates.\nChemical precipitation: The properties of valuable metal\ncations in the leaching solution, which can yield insoluble\ncompounds in various anionic precipitators, can be utilized to\nseparate, purify and remove impurities from the substances in\nthe leaching solution. The method for separating and recovering valuable metals from the leaching solution of cathode\nmaterials is usually determined based on the differences in the\noccurrence states of metal elements in different pH environments. In the recovery process, Li usually exists in the form of\nLi2CO3 [148], LiF [149], and Li3PO4 [150,151]. Specific elements, such as Ni, Co, and Mn, with similar chemical\nproperties commonly occur in the form of CO23<EFBFBD>, C2O24<EFBFBD>,\nPO34<EFBFBD>, OH<EFBFBD>, and organic chelates [145,150–156]. Fe, Al and\nCu, as impurities, can be removed as Fe(OH)3 [157],\nFe2(C2O4)3 [158], AlF3 [158], Al(OH)3 [158] and Cu(OH)2\n\n[159], and purification is finally achieved. By adjusting the pH,\ntemperature, ratio of the oil phase to the water phase and other\nparameters in the chemical precipitation process, high-efficiency and inexpensive separation and purification can be\nachieved. However, the heterogeneous nucleation phenomenon during metal ion precipitation reduces the product purity.\nClean and efficient combined purification: Scholars have\napplied various precipitation and extraction methods sequentially to increase the product purity. Chen et al. [162] balanced\nthe pH to 6 in the leaching solution of recovered waste NCM.\nAfter adding dimethylglyoxime reagent, approximately 98%\nof Ni could be selectively precipitated, and Co[2][þ] was\nprecipitated as CoC2O4 when the temperature was adjusted to\n55 [<EFBFBD>]C. Therefore, it is very important to combine multiple\nrecovery methods for purification and separation.\nElectrochemical deposition: After an electric field is applied\nto the leaching solution, the valuable metals in the solvent can\nbe deposited on the electrode through redox reactions and then\npurified and recovered. Strauss et al. [163] used the electrochemical deposition method to obtain Ni and Co, adjusted the\npH value of the leaching solution, used Dowex M4195 resin as\nthe extraction agent, and finally extracted 99.0% nickel, 98.5%\ncobalt and Li/Mn-rich products. However, the application of an\nelectric field does not significantly improve the recovery relative to the use of a chemical reducing agent for final metal\nrecovery [164]. Moreover, reuse of the leaching solution and the\nresidual electricity of the spent LIBs prevent the single consumption of chemical reagents and secondary waste liquid\n\n[165].\nLiquid membrane separation: Similar to chemical precipitation, the separation of impurity metals mainly depends on\nthe different dissolution and diffusion capabilities of electrode\nmaterials in liquid membrane media. Hoshino et al. [166]\ndeveloped a new method for lithium recovery by electrodialysis using PP13-TFSI ionic liquid, effectively filtering impurity ions, such as Na, Mg, Ca and K; Li[þ] was selectively\nconcentrated on the cathode side. Yuliusman et al. [167] set\nthe ratio between the emulsion film and electrode waste to 1:2,\nand the temperature was 80 [<EFBFBD>]C. Cyanex 272 and SPAN 80\nextractants were selected to carry metal elements through the\n\n@15@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 817\n\nliquid film, and approximately 83% Co was recovered by\nleaching.\nThe combined method provides a new idea for selective\nseparation and purification. However, the complex technical\nrequirements make it difficult to apply in large-scale recycling\nof spent LIBs electrode materials. We suggest defining the\nfuture research goal of purification and separation as the use of\nresidual electricity to perform electrochemical deposition of\nthe leachate to achieve green and low-consumption separation\nand purification. Based on traditional mineral metallurgy\ntechnology, we established a complete recycling framework\nsystem, determined an innovative recycling technology system\nthat could be applied to large-scale production and realized the\nmost economical and environmentally friendly regeneration of\nelectrode materials.\nMicrobiological green leaching: Valuable metals in spent\nLIBs can be extracted by using the metabolic functions of\nmicroorganisms or the actions of their metabolites. The types\nof leaching microorganisms can be divided into autotrophic\nand heterotrophic bacteria. Autotrophic bacteria include\nsulfur- and Fe-oxidizing bacteria, and heterotrophic bacteria\ninclude Aspergillus and Penicillium [168–174]. The most\ncommon method involves the use of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Leptospirillum ferriphilum, S and Fe[2][þ] as\nenergy products, biological oxidation of acidophilus and a\nlow-pH environment to recover spent LIBs. Naseri et al.\n\n[175] used a single A. ferrooxidans solution with a pulp\ndensity of 10% and a warm environment with pH 2 in\n¼\n\nnutrient media of 9 K and FeSO4,7H2O; Li was completely\nleached to obtain 88% Co. Based on the research results of\nRoy et al. Ref. [176] used the nutrient media of modified 9 K\nand FeSO4,7H2O to increase the solid‒liquid ratio to\n150 g L[<EFBFBD>][1]; then, more than 90% of Co, Ni and Mn and 80%\nof Li and Co could be leached and recovered. The mechanism of bioleaching is closely related to redox and\ncomplexation reactions. Autotrophic bacterial leaching occurs as follows: a) relying on the change in the valence state\nof Fe and S, leaching directly occurs after contacting valuable metals, and b) biological bacteria play a catalytic role in\naccelerating the redox rate of Fe and S but do not directly\nreact with the metals in the spent LIBs leaching solution\n\n[177–179]. Improving the efficiency of bioleaching electrode\nmaterials requires special attention to the optimization of the\nmetabolic rate of microorganisms. Therefore, environmental\nparameters for leaching include the conventional experimental parameters of hydrometallurgy and are closely related\nto various factors, including biological nutrients [180], carbon and oxygen supply levels [181], biopotential [182], and\nmetal tolerance [180]. However, the toxic metal waste liquid,\nlow leaching power, and inability to use large-scale enterprises have become the greatest threats restricting the growth\nand metabolic characteristics of biological cells. Researchers\nhave continued to explore the adaptive conditions of biological flora, including reducing the concentration when\nrecycling spent LIBs and increasing the pulp density\n\n[183,184]. Leaching kinetics can be upgraded as follows: (a)\n\nFig. 10. (a) Leaching mechanism of LCO. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [185]. Copyright (2019) Elsevier. (b) Fungal metal–mineral transformation process.\nReprinted with permission from Ref. [186]. Copyright (2017) John Wiley and Sons. (c) Metabolic pathway for the production of oxalic acid, malic acid, gluconic\nacid and citric acid in A. niger. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [188]. Copyright (2017) Elsevier. (d) Four potential targets of engineering pathways for\nbiomining microorganisms Reprinted with permission from Ref [189] Copyright (2018) MDPI\n\n@16@\n818 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nFig. 11. (a) SEM images of electrolytes after no treatment, heat treatment, subcritical CO2 treatment and supercritical CO2 treatment. Reprinted with permission\nfrom Ref. [201]. Copyright (2016) John Wiley and sons. (b) Catalyst applications. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [204]. Copyright (2021) Elsevier. (c) Model\nfor the preparation of graphene oxide from waste graphite. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [207]. Copyright (2021) Elsevier. (d) Structural models of acidleached graphite (AG) and residual graphite (RG) with different interlayer spacings. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [203]. Copyright (2020) Elsevier. (e)\nSchematic illustration of the regeneration process of graphite from spent LIBs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [200]. Copyright (2022) Elsevier. (f) Flowchart\nof the preparation of polymer–graphite nanocomposite thin films. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [208]. Copyright (2015) Elsevier.\n\nadditives: the use of inorganic low-valence metal salt additives or combined leaching with multiple flora (Fig. 10a)\n\n[185]; (b) assisted leaching: ultrasonication can assist\nleaching, enhancing the penetration of biota into the solid\nphase material (Fig. 10b) [186]; and (c) genetic modification:\naltering the metabolic pathways and tolerance levels of\nbacteria [187], which is a modification technique similar to\nthat used to improve conventional hydrometallurgical recovery (Fig. 10c) [188]. However, there is a lack of research\non the recovery of spent anode materials, electrolytes and\ncollectors, and further research is needed on the tolerance of\nbiological cells and efficient metabolic generation. The\nconcept of low-consumption, end-of-pipe low-carbon treatment should be vigorously developed for large-scale corporate applications (Fig. 10d) [189].\nAlkali leaching: Alkaline solvents provide a more limited\nrange of dissolved metals than acidic solvents, and they are\nlimited by the mechanisms of metal and alkali leaching of\ncathode materials. When selecting leaching solutions, only\namino solutions with metal coordination synthesis of stable\nmetal complexes can be chosen for selective leaching with\nelectrochemical and extraction methods for efficient recovery. Ammonia leaching exhibits the advantages of\n\nselective metal recovery, reuse and simple recovery. As a\nresult, alkaline leaching is increasingly recognized as a\nmore cost-effective technology than acidic leaching, which\nagrees with the strategic objective of sustainable energy\ndevelopment. Leaching solvents are often amino-alkaline\nsolutions, including acid ammonium salts formed with\nSO24<EFBFBD> [190], CO23<EFBFBD> [191], Cl<EFBFBD> [192], HCO<EFBFBD>3 [193], SO23<EFBFBD>\n\n[194] and NH3$H2O [195]. In particular, the ammonia\nleaching process depends on mixing the solution with the\npretreated electrolyte to obtain fluorine and lithium salts in\na stable state. These two salts are rendered harmless according to the composition of the electrolyte, and they can\nbe recycled and reused. However, the trends of ion migration, enrichment and evolution of metallic elements in hydrometallurgical leaching systems remain unclear, and the\nrelevant mechanisms have not been studied in depth. In\naddition, from the perspective of the reaction mechanism of\nthe alkali leaching process, the molecular dynamics of the\nleaching process are poor, and the leaching system is\nincomplete, which is the main bottleneck limiting the recovery rate of alkali leaching. In addition to optimizing the\nalkali leaching conditions, the degree of difficulty of the\nleaching conditions should be significantly reduced at the\n\n@17@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 819\n\npretreatment stage through pretreatment techniques, such as\nmechanical activation.\nOther methods: Activation leaching is an effective method\nfor increasing the activity of positive materials by reducing the\napparent activation energy of the reaction through physical\nand chemical activation, with the advantages of acoustic waveassisted treatment. For example, EDTA-2Na can be activated\nby ball milling with LFP prior to acid leaching, and the\nvaluable metals in LFP can be leached out with H2SO4 [196].\nDirect oxidative leaching, involving the use of E–pH diagrams\nto obtain the optimum high temperature and low redox potential for hydrothermal synthesis of LFP, enables short-range\nefficient recovery of positive materials by directly increasing\nthe oxidation potential. The high solubility of deep eutectic\nsolvents (DESs), similar to that of ionic liquids, can be used\nfor recovery purposes. Through economic and technical analyses, DESs represent a green, inexpensive and efficient\nleaching method. However, various drawbacks, such as hightemperature experimental conditions, low recovery rates,\ncomplex purification processes and high prices, have greatly\nlimited the large-scale application of this solvent [197,198].\nWe must select the optimal acid leaching process conditions,\nconstruct an acid leaching kinetic model, establish the control\nsteps for efficient leaching, explore pathways and related\nmechanisms for selective and efficient migration and transformation of metals in short-range leaching of organic acids,\nand solve key problems, such as long processes, high chemical\nreagent consumption and damage to equipment, during traditional hydrometallurgical leaching of valuable metals.\n\n3.3.2.2. Anodes. As the first commercial anode material for\nLIBs, graphite provides the advantages of high capacity, stable\nstructure and favorable electrical conductivity. Depending on\nthe type of LIBs and the range of applications, the graphite\ncontent is more than 11 times that of metallic Li, and the\npercentage of graphite in EVs is even higher. The SEIs formed\nby the charging and discharging of LIBs and the unembedded\nLi[þ] in the graphite layer are the main sources of Li in the\nanode material.\nThere are two main recovery techniques to date. One is the\nuse of pyro- or hydrometallurgical recovery to remove trace\nmetal impurities from graphite when recovering the anode\ncurrent collector. The other is selective extraction of lithium\nsalts using thermal evaporation and supercritical CO2 extraction methods. Ref. [199] adjusted the microwave calcination\ntemperature and time to obtain an initial Coulombic efficiency\nof 83.4% at 0.1 [<EFBFBD>]C and a charge specific capacity of 354.1\nmAh g[<EFBFBD>][1]. The capacity retention rate increased to 98.3% after\n60 cycles, recovering graphite with excellent electrochemical\nproperties. Chen et al. [200] used cobalt salts to catalyze the\nanode material after pretreatment with H2SO4 to obtain highpurity graphite and to recover the metal Co as a salt to close\nthe loop (Fig. 11e).\n\nResidual electrolyte in the anode material is a major factor\nlimiting the reuse of graphite and its recovery on an industrial\nscale. Expensive extraction techniques and energy-intensive\npyrolysis methods have disappeared from the recovery field.\nRothermel et al. [201] employed several methods for eliminating electrolyte from the anode material and concluded that\nthe subcritical CO2 extraction method performed the best,\nrecovering more than 90% of the electrolyte with conductive\nsalts. Capacity decay and poor cycling stability of the anode\nmaterial are the main challenges in recycling waste graphite\nand using it for preparing battery cathodes (Fig. 11a) [201].\nRecent studies have shown that adjusting the electrochemical\nactivity of waste graphite and reconstituting graphite layers\ncan solve these problems. However, the technical difficulties\nare too high to widely use waste graphite in industrial-scale\nproduction (Fig. 11d) [202,203]. However, this line of thinking\nprovides an important reference value for future applications\nand recycling prospects for similar Na- and K-based alkaline\nbatteries. In addition to regenerating negative electrode materials, peroxymonosulfate-activated catalysts can be obtained\nby recycling waste graphite (Fig. 11b) [204], improving the\nHummers method to achieve high-purity graphene (Fig. 11c)\n\n[205–207], and mixing graphite with diaphragms to acquire\nhigh-tensile-strength polymer–graphite composite films\n(Fig. 11f) [208]. The dismantled graphite negative electrodes\nof spent LIBs can be recycled by the existing recycling process\nto achieve near-zero waste emission resource comprehensive\nuse, reduce a large amount of solid waste, increase the value of\nthe recycling process and meet regional environmental emission standards. However, contradictions still exist between\nefficient recovery of all components, recycling treatment and\nminimization of environmental hazards. Future work should\nfocus on the development of efficient recycling technologies\nfor waste anode materials.\nThe complexity of battery electrode components is a great\nchallenge for hydrometallurgical leaching technology. Most\nproducts after industrial large-scale disassembly and separation are black powders with an ambiguous composition. The\ncoupling of multiple material components with leaching\nagents and reaction parameters should be explored, and dynamic monitoring of composition ratios and intelligent\nparameter regulation techniques should be established to avoid\nsingle leaching parameters that reduce the recovery rate.\n\n3.3.2.3. Electrolyte. In addition to the cathode material, the\nelectrolyte is an abundant source of lithium. However, lithium\nis mostly present in the electrolyte as a salt with toxic properties. Furthermore, the multiple processes involved in thermal\ntreatment to recover spent LIBs can drastically degrade the\ncomposition of the electrolyte. Therefore, the adsorption of\nporous electrodes, complex composition and low safety are\nmore notable challenges for electrolyte recovery technology\nthan the high recycling cost of other battery components.\n\n@18@\n820 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nToday, progress has been made in the laboratory and in smallscale industrial production.\nUsually, physical and chemical methods are adopted for\nrecovering electrolytes, with physical methods including\ncryogenic and mechanical methods. The Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) in the UK used cryogenic crushing of spent\nLIBs and then extracted the electrolyte with acetonitrile to\nrecover PVDF, Cu, Al, PE and CoO2 using other process\ntechnologies [209]. He et al. [210] dissolved cores with a\ncustom prepared exfoliating extractant instead of an organic\nsolvent and then used a mechanical method to obtain the\nelectrolyte and electrode material using a high-speed rotating\ndevice that dissolved the anode binder for separating graphite\nand copper foil. Toxic LiPF6 can be precipitated from\nethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate. The physical\nmethod is used on a large scale in industry and exhibits the\nadvantages of a simple process that is environmentally\nfriendly and easy to control. However, certain disadvantages,\nsuch as low separation after electrolyte freezing, high energy\nconsumption, easy decomposition of LiPF6 and low purity,\nhave become the main economic considerations for companies\nwhen recycling.\nChemical methods can be divided into vacuum pyrolysis\nand extraction methods. Vacuum pyrolysis is a similar process\nto pyrometallurgy, where the electrolyte and organic binder\nare pyrolyzed into fluorocarbon organic compounds at high\ntemperatures. The products are evaporated and condensed for\nrecovery after adjusting the vacuum pressure, effectively\navoiding equipment corrosion and toxic fluoride hazards, and\nthe cathodic active material on the collector is completely\nstripped during organic binder removal. However, the disadvantages of high-temperature pyrometallurgy are inevitable.\nExtraction methods include supercritical methods. The\nrelationship between the thermodynamic parameters of supercritical CO2 (temperature and pressure) and the solubility\ncapacity has been exploited by adjusting the thermodynamic\nparameters to dissolve the electrolyte. Spectroscopic and\nchromatographic techniques were used to determine that the\nelectrolyte degradation aging products are esters (diethyl\ncarbonate (DEC), dimethyl-2,5-dioxhexane dicarboxylic acid\nester (DMDOHC), methyl-2,5-dioxhexane dicarboxylic acid\nethyl ester (EMDOHC), and diethyl-2,5-dioxhexane dicarboxylic acid ester (DEDOHC)). An ester-based organic solvent was used to soak the cores, and the electrolyte was\ndissolved in an organic solvent to separate the electrolyte and\ncore. At the early stages of the process, a supercritical helium\npressure head CO2 was used to extract electrolytes from spent\nLIBs. However, the recovery of trace amounts of LiPF6 was\nonly possible with a high cost and low recovery rate.\nTherefore, to overcome these drawbacks, researchers have\nchanged CO2 to a supercritical state or a liquid state, where\nlinear and chain carbonates are extracted in these two states,\nrespectively. Furthermore, since CO2 is an inorganic solvent,\nLiPF6 can be effectively extracted from electrolytes by\nincreasing the solubility of nonpolar solvents relative to polar\nsolvents by adding corresponding inexpensive modifiers,\n\nentraining agents (liquid alcohols) and cointegrating agents\n(small gaseous alkanes). For instance, in the liquid CO2\nextraction method, the entrainer ACN:PC ratio can be adjusted\nto 3:1 to obtain 89.1 ± 3.4 wt.% [211]. However, the experimental results showed that the type of diaphragm affects the\nextraction efficiency, with the differences between the\nextraction efficiencies of the PE diaphragm and the porous\nglass fiber adsorbed electrolyte reaching nearly double, with\nvalues of 73.5 ± 3.6 wt.% and 36.7 ± 1.6 wt.%, respectively.\nThe effect of supercritical extraction is mainly influenced by\ntemperature, pressure, time and entrainment agent. In terms of\nthe supercritical CO2 extraction mechanism, external factors\nmainly affect the extraction behavior by increasing the polarity\nof CO2.\nToday, closed-loop electrolyte recycling remains challenging. Liu et al. [212] developed a technique involving the\nrecovery of supercritical CO2 from the electrolyte and obtained an electrical conductivity of 0.19 mS cm[<EFBFBD>][1] and an\ninitial discharge capacity of 115 mAh g[<EFBFBD>][1] after a series of\nprocesses, including extraction, molecular sieve dehydration\nand component replenishment. The electrolyte obtained from\nrecycling was reloaded into the battery, and the electrochemical properties were measured to ensure that the standards for normal use were met. Although the recovery of\nelectrolytes that meet the standards for battery use provides a\nnew idea for closed-loop efficient recycling of spent LIBs, it is\ndifficult to establish a complete recycling system due to the\ncomplexity of both the recycling process and electrolyte\ncomposition. Furthermore, certain factors, such as electrolyte\npurity, removal of hexafluorophosphate impurities, LiPF6 purification, economics of recovery, and unrecovered CO2, after\nuse remain major challenges for a closed-loop recovery\nstrategy.\n\n3.3.3. Future recycling strategies for spent LIBs\nTechnological advances have accelerated the rate of change\nof high-energy density power battery types, and the need to\nexplore new recycling technologies for retired batteries is\nimminent. There is a need to improve the safety and cycle\ntime, the relationship between clean and efficient recycling\ntechnologies and the quality and cost of reinstalled batteries to\nmeet the EoL of spent LIBs.\nModern recycling technology for spent LIBs can be suitably applied to nickel- and lead-acid batteries. In the future,\nrecycling technology should focus on the close link with the\nway batteries are manufactured and designed. Future recycling\ntechnology for spent LIBs can adopt a similar basic approach\nto modern technology. Cooperation is needed between recycling companies and battery manufacturers to develop relevant\npolicies and industry standards, unified classification codes,\nvarious battery structures, and full life-cycle traceability\nmanagement of the different components of batteries. For\nexample, the University of Grasse has developed new recyclable 3D printed batteries in which biodegradable polylactic\nacid (PLA) materials are applied, further enabling green\nrecycling.\n\n@19@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 821\n\nThe recycling of LIBs requires full-component recycling of\nthe key energy metals, such as Li, Ni, Co and Mn, in short\nprocesses. Nickel-based power batteries require special\nattention to the recycling of scarce element Ni, while lead-acid\nbatteries should focus on the high lead content and highquality plastic casings. The metal components of the three\ntypes of spent batteries can be recovered using clean and\nefficient hydrometallurgical techniques, the electrolyte can be\nextracted using supercritical CO2, and graphite-based materials can be applied to adsorb heavy metals from wastewater.\nThe organic material components of batteries should be\nreplaced by environmentally friendly and easily degradable\norganic materials, and the electrolytes should comprise safe\nand stable solid phase materials.\n\n4. LCA prediction and recycling optimization\n\nThe main mainstream LCA software options available\ntoday are OpenLCA [213], Apeironpro [214], SUSB-LCA\n\n[215], PLCAT [216], Eco-LCA [217] and GPLCD [218],\nwhich enable quantitative evaluation studies of waste treatment, production, transport, energy consumption, and social\nand environmental relationships. LCA methods for recycling\nspent LIBs mostly consider energy consumption and GHG\nemissions for assessment, including vehicle dismantling,\nvehicle recycling, battery recycling, and tire seat recycling. In\nparticular, battery recycling is a major contributor to GHG\nemission reduction. However, the negative impacts of energy\nconsumption and three-waste discharge associated with multitype recycling technologies, whether the output is higher\nthan the input, whether the environmental protection is greater\nthan the environmental damage, and the relationship between\nprofit and the environment must still be revealed via LCA.\nIn general, the recycling of spent batteries can mitigate\nmost environmental impact categories. Lin et al. [219] used\nLCA to compare three systems of organic water leaching,\ninorganic acid (HNO3) leaching and organic acid (citric acid)\nleaching. Citric acid and organic water require lower activation energy and GWP levels when recycling spent LIBs,\nsignificantly reducing environmental pollution; the leaching\nrate of the inorganic acid system is similar. Sun et al. [220]\nemployed biological strain hydrometallurgy technology to\nrecycle EoL waste Zn–Mn batteries. The only environmental\nimpacts are human and marine ecotoxicity. Relative to traditional hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy technologies, the\noverall environmental impacts can be significantly reduced.\nAfter optimizing the pretreatment stage, higher environmental\ngains could be achieved. Rinne et al. [221] compared the\nimpacts of spent LIBs on the environmental footprint in the\nrecycling process. The use of waste as a reducing agent could\nfurther reduce the chemical consumption of hydrometallurgical recycling, and H2O2 was deemed unsuitable as a reducing\nagent for large-scale recycling. Kallisis et al. [222] demonstrated that the recycling of Ni, Co, and Mn cathode materials\nis the main contributor to environmental safety, with the\nburden of over 85% of all environmental impact categories\nreduced to 35% Al Cu and Fe are the main burden in the\n\nrecycling chain, leading to toxicity (Fig. 12a). Raugei et al.\n\n[223] calculated that 23 MJ kg[<EFBFBD>][1] of primary energy is lost per\nkWh of battery energy recovered and that the reduction in CO2\nemissions is reflected in the recovery of graphite and valuable\nmetals (Fig. 12b). Planning a green recycling chain and\nreducing emissions, energy consumption and use of raw materials through LCA at the EoL stage could effectively offset\nthe environmental impact of the production chain. Today, LFP\nbatteries still account for the majority of retired batteries, and\nby using LCA, the recycling of 50% of the LFP batteries could\nfully offset the environmental impact, and 100% recycling\ncould yield energy savings of 313.02 kg CO2-eq and 270.89 kg\noil-eq of GHG emissions (Fig. 12c) [224]. The EoL phase of\nrecycling has a more prominent contribution to compensating\nfor environmental change, mitigating the high demand for\nfossil energy and biological health. However, transport, recycling technology, three-waste impurities and complex battery\ncomposition pose several negative challenges to the recycling\nof spent LIBs. Recycling strategies are an important part of\nGHG emission and disease risk reduction, and losses from\nrecycled metals could be significantly reduced but not\ncompletely offset [225].\nAmong the various recovery technologies, from an LCA\nperspective, hydrometallurgical recovery and organic acid\nrecovery are the most effective means to reduce environmental\nburdens to date. However, it is still necessary to reduce the\nenergy consumption of leaching at the pretreatment stage to\nimprove the environmental benefits. Comparing the full lifecycle carbon emissions of NCM, LMO, and LFP battery packs\nprovides advantages, but it is difficult to determine which\nbattery is more advantageous [226–228]. Therefore, reducing\nthe overall emissions must be approached from the perspective\nof recycling cathodes while enhancing the cleanliness of the\npower mix. Upgrading battery preparation technology and\ndeveloping renewable and clean energy sources could improve\nthe overall environmental benefits of vehicles, reducing\nemissions and energy consumption [229]. Furthermore, recycling cathode waste could greatly contribute to protecting the\nenvironment, mitigating toxic organic solvents, mining rare\nminerals, resolving heavy metal pollution, and promoting\nsustainability. In addition, data on the impacts of transporting\nbattery materials obtained through custom specialized recycling of spent LIBs, such as trucks and trains, is a valuable\nmethod for establishing cascading use and recycling networks.\nFuture of sustainable battery LCAs: Considering the impact\non environmental benefits, clean fuels, such as hydrogen fuel\nand compressed natural gas, have recently become the main\ntrend in batteries. Clean fuel cells produce zero emissions.\nHowever, hydrogen-fueled electric vehicles (FCVs) are\naccompanied by pollutant emissions during manufacturing,\nhydrogen energy acquisition, storage and transportation from\nan LCA perspective, with carbon emissions ranging from 36 to\n112 kg CO2 eq-kW[<EFBFBD>][1] (Fig. 12d) [230–232]. Improving the\nfuel cell performance and reducing the loss of key components\nthroughout the process contributes to the life-cycle carbon\nemissions of the fuel cell system and is an important method\nfor improving the environmental benefits of FCVs\n\n@20@\n822 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nFig. 12. (a) Comparison of EoL recovery production in metallurgical cases in China, North America and Europe. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [222].\nCopyright (2022) Elsevier. (b) Cumulative GHG emissions of the 1 kWh battery capacity class, no scrap (EoL), and single contributions of major components\n(BMS ¼ battery management system). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [223]. Copyright (2019) Elsevier. (c) Influence of the different components on the net\nlife cycle of LFP batteries. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [224]. Copyright (2022) Elsevier. (d) Characterization results of the storage capacity of 1 kWh\nNIBs and the contribution of components to the overall impact. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [222]. Copyright (2022) Elsevier.\n\nIn response to geographical climate differences, the share\nof hybrid vehicles in the market is gradually expanding. According to a comparison of vehicle LCA results encompassing\ndifferent power sources, renewable fuels have a greater potential to reduce life-cycle carbon emissions than low-carbon\nelectricity portfolios. By considering advances in vehicle\npowertrain technology and changes in electricity and fuel\nsupplies, PHEVs and HEVs produce lower life-cycle carbon\nemissions than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs)\nand significantly higher emissions than BEVs. However, the\nfine particulate matter (PM2.5) and SO2 emissions of ICEVs\nare low, and vehicle infrastructure can be identified as a major\nsource of the environmental burden.\nWith the rapid growth in the lithium market, transition\nmetal minerals are consumed in large quantities, and various\nlow-carbon alternative batteries have been developed. For\nexample, NIBs, Li–S batteries, and Li-air batteries have high\nenergy densities [233–235]. Future LCA research should focus\non the recycling of these types of batteries. This research has\nconsiderably contributed to promoting the long-term sustainable development of these batteries, improving performance,\nreducing the use of nonrenewable energy, and decreasing the\nimpact of environmental climate change. There are few studies\non the potential impacts of potassium-ion batteries, aluminumion batteries, magnesium-ion batteries, and sodium-ion batteries on the environment. According to their composition and\n\nLIBs similarity characteristics, the heavy metal content in the\ncathode can be reduced, and most of the compositions and\nstructures of batteries can be made compatible with the environment to the highest degree. Energy efficiency and reducing\nthe loss of key equipment are key goals for reducing EoL\nenvironmental burdens.\nTherefore, the recycling of used batteries should be regarded\nas an important part of battery LCA, especially because the\npositive impact of recycling on battery production cannot be\nignored. Moreover, the environmental impacts of the best options for recycling various types of batteries should be\ncompared. Finally, the impact of each link on the recycling of\nspent LIBs should be analyzed in detail. Based on a comparison\nof multiple evaluation studies, an LCA dynamic model of spent\nLIBs recycling was formulated, and the undiscovered forwardlooking problems were dynamically evaluated. Further warning\nof the environmental impacts of various recycling technologies\ncould provide theoretical support for large-scale recycling\ntechnology routes and policy decisions for enterprises. In terms\nof recycling technology, certain variables, such as heating\nconditions and acid–base concentrations and types, could be\ncoupled to obtain the optimal leaching method. The recycled\ncomponents and products in the recycling chain should be\nincreased to increase recycling profits.\nCountries worldwide have focused on the management of\nrecycling large quantities of EoL LIBs. To achieve the\n\n@21@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 823\n\ndevelopment of a circular economy and green transition, major\nbattery-consuming countries, such as the USA, China, Japan\nand the EU, have adopted systems and regulations based on\nthe principle of production chain responsibility through subsidies, levies, tax subsidies, incentives–penalties, deposits–\nreturns, etc., thus generating significant social, economic and\nenvironmental benefits.\n\n4.1. Existing proposals\n\nUSA: Optimizer of recycling policies.\nThe implementation schemes include the extended producer responsibility system and the deposit system. Regarding\nthe recycling of used batteries, the International Battery Association has been established, and different battery recycling\nlaws and regulations and deposit, trade-in, mandatory recycling and retailer recycling labeling systems have been\ndeveloped on each continent for the battery supply chain and\nthe consumer side. For example, the government can use\nfinancial incentives to subsidize public EVs; through a policy\nof immediate access to tax rebates, low-income sellers can\nreceive a tax credit of US $2,630, providing additional benefits\nto many customers [236]. To develop a sound system for\nrecycling used batteries, legislation is enacted at the federal,\ncontinental and prefectural levels and regulated by each other.\nAt the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recycling\nAct, the Act Relating to the Reduction in Lead Exposure, the\nFederal Act on Batteries and the General Waste Management\nAct have been established to legislate the entire life cycle of\nbatteries. Recycling recommendations provided by the International Battery Association are mostly adopted at the continental level, with a deposit mechanism to guide consumers\nand a time mechanism to regulate retailers. Nonprofit public\nservice organizations for battery recycling have emerged in the\nprivate sector, such as the U.S. Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, which has established separate programs\nfor the collection and transportation of renewable batteries in\nthe retail, community, corporate business and public sectors.\nManufacturers have established a uniform code for batteries to\nbe recycled through sales. Retailers are required to pay a deposit of at least $10 for each battery at the time of purchase\nand deliver it to the retailer within a specified time limit.\nOtherwise, the deposit is not returned.\nIn response to geographical climate differences, the share\nof hybrid vehicles in the market is gradually expanding. According to a comparison of vehicle LCA results including\ndifferent power sources, renewable fuels have a greater potential to reduce life-cycle carbon emissions than low-carbon\nelectricity portfolios. Consumers are obliged to provide batteries to the seller, the manufacturer or the Battery Association. All parties are subject to severe penalties if they do not\ncomply with these regulations. This model of recycling in the\nU.S. has successfully addressed the front-end challenges of\nlow efficiency and poor economics of spent LIBs recycling.\nEurope: The world's first advocate of recycling battery\nnorms.\n\nThe approach taken by the EU relies on the Union System's 1988 Production Responsibility Scheme and the\nenactment of the Batteries and Accumulators Containing\nCertain Hazardous Substances Directive issued back in\n1991, which provides the recycling of 3 C batteries and leadacid batteries.\nA series of relevant directives, such as 2006/66/EC and\n2013/56/EU, have been introduced for recycling management\nof all spent LIBs, with a detailed division of battery production, collection and treatment aspects according to the\ndifferent subjects applying batteries. Additionally, the EU requires all collected spent LIBs materials in all member states\nto be recycled at the end of their useful life using a time-lapse\napproach and clean and efficient methods, especially for\ncertain materials, such as valuable metals. Within Europe, the\ntarget Li metal recovery rate should reach 50% by 2027 and\n80% by 2031. Between 2024 and 2028, the EU will use a large\namount of statistical data to build a new regulatory framework\nfor batteries, replacing the 2006 battery directive that has been\nin place ever since [237]. On the economic side, Germany has\nadopted fund and deposit mechanisms to build a recycling\nsystem and has legislated that the battery sales side must take\nresponsibility for recycling used batteries that have been sold,\ndelivering the recovered used batteries centrally to a designated institution. Furthermore, the EU has created a legislative\nframework for sustainable LCA of LIBs, established a common recycling system fund, set up approximately 200,000\nrecycling sites for half of Germany's production of spent LIBs\nand defined minimum thresholds for recycling companies\nregarding the recycling of the various components of used\nbatteries [238].\nChina: Beginners in recycling technology and recycling\npolicy.\nThe development and improvement in battery recycling\npolicies draw on the experiences of developed countries, with\nthe extension of the production chain responsibility as a basic\nprinciple. In 2018, the state, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry\nof Transport, the Ministry of Commerce, the General\nAdministration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, the Energy Bureau and seven other ministries and\ncommissions jointly issued the Interim Measures for the\nManagement of the Recycling of New Energy Vehicle Power\nBatteries. These measures clearly stipulate that in the recycling process, EV manufacturers bear the main responsibility\nfor power batteries, recycling dismantling and comprehensive\nutilization enterprises, etc., as a way of ensuring the effective\nuse and environmentally friendly disposal of power batteries\n\n[239].\nIn July of the same year, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology also issued the Interim Provisions on\nthe Management of New Energy Vehicle Power Battery\nRecycling and Traceability, which strictly stipulates the need\nto upload traceability information on recycled battery life\ncycles, time nodes, technical requirements and other clear\n\n@22@\n824 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nrequirements for unified coding, information collection and\nmanagement of power batteries [240]. Additionally, to accelerate the recommended standardization work requirements in\nthe field of new energy battery recycling, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is establishing a standardization working group for the new energy battery\nrecycling industry to strengthen the relevant standardization\nconstruction team efforts [240]. In April 2020, the Ministry of\nIndustry issued the Management Measures for Gradient Utilization of New Energy Vehicle Power Batteries, with a focus\non the gradient utilization method of waste LIBs and how to\npromote large-scale gradient utilization, which is the focus of\napplication in business models. On the economic side, the\nShanghai government provides a subsidy of RMB1,000 to\nrecycling companies for used EVs when each is sold by the\nselling company. Shenzhen has established a special accrual\nfund to give half of the subsidy funds to recycling companies\nby reviewing the charging standards.\nJapan: A pioneer in advanced recycling technology.\nAffected by various natural disasters, such as earthquakes and\ntsunamis, and the limitations of its land area, Asia's earliest\nconcentrated research and commercialization of hybrid vehicle\nbattery recycling technology occurred in Japan. Moreover, it is\nalsothe firstcountry in Asiatoimplement relevant policiesfor the\nbattery recycling industry and hosts a world-leading battery\nrecycling system [241]. Thewell-defined, sound and step-by-step\ncircular economy legislation system has laid the foundation for\nthe development of a circular economy in Japan. The Japanese\ngovernment has formulated the basic system of a recycling society based on relevant regulations of the battery production\nchain. In addition, in public media and policy documents, enterprises are actively guided to follow the concept of a circular\neconomy and achieve a suitable awareness of voluntary recycling\namong the people [242].\nSix Japanese firms, including Sumitomo Metal Mining, JX\nNippon Mining and Metals, Sumitomo Chemical, Kanto\nDenka Kogyo, Jera and Nissan Motor, are now cooperating to\ndevelop a highly sophisticated recycling technology to recover\nrare metals, mainly from used storage batteries for EVs [243].\nManufacturers have established a battery recycling system of\nbattery production–sales–recycling . Moreover, the consid“ ”\neration of locations where batteries frequently emerge, such as\nbattery sellers, EV sales stores, or large-scale charging service\nfacilities, to establish a spent battery recycling service network\nfully reflects convenience and economy.\n\n4.2. Transformative proposals\n\nWith large quantities of EVs in use, a booming recycling\nindustry, and the continued increase in metal prices, the\nrecycling of spent LIBs can be profitable to the tune of $1000\nor more per ton. Moreover, recycling valuable metals is\nconsidered profitable. Therefore, the government should focus\non considering various LCA data, enhancing the awareness of\nactive recycling among managers across all levels, balancing\nthe interests of all parties, increasing policy support and supervision and establishing mandatory recycling methods for\n\nrecycling processes that threaten human health and the environment. To develop a circular economy and achieve green\ntransformation, governments must fulfil an important role in\nthe supply chain characterized by the recycling of spent LIBs\nfrom a battery life-cycle management perspective. Based on\nthe provided review, a future strategy for closed-loop battery\nrecycling is proposed (Fig. 13):\nConsumers: Consumers can choose a strategy to ladder or\nreplace their spent LIBs depending on the health status of the\nbatteries used, thus maximizing benefits at the consumer end.\nGovernment: (i) The government can introduce policies to\nincrease incentives and penalties to promote corporate\nenthusiasm for the recycling of spent LIBs to increase recycling rates. However, a punitive policy not in line with the\neconomic benefits to businesses will most likely result in a\nreluctance on the battery supply side to provide the recycling\nside with the required convenient composition structure at the\nbattery assembly stage. Therefore, the government should\ndevelop relevant optimization strategies based on the energy,\neconomic and environmental impacts of the spent LIBs recovery phase, as outlined in this paper, coupled with the\nestablishment of relevant reward and penalty factors. The interests of the supply and recycling sides and political performance can be safeguarded in many ways. (ii) In terms of the\neconomic structure or energy reserves, the recycling strategy\nshould be firmly based on a harmonious coexistence between\nhumans and the environment, thus enhancing the recycling\nrate. Recycling policies should keep pace with the recycling of\nspent LIBs technology, which is constantly evolving, and\npolicies must keep pace with the continuous development of\nrecycling technology. (iii) More policy benefits should be\nshifted in favor of consumers, with incentives to submit retired\nbatteries through subsidies. Through various legislative\n\nFig 13 Future spent LIBs closed-loop recycling strategy\n\n@23@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 825\n\nFig. 14. Green supply chain recycling system for spent LIBs.\n\nmeasures, such as subsidies, taxes, tax subsidies, reward\npenalties, and deposit refunds, we should improve the interrelationship between sales, use, and recovery and implement a\npolicy involving parallel enforcement and incentives. (iv) We\nshould develop regulations related to the transportation and\nstorage of spent LIBs and encourage the development of\nlightweight and convenient battery testing systems.\nSellers: Sellers of LIBs are responsible for LIB recycling and disposal at or below capacity thresholds, and\noptimization decisions should focus on battery recycling\nrates and government subsidies to protect the environment.\nSellers should work with car repairers to increase the price\nof spent LIBs recycling, accurately rate the battery capacity in customer repairs and give advice to customers to\nincrease their enthusiasm to actively return spent LIBs.\nThe government should regulate the recycling rate, while\nthe sellers are given recycling subsidies. This two-pronged\nregulation and subsidy policy approach, which is mandatory and incentive-based, could ensure that the recycling\nrate of spent LIBs meets government requirements, confirming that sellers obtain sufficient profits and increasing\nthe subsidy efficiency.\nBy summarizing the mature laws and regulations of countries in terms of spent LIBs recycling and by analyzing their\nwell-established policies, this study could serve as a reference\nfor governments initially starting to adopt LIBs on a large\n\nscale and for countries about to encounter a wave of EoL\npower battery recycling policies. By considering the recent\nimplementations of the production responsibility system in\nsuch battery developing countries and the existing problems,\nwe propose a green supply chain recycling system for spent\nLIBs, as shown in Fig. 14. In this system, we consider legal,\ntechnical, model and theoretical knowledge and various factors that arise in regard to transportation, profit and the\nenvironment.\n\n5. Conclusions and future outlooks\n\nThe increasing use of decarbonized electrical energy in the\nautomotive industry has presented unique opportunities for\nthis sector. However, the increasing consumption of LIBs has\nresulted in a significant increase in the volume of spent batteries. If not managed properly, this consumption could pose\nsignificant risks to the economy, the environment, and human\nhealth. In light of the potential threats posed by this situation,\nthere is a pressing need for research on the entire process of\nmanaging spent batteries, from collection to recycling and\npollution control. In this article, we describe recent research\nefforts in this area and explore the key issues surrounding\nclean and efficient recycling technologies and their industrialization. To promote sustainable development within our\nsociety, a strategic approach that emphasizes the redesign,\n\n@24@\n826 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\nreuse, and recycling of batteries must be jointly pursued by\ngovernments, consumers, recyclers and suppliers.\n\n(i) Recycling: Recyclers are the key links for the recycling of spent LIBs. a) The development of unmanned\ndismantling technologies and lines should be given\nhigher priority to ensure the safe and efficient operation of other processes. b) Whether GHG emissions or\nenergy consumption, the recycling of spent LIBs\nprovides obvious advantages over the production of\nLIBs from new raw materials, especially hydrometallurgical recycling. c) The recycling scale is directly\nproportional to the recycling benefits. Enterprises\nshould choose the appropriate recycling process according to the scale, and thermal runaway should be\neliminated in every link. d) Spent electrolytes should\nbe studied to determine methods for applying them in\nfields other than recycling. e) Organic acid leaching\nand bioleaching are techniques with the highest potential to move from the laboratory to industrial\napplications in the future. f) Exploring clean, highefficiency, and low-energy recovery technology options is as important as controlling pollutant discharge\ntechnologies. It is especially important to eliminate\nthe potential threat of trivalent toxic waste in the\nrelationship between toxic electrolytes, storage, fine\ndismantling, metallurgical recovery, dissociation and\npurification.\n(ii) Supply: a) An application design should be invented for\nelectrode materials and other components that can be\neasily disassembled, assembled, and used in stages.\nRegional energy endowment should be effectively used\nto build factories. b) Heavy metal content and\nmanufacturing energy consumption should be reduced,\nand biodegradable binders and fluorine-free electrolytes\nshould be selected to reduce environmental pollution\nfactors at the source. c) Battery companies should work\nclosely with downstream vehicle companies and upstream raw material companies to compile a complete\nwhole life-cycle database. d) The main ingredients must\nbe labeled on multiple sides of battery outer packaging\nto facilitate recycling.\n(iii) Policies: a) It is necessary to uniformly plan network\nconstruction of recycling enterprises and force the\nelimination of old recycling technologies. b) A battery\ntraceability LCA network database should be established to implement the main responsibilities of each\nrecycling link, control from the production source,\ncease treatment monitoring, and provide transparent\nclosed-loop recycling-specific processes. c) A favorable\npublic opinion and publicity atmosphere for spent LIBs\nrecycling should be created to guide consumers to\nactively cooperate with recycling activities. d) The key\ntechnologies for hydrometallurgical recovery in the\nclosed-loop industrial chain require the formulation of\nproprietary subsidy policies.\n\n(iv) Consumption: a) Participation should be actively supported in waste battery recycling activities executed by\nthe government and social organizations, the implementation of the extended producer responsibility system should be supported, and a circular economy and\nlow-carbon development should be promoted. b)\nFormal waste battery recycling channels should be\nchosen, waste batteries should be properly stored, and\nrechargeable or environmentally friendly batteries\nshould be adopted.\n\nConflict of interest\n\nThe authors declare that they have no known competing\nfinancial interests or personal relationships that could have\nappeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\n\nAcknowledgments\n\nThis work was financially supported by the National Key\nR&D Program of China, China (2022YFC3902600), CAS\nProject for Young Scientists in Basic Research, China (YSBR044), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, China (2021B1515020068), and China Postdoctoral\nScience Foundation, China (2023M733510). We would like to\n[thank AJE (https://www.aje.cn/services/editing) for its lin-](https://www.aje.cn/services/editing)\nguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.\n\nReferences\n\n[[1] E. Fan, L. Li, Z. Wang, J. Lin, F. Wu, Chem. Rev. 120 (2020) 7020[–]](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref1)\n[7063.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref1)\n\n[2] B.S.R.O.W. Energy, BCP, 2022. [https://www.bp.com/en/global/](https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy.html)\n[corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/](https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy.html)\n[primary-energy.html. (Accessed 29 August 2022).](https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy.html)\n\n[[3] W.E. Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2021. https://www.iea.org/](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2021-free-dataset)\n[data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2021-free-](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2021-free-dataset)\n[dataset. (Accessed 2 September 2022).](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2021-free-dataset)\n\n[[4] J.Y. Li, S.S. Li, Energy Pol. 140 (2020) 111425.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref4)\n\n[[5] International Energy Agency., G. E. O. https://www.iea.org/reports/](https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022)\n[global-ev-outlook-2022, 2022. (Accessed 2 September 2022).](https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022)\n\n[6] Mineral Commodity Summaries. [https://www.mining.com/global-](https://www.mining.com/global-lithium-production-hits-record-high-on-electric-vehicle-demand/)\n[lithium-production-hits-record-high-on-electric-vehicle-demand/, 2022.](https://www.mining.com/global-lithium-production-hits-record-high-on-electric-vehicle-demand/)\n(Accessed 3 September 2022).\n\n[[7] Mineral Commodity Summaries. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/](https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2022)\n[mcs2022, 2022. (Accessed 4 September 2022).](https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2022)\n\n[[8] Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Market. https://www.marketsandmarkets](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-153488928.html)\n[.com/Market-Reports/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-153488928.](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-153488928.html)\n[html, 2023. (Accessed 3 March 2023).](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-153488928.html)\n\n[[9] GGII. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id¼1749926828424184426&wfr¼](https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1749926828424184426&amp;wfr=spider&amp;for=pc)\n[spider&for¼pc, 2022. (Accessed 3 December 2022).](https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1749926828424184426&amp;wfr=spider&amp;for=pc)\n\n[[10] M., S, Whittingham, Science 192 (1976) 1126–4244.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref10)\n\n[[11] K. Mizushima, P.C. Jones, P.J. Wiseman, J.B. Goodenough, Solid State](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref11)\n[Ionics 3–4 (1981) 171–174.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref11)\n\n[[12] G. Zubi, R. Dufo-Lopez, M. Carvalho, G. Pasaoglu, Renew. Sustain.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref12)\n[Energy Rev. 89 (2018) 292–308.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref12)\n\n[[13] Y.L. Ding, Z.P. Cano, A.P. Yu, J. Lu, Z.W. Chen, Electrochem. Energy](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref13)\n[Rev. 2 (2019) 1–28.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref13)\n\n[[14] M. Li, J. Lu, Z. Chen, K. Amine, Adv. Mater. 30 (2018) 1800561.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref14)\n\n[[15] J.K. Kim, S.M. Jeong, Appl. Surf. Sci. 505 (2020) 144630.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref15)\n\n@25@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 827\n\n[[16] F.H. Zheng, C.H. Yang, X.H. Xiong, J.W. Xiong, R.Z. Hu, Y. Chen,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref16)\n[M.L. Liu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 54 (2015) 13058–13062.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref16)\n\n[[17] N. Yabuuchi, K. Kubota, M. Dahbi, S. Komaba, Chem. Rev. 114 (2014)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref17)\n[11636–11682.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref17)\n\n[[18] T. Hosaka, K. Kubota, A.S. Hameed, S. Komaba, Chem. Rev. 120](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref18)\n[(2020) 6358–6466.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref18)\n\n[[19] A. Eftekhari, J. Power Sources 136 (2004) 201.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref19)\n\n[[20] X. Bie, K. Kubota, T. Hosaka, K. Chihara, S. Komaba, J. Mater. Chem.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref20)\n[A 5 (2017) 4325–4330.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref20)\n\n[[21] M.M. Huie, D.C. Bock, E.S. Takeuchi, A.C. Marschilok, K.J. Takeuchi,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref21)\n[Coord. Chem. Rev. 287 (2015) 15–27.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref21)\n\n[[22] W. Kaveevivitchai, A.J. Jacobson, Chem. Mater. 28 (2016) 4593–4601.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref22)\n\n[[23] A. Mukherjee, N. Sa, P.J. Phillips, A. Burrell, J. Vaughey, R.F. Klie,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref23)\n[Chem. Mater. 29 (2017) 2218–2226.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref23)\n\n[[24] C. Ling, D. Banerjee, M. Matsui, Electrochim. Acta 76 (2012) 270–274.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref24)\n\n[[25] R. Chen, R. Luo, Y. Huang, F. Wu, L. Li, Adv. Sci. 3 (2016) 1600051.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref25)\n\n[[26] M.C. Lin, M. Gong, B.G. Lu, Y.P. Wu, D.Y. Wang, M.Y. Guan, M. Angell,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref26)\n[C.X. Chen, J. Yang, B.J. Hwang, H.J. Dai, Nature 520 (2015) 325.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref26)\n\n[[27] M.C. Lin, M. Gong, B.A. Lu, Y.P. Wu, D.Y. Wang, M.Y. Guan,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref27)\n[M. Angell, C.X. Chen, J. Yang, B.J. Hwang, H.J. Dai, Chinese Science](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref27)\n[Foundation, 2015, pp. 1. English version. 4.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref27)\n\n[[28] L. Contemporary, Amperex Technology Co. https://translate.google.cn/](https://translate.google.cn/?sl&equals;zh-CN&amp;tl&equals;en&amp;text&equals;%E4%B9%9D%E6%9C%88&amp;op&equals;translate)\n[?sl¼zh-CN&tl¼en&text¼%E4%B9%9D%E6%9C%88&op¼translate,](https://translate.google.cn/?sl&equals;zh-CN&amp;tl&equals;en&amp;text&equals;%E4%B9%9D%E6%9C%88&amp;op&equals;translate)\n2022. (Accessed 12 September 2022).\n\n[[29] J. Liu, Z.N. Bao, Y. Cui, E.J. Dufek, J.B. Goodenough, P. Khalifah,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref29)\nQ.Y. Li, B.Y. Liaw, P. [Liu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref29) A. Manthiram, Y.S. Meng,\n[V.R. Subramanian, M.F. Toney, V.V. Viswanathan, M.S. Whittingham,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref29)\n[J. Xiao, W. Xu, J.H. Yang, X.Q. Yang, J.G. Zhang, Nat. Energy 4](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref29)\n[(2019) 180–186.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref29)\n\n[[30] Y. Liu, X. Tao, Y. Wang, C. Jiang, C. Ma, O. Sheng, G. Lu, X.W. Lou,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref30)\n[Science 375 (2022) 739–745.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref30)\n\n[[31] R. Yazami, Y.F. Reynier, Electrochim. Acta 47 (2002) 1217–1223.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref31)\n\n[[32] W.F. Hao, Z.R. Yuan, D.D. Li, Z.Y. Zhu, S.P. Jiang, J. Energy Storage](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref32)\n[41 (2021) 102894.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref32)\n\n[[33] Y. Lu, S.Q. Zhang, S.L. Dai, D.P. Liu, X. Wang, W. Tang, X.J. Guo,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref33)\n[J. Duan, W. Luo, B.B. Yang, J. Zou, Y.H. Huang, H.E. Katz, J. Huang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref33)\n[Matter 3 (2020) 904–919.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref33)\n\n[[34] J.S. Kim, D.C. Lee, J.J. Lee, C.W. Kim, J. Electrochem. Soc. 168 (2021)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref34)\n[030536.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref34)\n\n[[35] T.P. Hendrickson, O. Kavvada, N. Shah, R. Sathre, C.D. Scown, En-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref35)\n[viron. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 014011.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref35)\n\n[[36] M. Chen, X. Ma, B. Chen, R. Arsenault, P. Karlson, N. Simon, Y. Wang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref36)\n[Joule 3 (2019) 2622–2646.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref36)\n\n[[37] J.N. Meegoda, S. Malladi, I.C. Zayas, Cleanroom Technol. 4 (2022)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref37)\n[1162–1174.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref37)\n\n[[38] Y. Yang, E.G. Okonkwo, G.Y. Huang, S.M. Xu, W. Sun, Y.H. He,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref38)\n[Energy Storage Mater. 36 (2021) 186–212.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref38)\n\n[[39] C. Sun, A. Xia, Q. Liao, Q. Fu, Y. Huang, X. Zhu, Renew. Sustain.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref39)\n[Energy Rev. 112 (2019) 395–410.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref39)\n\n[[40] J.B. Dunn, L. Gaines, J. Sullivan, M.Q. Wang, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref40)\n[(2012) 12704–12710.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref40)\n\n[[41] S. Al-Thyabat, T. Nakamura, E. Shibata, A. Iizuka, Miner. Eng. 45](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref41)\n[(2013) 4[–]17.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref41)\n\n[[42] G. Harper, R. Sommerville, E. Kendrick, L. Driscoll, P. Slater, R. Stolkin,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref42)\n[A. Walton, P. Christensen, O. Heidrich, S. Lambert, A. Abbott,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref42)\n[K.S. Ryder, L. Gaines, P. Anderson, Nature 575 (2019) 75–86.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref42)\n\n[[43] L. Ahmadi, S.B. Young, M. Fowler, R.A. Fraser, M.A. Achachlouei, Int.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref43)\n[J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2017) 111–124.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref43)\n\n[[44] L. Gaines, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 17 (2018) e00068.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref44)\n\n[[45] T. Georgi-Maschler, B. Friedrich, R. Weyhe, H. Heegn, M. Rutz,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref45)\n[J. Power Sources 207 (2012) 173–182.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref45)\n\n[[46] T. Traeger, B. Friedrich, R. Weyhe, Chem. Ing. Tech. 87 (2015) 1550–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref46)\n[1557.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref46)\n\n[[47] D. Cr Espinosa, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref47)\n[Handbook jj Recycling Batteries, Dutch, 2012, pp. 365–384.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref47)\n\n[[48] L. Schneider, M. Berger, M. Finkbeiner, Int. J. Life Cycle. Ass. 20](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref48)\n[(2015) 709–721.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref48)\n\n[[49] M.L.C.M. Henckens, Sustainability 14 (2022) 4781.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref49)\n\n[[50] H. Yang, X. Song, X. Zhang, B. Lu, D. Yang, B. Li, Environ. Sci. Pollut.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref50)\n[R. 28 (2021) 45867[–]45878.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref50)\n\n[[51] X.D. Liang, B.Y. Yao, M. Ye, Y.Q. Wang, Z.Y. Li, Iop, Decision](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref51)\n[Analysis of Spent Power Battery Recovery Mode under Hybrid Dual-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref51)\n[Channel Collection, in: 6th International Conference on Advances in](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref51)\n[Energy Resources and Environment Engineering vol. 647, 2021.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref51)\n\n[[52] Y. Yang, X. Meng, H. Cao, C. Liu, Y. Sun, Z. Sun, Green Chem. 20](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref52)\n[(2018) 3121–3133.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref52)\n\n[[53] X. Ma, Y. Ma, J. Zhou, S. Xiong, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 159](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref53)\n[(2018) 012017.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref53)\n\n[[54] X.M. Ma, Y. Ma, J.P. Zhou, S.Q. Xiong, Iop, The Recycling of Spent](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref54)\n[Power Battery: Economic Benefits and Policy Suggestions, in: 2018 4th](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref54)\n[International Conference on Environment and Renewable Energy](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref54)\n[(ICERE 2018), 2018, pp. 159.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref54)\n\n[[55] G. Granata, E. Moscardini, F. Pagnanelli, F. Trabucco, L. Toro, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref55)\n[Sources 206 (2012) 393–401.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref55)\n\n[[56] L.Z. Duan, Y.R. Cui, Q. Li, J. Wang, C.H. Man, X.Y. Wang, Johnson.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref56)\n[Matthey. Tech. 65 (2021) 431–452.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref56)\n\n[[57] X. Dai, A. Zhou, Z., J. Xu, Y. Lu, L. Wang, C. Fan, J. Li, J. Phys. Chem.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref57)\n[C 120 (2016) 422–430.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref57)\n\n[[58] O.K. Park, Y. Cho, S. Lee, H.C. Yoo, H.K. Song, J. Cho, Energy En-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref58)\n[viron. Sci. 4 (2011) 1621–1633.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref58)\n\n[[59] H. Pan, S. Zhang, J. Chen, M. Gao, Y. Liu, T. Zhu, Y. Jiang, Mol. Syst.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref59)\n[Des. Eng. 3 (2018) 748–803.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref59)\n\n[[60] J.A. Shan, B. Dma, A. Zl, A. Rl, L.A. Zhu, W.C. Yue, T.D. Shuang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref60)\n[A. Cd, J. Clean. Prod. (2022) 130535.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref60)\n\n[[61] F. Wang, T. Zhang, Y. He, Y. Zhao, S. Wang, G. Zhang, Y. Zhang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref61)\n[Y. Feng, J. Clean. Prod. 185 (2018) 646–652.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref61)\n\n[[62] S. Ojanen, M. Lundstrom, A. Santasalo-Aarnio, R. Serna-Guerrero,€](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref62)\n[Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 76 (2018) 242–249.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref62)\n\n[[63] J. Yu, Y. He, Z. Ge, H. Li, W. Xie, S. Wang, Sep. Purif. Technol. 190](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref63)\n[(2018) 45–52.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref63)\n\n[[64] T. Zhang, Y. He, F. Wang, H. Li, C. Duan, C. Wu, Sep. Purif. Technol.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref64)\n[138 (2014) 21–27.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref64)\n\n[[65] Y. He, T. Zhang, F. Wang, G. Zhang, W. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Clean. Prod.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref65)\n[143 (2017) 319–325.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref65)\n\n[[66] J. Diekmann, C. Hanisch, L. Frobose, G. Sch€](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref66) [€alicke, T. Loellhoeffel, A.-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref66)\n[S. Folster, A. Kwade, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 (2016) 6184–6191€](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref66) .\n\n[[67] A.J. Da Costa, J.F. Matos, A.M. Bernardes, I.L. Muller, Int. J. Miner.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref67)\n[Process. 145 (2015) 77–82.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref67)\n\n[[68] F. Pagnanelli, E. Moscardini, P. Altimari, T.A. Atia, L. Toro, Waste](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref68)\n[Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 60 (2017) 706–715.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref68)\n\n[[69] J.D. Yu, Y.Q. He, H. Li, W.N. Xie, T. Zhang, Powder Technol. 315](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref69)\n[(2017) 139–146.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref69)\n\n[[70] J.D. Yu, Y.Q. He, Z.Z. Ge, H. Li, W.N. Xie, S. Wang, Sep. Purif.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref70)\n[Technol. 190 (2018) 45–52.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref70)\n\n[[71] T. Zhang, Y.Q. He, F.F. Wang, H. Li, C.L. Duan, C.B. Wu, Sep. Purif.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref71)\n[Technol. 138 (2014) 21–27.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref71)\n\n[[72] B.J. Li, J. Shi, H. Li, L.Y. Wang, G.J. Liu, H.D. Zhao, IEEE](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref72)\n[Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT Asia), 2019,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref72)\n[pp. 3519–3524.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref72)\n\n[[73] L. Li, L.Y. Zhai, X.X. Zhang, J. Lu, R.J. Chen, F. Wu, K. Amine,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref73)\n[J. Power Sources 262 (2014) 380–385.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref73)\n\n[[74] L.P. He, S.Y. Sun, X.F. Song, J.G. Yu, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref74)\n[46 (2015) 523–528.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref74)\n\n[[75] M. Contestabile, S. Panero, B. Scrosati, J. Power Sources 92 (2001) 65–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref75)\n[69.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref75)\n\n[[76] Y.A. Xu, D.W. Song, L. Li, C.H. An, Y.J. Wang, L.F. Jiao, H.T. Yuan,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref76)\n[J. Power Sources 252 (2014) 286–291.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref76)\n\n[[77] Y. Zhen, H.L. Long, L. Zhou, Z.S. Wu, X. Zhou, L. You, Y. Yang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref77)\n[J.W. Liu, Int. J. Environ. Res. 10 (2016) 159–168.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref77)\n\n[[78] J.G. Li, R.S. Zhao, X.M. He, H.C. Liu, Ionics 15 (2009) 111–113.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref78)\n\n@26@\n828 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\n[[79] L. Sun, K.Q. Qiu, J. Hazard. Mater. 194 (2011) 378–384.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref79)\n\n[[80] L. Sun, K.Q. Qiu, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 32 (2012) 1575–1582.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref80)\n\n[[81] D.A. Ferreira, L.M.Z. Prados, D. Majuste, M.B. Mansur, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref81)\n[Sources 187 (2009) 238–246.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref81)\n\n[[82] M. Al-Harahsheh, S.W. Kingman, Hydrometallurgy 73 (2004) 189[–]203.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref82)\n\n[[83] J.J. Du, Y. Yang, M. Omran, S.H. Guo, Curr. Microwave Chem. 8](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref83)\n[(2021) 7–11.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref83)\n\n[[84] R.K. Amankwah, G. Ofori-Sarpong, Miner. Eng. 24 (2011) 541–544.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref84)\n\n[[85] C.E.M. Meskers, C. Hageluken, G. Van Damme, Green Recycling of](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref85)\n[EEE: Special and Precious Metal Recovery from EEE, in: EPD](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref85)\n[Congress, 2009, pp. 1131.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref85)\n\n[[86] S.M. Bak, E.Y. Hu, Y.N. Zhou, X.Q. Yu, S.D. Senanayake, S.J. Cho,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref86)\n[K.B. Kim, K.Y. Chung, X.Q. Yang, K.W. Nam, ACS Appl. Mater. In-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref86)\n[terfaces 6 (2014) 22594–22601.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref86)\n\n[[87] X.P. Chen, Y. Wang, L. Yuan, S.B. Wang, S.X. Yan, H.B. Liu, J.H. Xu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref87)\n[Green Chem. 25 (2023) 1559[–]1570.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref87)\n\n[[88] B.C. Zhang, Y.L. Xu, B. Makuza, F.J. Zhu, H.J. Wang, N.Y. Hong,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref88)\n[Z. Long, W.T. Deng, G.Q. Zou, H.S. Hou, X.B. Ji, Chem. Eng. J. 452](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref88)\n[(2023) 242–249.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref88)\n\n[[89] X.F. Hu, E. Mousa, G.Z. Ye, J. Power Sources 483 (2021) 228936.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref89)\n\n[[90] X.F. Hu, E. Mousa, Y. Tian, G.Z. Ye, J. Power Sources 483 (2021)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref90)\n[132096.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref90)\n\n[[91] J.F. Xiao, J. Li, Z.M. Xu, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017) 11960–11966.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref91)\n\n[[92] S. Vishvakarma, N. Dhawan, J. Sustaina. Metall. 5 (2019) 204–209.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref92)\n\n[[93] P. Liu, L. Xiao, Y. Tang, Y. Chen, L. Ye, Y. Zhu, J. Therm. Anal.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref93)\n[Calorim. 136 (2019) 1323–1332.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref93)\n\n[[94] J. Hu, J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Chen, C. Wang, J. Power Sources 351 (2017)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref94)\n[192–199.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref94)\n\n[[95] Y. Yang, S. Song, S. Lei, W. Sun, H. Hou, F. Jiang, X. Ji, W. Zhao,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref95)\n[Y. Hu, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 85 (2019) 529–537.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref95)\n\n[[96] J.K. Mao, J. Li, Z. Xu, J. Clean. Prod. 205 (2018) 923–929.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref96)\n\n[[97] J. Lin, C. Liu, H. Cao, R. Chen, Y. Yang, L. Li, Z. Sun, Green Chem. 21](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref97)\n[(2019) 5904–5913.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref97)\n\n[[98] J.F. Paulino, N.G. Busnardo, J.C. Afonso, J. Hazard. Mater. 150 (2008)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref98)\n[843–849.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref98)\n\n[[99] D. Wang, H. Wen, H. Chen, Y. Yang, H. Liang, Chem. Res. Chin. Univ.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref99)\n[32 (2016) 674–677.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref99)\n\n[[100] G. Ren, S. Xiao, M. Xie, B. Pan, Y. Fan, F. Wang, X. Xia, Adv. Molt](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref100)\n[Slag, Flu. Salt (2016) 211–218.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref100)\n\n[[101] J. Lin, C.W. Liu, H.B. Cao, R.J. Chen, Y.X. Yang, L. Li, Z. Sun, Green](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref101)\n[Chem. 21 (2019) 5904–5913.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref101)\n\n[[102] E.S. Fan, L. Li, J. Lin, J.W. Wu, J.B. Yang, F. Wu, R.J. Chen, ACS](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref102)\n[Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7 (2019) 16144–16150.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref102)\n\n[[103] P. Xu, C. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Zheng, W. Lv, F. Rao, P. Yao, J. Wang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref103)\n[Z. Sun, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 2271–2279.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref103)\n\n[[104] Y. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Fang, S. Xu, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 102](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref104)\n[(2020) 847–855.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref104)\n\n[[105] W. Wang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, S. Xu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7 (2019)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref105)\n[12222–12230.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref105)\n\n[[106] J. Zhang, J. Hu, W. Zhang, Y. Chen, C. Wang, J. Clean. Prod. 204](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref106)\n[(2018) 437–446.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref106)\n\n[[107] Y. Chen, P. Shi, D. Chang, Y. Jie, S. Yang, G. Wu, H. Chen, J. Zhu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref107)\n[F. Hu, B.P. Wilson, M. Lundstrom, Sep. Purif. Technol. 258 (2021)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref107)\n[118078.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref107)\n\n[[108] Y. Fu, Y. He, Y. Yang, L. Qu, J. Li, R. Zhou, J. Alloys Compd. 832](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref108)\n[(2020) 154920.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref108)\n\n[[109] Y. Fu, Y. He, J. Li, L. Qu, Y. Yang, X. Guo, W. Xie, J. Alloys Compd.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref109)\n[847 (2020) 156489.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref109)\n\n[[110] Y. Ma, J. Tang, R. Wanaldi, X. Zhou, H. Wang, C. Zhou, J. Yang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref110)\n[J. Hazard. Mater. 402 (2021) 123491.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref110)\n\n[[111] Y. Zhang, W. Wang, J. Hu, T. Zhang, S. Xu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref111)\n[(2020) 15496–15506.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref111)\n\n[[112] W. Wang, Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, S. Xu, J. Clean. Prod. 249 (2020)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref112)\n[119340.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref112)\n\n[[113] P. Liu, L. Xiao, Y. Chen, Y. Tang, J. Wu, H. Chen, J. Alloys Compd. 783](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref113)\n[(2019) 743–752.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref113)\n\n[[114] D. Wang, W. Li, S. Rao, J. Tao, L. Duan, K. Zhang, H. Cao, Z. Liu, Sep.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref114)\n[Purif. Technol. 259 (2021) 118212.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref114)\n\n[[115] S. Pindar, N. Dhawan, T., Indian. I. Metals. 73 (2020) 2041[–]2051.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref115)\n\n[[116] S. Pindar, N. Dhawan, Mining, Metall. Explor. 37 (2020) 1285–1295.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref116)\n\n[[117] S.R. Sunil, N. Dhawan, T., Indian. I. Metals. 72 (2019) 3035–3044.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref117)\n\n[[118] L. Chen, X. Tang, Y. Zhang, L. Li, Z. Zeng, Y. Zhang, Hydrometallurgy](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref118)\n[108 (2011) 80–86.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref118)\n\n[[119] B. Swain, J. Jeong, J.-C. Lee, G.-H. Lee, J.-S. Sohn, J. Power Sources](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref119)\n[167 (2007) 536–544.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref119)\n\n[[120] J.M. Zhao, X.Y. Shen, F.L. Deng, F.C. Wang, Y. Wu, H.Z. Liu, Sep.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref120)\n[Purif. Technol. 78 (2011) 345–351.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref120)\n\n[[121] H. Bing, A. Porvali, M. Lundstrom, M. Louhi-Kultanen, Chem. Eng.€](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref121)\n[Technol. 41 (2018) 1205–1210.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref121)\n\n[[122] Y. Guo, F. Li, H. Zhu, G. Li, J. Huang, W. He, Waste Manage. (Tucson,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref122)\n[Ariz.) 51 (2016) 227–233.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref122)\n\n[[123] S. Sakultung, K. Pruksathorn, M. Hunsom, J. Chem. Eng. 3 (2008) 374–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref123)\n[379.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref123)\n\n[[124] L. Shi, Nonferrous Met. 10 (2018) 77–90.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref124)\n\n[[125] J.B. Wang, M.J. Chen, H.Y. Chen, T. Luo, Z.H. Xu, Procedia Environ.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref125)\n[Sci. (2012) 3632–3639.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref125)\n\n[[126] J. Yang, L.X. Jiang, F.Y. Liu, M. Jia, Y.Q. Lai, T. Nonferr, Metals. Soc.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref126)\n[China. 30 (2020) 2256–2264.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref126)\n\n[[127] P. Meshram, B.D. Pandey, T.R. Mankhand, Chem. Eng. J. 281 (2015)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref127)\n[418–427.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref127)\n\n[[128] D.S. Suarez, E.G. Pinna, G.D. Rosales, M.H. Rodriguez, Minerals 7](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref128)\n[(2017) 81.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref128)\n\n[[129] M. Jouli<EFBFBD>e, E. Billy, R. Laucournet, D. Meyer, Hydrometallurgy 169](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref129)\n[(2017) 426–432.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref129)\n\n[[130] Z.T. A, T.H. A, F.K. B, D.O. A, Hydrometallurgy 163 (2016) 9–17.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref130)\n\n[[131] M. Joulie, R. Laucournet, E. Billy, J. Power Sources 247 (2014) 551–555.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref131)\n\n[[132] L. Li, J.B. Dunn, X.X. Zhang, L. Gaines, R.J. Chen, F. Wu, K. Amine,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref132)\n[J. Power Sources 233 (2013) 180–189.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref132)\n\n[[133] L. Li, J. Lu, Y. Ren, X.X. Zhang, R.J. Chen, F. Wu, K. Amine, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref133)\n[Sources 218 (2012) 21–27.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref133)\n\n[[134] L. Li, W.J. Qu, X.X. Zhang, J. Lu, R.J. Chen, F. Wu, K. Amine, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref134)\n[Sources 282 (2015) 544–551.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref134)\n\n[[135] L. Li, J. Ge, R. Chen, F. Wu, S. Chen, X. Zhang, Waste Manage.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref135)\n[(Tucson, Ariz.) 30 (2010) 2615–2621.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref135)\n\n[[136] E. Sayilgan, T. Kukrer, N.O. Yigit, G. Civelekoglu, M. Kitis, J. Hazard.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref136)\n[Mater. 173 (2010) 137[–]143.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref136)\n\n[[137] L. Li, E.S. Fan, Y.B.A. Guan, X.X. Zhang, Q. Xue, L. Wei, F. Wu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref137)\n[R.J. Chen, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5 (2017) 5224–5233.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref137)\n\n[[138] X. Zhang, Y. Bian, S. Xu, E. Fan, Q. Xue, Y. Guan, F. Wu, L. Li,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref138)\n[R. Chen, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. (2018) 704373.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref138)\n\n[[139] E. Fan, J. Yang, Y. Huang, J. Lin, F. Arshad, F. Wu, L. Li, R. Chen, ACS](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref139)\n[Appl. Energy Mater. 3 (2020) 8532–8542.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref139)\n\n[[140] L. Li, Y.F. Bian, X.X. Zhang, Q. Xue, E.S. Fan, F. Wu, R.J. Chen,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref140)\n[J. Power Sources 377 (2018) 70–79.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref140)\n\n[[141] G.P. Nayaka, K.V. Pai, G. Santhosh, J. Manjanna, Hydrometallurgy 161](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref141)\n[(2016) 54–57.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref141)\n\n[[142] R.J. Zheng, W.H. Wang, Y.K. Dai, Q.X. Ma, Y.L. Liu, D.Y. Mu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref142)\n[R.H. Li, J. Ren, C.S. Dai, Green Energy Environ. 2 (2017) 42–50.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref142)\n\n[[143] Y. Fu, Y. He, L. Qu, Y. Feng, J. Li, J. Liu, G. Zhang, W. Xie, Waste](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref143)\n[Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 88 (2019) 191–199.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref143)\n\n[[144] W.F. Gao, X.H. Zhang, X.H. Zheng, X. Lin, H.B. Cao, Y. Zhi, Z. Sun,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref144)\n[Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017) 1662–1669.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref144)\n\n[[145] G.P. Nayaka, K.V. Pai, J. Manjanna, S.J. Keny, Waste Manage. (Tucson,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref145)\n[Ariz.) 51 (2016) 234–238.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref145)\n\n[[146] A.K. Jha, M.K. Jha, A. Kumari, S.K. Sahu, V. Kumar, B.D. Pandey, Sep.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref146)\n[Purif. Technol. 104 (2013) 160–166.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref146)\n\n[[147] W. Feng, S. Rong, J. Xu, C. Zheng, K. Ming, RSC Adv. 6 (2016)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref147)\n[85303–85311.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref147)\n\n@27@\nZ. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830 829\n\n[[148] W. Gao, X. Zhang, X. Zheng, X. Lin, H. Cao, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, En-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref148)\n[viron. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017) 1662–1669.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref148)\n\n[[149] T. Shiga, H. Kondo, Y. Kato, K. Fukumoto, Y. Hase, ACS Sustain.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref149)\n[Chem. Eng. 8 (2020) 2260–2266.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref149)\n\n[[150] X. Chen, C. Luo, J. Zhang, J. Kong, T. Zhou, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref150)\n[3 (2015) 3104–3113.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref150)\n\n[[151] X. Chen, B. Xu, T. Zhou, D. Liu, H. Hu, S. Fan, Sep. Purif. Technol.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref151)\n[144 (2015) 197–205.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref151)\n\n[[152] E.M.S. Barbieri, E.P.C. Lima, M.F.F. Lelis, M.B.J.G. Freitas, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref152)\n[Sources 270 (2014) 158–165.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref152)\n\n[[153] A.A. Nayl, R.A. Elkhashab, S.M. Badawy, M.A. El-Khateeb, Arab. J.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref153)\n[Chem. 10 (2017) 3632–3639.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref153)\n\n[[154] T.Huang,D.Song,L.Liu,S.Zhang,Sep.Purif.Technol.215(2019)51–61.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref154)\n\n[[155] X. Zeng, J. Li, B. Shen, J. Hazard. Mater. 295 (2015) 112–118.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref155)\n\n[[156] G.P. Nayaka, Y. Zhang, P. Dong, D. Wang, K.V. Pai, J. Manjanna,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref156)\n[G. Santhosh, J. Duan, Z. Zhou, J. Xiao, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref156)\n[78 (2018) 51–57.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref156)\n\n[[157] G.R. Hu, Y.F. Gong, Z.D. Peng, K. Du, M. Huang, J.H. Wu, D.C. Guan,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref157)\n[J.Y. Zeng, B.C. Zhang, Y.B. Cao, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 10 (2022)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref157)\n[11606–11616.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref157)\n\n[[158] E.S. Fan, L. Li, X.X. Zhang, Y.F. Bian, Q. Xue, J.W. Wu, F. Wu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref158)\n[R.J. Chen, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (2018) 11029–11035.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref158)\n\n[[159] J. Kang, G. Senanayake, J. Sohn, S.M. Shin, Hydrometallurgy 100](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref159)\n[(2010) 168–171.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref159)\n\n[[160] F. Vasilyev, S. Virolainen, T. Sainio, Sep. Purif. Technol. 210 (2019)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref160)\n[530–540.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref160)\n\n[[161] L. Zhang, L. Li, H. Rui, D. Shi, X. Peng, L. Ji, X. Song, J. Hazard.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref161)\n[Mater. 398 (2020) 122840.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref161)\n\n[[162] X.P. Chen, T. Zhou, J.R. Kong, H.X. Fang, Y.B. Chen, Sep. Purif.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref162)\n[Technol. 141 (2015) 76–83.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref162)\n\n[[163] M.L. Strauss, L.A. Diaz, J. Mcnally, J. Klaehn, T.E. Lister, Hydro-](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref163)\n[metallurgy 206 (2021) 105757.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref163)\n\n[[164] D. Dutta, A. Kumari, R. Panda, S. Jha, D. Gupta, S. Goel, M. Kumar](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref164)\n[Jha, Sep. Purif. Technol. (2018) 327–334.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref164)\n\n[[165] F. Larouche, F. Tedjar, K. Amouzegar, G. Houlachi, P. Bouchard,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref165)\n[G.P. Demopoulos, K. Zaghib, Materials 13 (2020) 13030801.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref165)\n\n[[166] T. Hoshino, Lithium ECS Transactions 58 (2014) 173–177.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref166)\n\n[167] P.T. Wulandari Yuliusman, [R.A.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref167) Amiliana, Silvia M. Huda,\n[F.A. Kusumadewi, In 2nd International Tropical Renewable Energy](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref167)\n[Conference (I-TREC) 333 (2017) 012036.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref167)\n\n[[168] O.V. Tupikina, I.E. Ngoma, S. Minnaar, S. Harrison, Miner. Eng. 24](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref168)\n[(2011) 1209[–]1214.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref168)\n\n[[169] J. Sedlakova-Kadukova, R. Marcincakova, A. Mrazikova, J. Willner,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref169)\n[A. Fornalczyk, Arch. Metall. Mater. 62 (2017) 1459–1466.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref169)\n\n[[170] J. Li, T. Xu, J. Liu, J. Wen, S. Gong, Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 28 (2021)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref170)\n[44622–44637.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref170)\n\n[[171] X. Cai, L. Tian, C. Chen, W. Huang, Y. Yu, C. Liu, B. Yang, X. Lu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref171)\n[Y. Mao, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 223 (2021) 112592.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref171)\n\n[[172] W. Gu, J. Bai, B. Dong, X. Zhuang, J. Zhao, C. Zhang, J. Wang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref172)\n[K. Shih, Hydrometallurgy 171 (2017) 172–178.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref172)\n\n[[173] Z. Kazemian, M. Larypoor, R. Marandi, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref173)\n[103 (2020) 514–527.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref173)\n\n[[174] M.-J. Kim, J.-Y. Seo, Y.-S. Choi, G.-H. Kim, Waste Manage. (Tucson,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref174)\n[Ariz.) 51 (2016) 168–173.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref174)\n\n[[175] T. Naseri, N. Bahaloo-Horeh, S.M. Mousavi, J. Environ. Manag. 235](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref175)\n[(2019) 357–367.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref175)\n\n[[176] J.J. Roy, S. Madhavi, B. Cao, J. Clean. Prod. 280 (2021) 124242.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref176)\n\n[[177] Z. Niu, Y. Zou, B. Xin, S. Chen, C. Liu, Y. Li, Chemosphere 109 (2014)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref177)\n[92–98.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref177)\n\n[[178] Y. Xin, X. Guo, S. Chen, J. Wang, F. Wu, B. Xin, J. Clean. Prod. 116](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref178)\n[(2016) 249–258.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref178)\n\n[[179] T. Huang, L. Liu, S. Zhang, Hydrometallurgy 188 (2019) 101–111.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref179)\n\n[[180] R. Quatrini, D.B. Johnson, Trends Microbiol. 27 (2019) 282–283.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref180)\n\n[[181] T. Naseri, N. Bahaloo-Horeh, S.M. Mousavi, J. Clean. Prod. 220 (2019)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref181)\n[483–492.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref181)\n\n[[182] Y. Masaki, T. Hirajima, K. Sasaki, H. Miki, N. Okibe, Geomicrobiol. J.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref182)\n[35 (2018) 648–656.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref182)\n\n[[183] A. Heydarian, S.M. Mousavi, F. Vakilchap, M. Baniasadi, J. Power](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref183)\n[Sources 378 (2018) 19–30.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref183)\n\n[[184] N. Bahaloo-Horeh, S.M. Mousavi, M. Baniasadi, J. Clean. Prod. 197](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref184)\n[(2018) 1546–1557.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref184)\n\n[[185] W. Wu, X. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Qiu, M. Zhu, W. Tan, J. Biosci.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref185)\n[Bioeng. 128 (2019) 344–354.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref185)\n\n[[186] X. Liang, G.M. Gadd, Microb. Biotechnol. 10 (2017) 1199–1205.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref186)\n\n[[187] L.H.M. Vargas, A.C.S. Pi~ao, R.N. Domingos, E.C. Carmona, World J.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref187)\n[Microbiol. Biotechnol. 20 (2004) 137–142.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref187)\n\n[[188] N. Bahaloo-Horeh, S.M. Mousavi, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 60](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref188)\n[(2017) 666–679.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref188)\n\n[[189] Y. Gumulya, N.J. Boxall, H.N. Khaleque, V. Santala, R.P. Carlson,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref189)\n[A.H. Kaksonen, Genes 9 (2018) 116.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref189)\n\n[[190] J. Wang, B. Tian, Y. Bao, C. Qian, Y. Yang, T. Niu, B. Xin, J. Hazard.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref190)\n[Mater. 354 (2018) 250–257.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref190)\n\n[[191] H. Ku, Y. Jung, M. Jo, S. Park, S. Kim, D. Yang, K. Rhee, E.-M. An,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref191)\n[J. Sohn, K. Kwon, J. Hazard. Mater. 313 (2016) 138–146.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref191)\n\n[[192] W. Lv, Z. Wang, H. Cao, X. Zheng, W. Jin, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, Waste](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref192)\n[Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 79 (2018) 545–553.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref192)\n\n[[193] G. Zhang, X. Yuan, Y. He, H. Wang, T. Zhang, W. Xie, J. Hazard.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref193)\n[Mater. 406 (2021) 124332.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref193)\n\n[[194] Y.Y. Ma, J.J. Tang, R. Wanaldi, X.Y. Zhou, H. Wang, C.Y. Zhou,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref194)\n[J. Yang, J. Hazard. Mater. 402 (2021) 123491.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref194)\n\n[[195] Y. Chen, N. Liu, F. Hu, L. Ye, Y. Xi, S. Yang, Waste Manage. (Tucson,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref195)\n[Ariz.) 75 (2018) 469–476.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref195)\n\n[[196] Y.X. Yang, X.H. Zheng, H.B. Cao, C.L. Zhao, X. Lin, P.G. Ning, Y. Zhang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref196)\n[W. Jin, Z. Sun, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5 (2017) 9972–9980.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref196)\n\n[[197] C. Padwal, H.D. Pham, S. Jadhav, T.T. Do, J. Nerkar, L.T.M. Hoang,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref197)\n[A.K. Nanjundan, S.G. Mundree, D.P. Dubal, Adv. Energ. Sust. Res. 3](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref197)\n[(2022) 2100133.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref197)\n\n[[198] M.K. Tran, M.T.F. Rodrigues, K. Kato, G. Babu, P.M. Ajayan, Nat.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref198)\n[Energy 4 (2019) 339–345.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref198)\n\n[[199] W. Fan, J. Zhang, R. Ma, Y. Chen, C. Wang, Electroanal. Chem. 908](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref199)\n[(2022) 116087.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref199)\n\n[[200] Q.H. Chen, L.W. Huang, J.B. Liu, Y.T. Luo, Y.G. Chen, Carbon 189](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref200)\n[(2022) 293–304.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref200)\n\n[[201] S. Rothermel, M. Evertz, J. Kasnatscheew, X. Qi, M. Gruetzke,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref201)\n[M. Winter, S. Nowak, ChemSusChem (2016) 3473–3484.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref201)\n\n[[202] F.A. Kayakool, B. Gangaja, S. Nair, D. Santhanagopalan, Sustain.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref202)\n[Mater. Techno. 28 (2021) e00262.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref202)\n\n[[203] K. Liu, S. Yang, L. Luo, Q. Pan, P. Zhang, Y. Huang, F. Zheng,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref203)\n[H. Wang, Q. Li, Electrochim. Acta 356 (2020) 136856.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref203)\n\n[[204] Y.L. Zhao, H. Wang, X.D. Li, X.Z. Yuan, L.B. Jiang, X.W. Chen,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref204)\n[J. Hazard. Mater. 420 (2021) 126552.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref204)\n\n[[205] L. Yang, L. Yang, G.R. Xu, Q.G. Feng, Y.C. Li, E.Q. Zhao, J.J. Ma,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref205)\n[S.M. Fan, X.B. Li, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 9823.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref205)\n\n[[206] J.D. Yu, M.S. Lin, Q.Y. Tan, J.H. Li, J. Hazard. Mater. 401 (2021)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref206)\n[123715.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref206)\n\n[[207] J. Yu, M. Lin, Q. Tan, J. Li, J. Hazard. Mater. 401 (2021) 123715.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref207)\n\n[[208] S. Natarajan, D. Shanthana Lakshmi, H.C. Bajaj, D.N. Srivastava,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref208)\n[J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 3 (2015) 2538–2545.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref208)\n\n[[209] M.J. Lain, Fuel Energy Abstr. 43 (2002) 295–296.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref209)\n\n[[210] K. He, Z.-Y. Zhang, L. Alai, F.-S. Zhang, J. Hazard. Mater. 375 (2019)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref210)\n[43–51.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref210)\n\n[[211] M. Gru¨tzke, S. Kru¨ger, V. Kraft, B. Vortmann, S. Rothermel, M. Winter,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref211)\n[S. Nowak, ChemSusChem 8 (2015) 3433–3438.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref211)\n\n[[212] Y. Liu, D. Mu, R. Li, Q. Ma, R. Zheng, C. Dai, J. Phys. Chem. C 121](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref212)\n[(2017) 4181–4187.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref212)\n\n[[213] A. Ciroth, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 12 (2007) 209–210.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref213)\n\n[[214] E. Botero, C. Naranjo, J. Aguirre, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 13 (2008) 172–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref214)\n[174.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref214)\n\n[[215] K. Lee, S. Tae, S. Shin, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1994–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref215)\n[2002.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref215)\n\n[[216] S.K. Ong, T.H. Koh, A.Y.C. Nee, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 90 (1999)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref216)\n[574–582.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref216)\n\n[[217] S. Singh, B.R. Bakshi, IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref217)\n[Systems and Technology 416 (2009) 416.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref217)\n\n@28@\n830 Z. Liu et al. / Green Energy & Environment 9 (2024) 802–830\n\n[[218] D. Xiang, X.P. Liu, Y. Wu, J.S. Wang, G.H. Duan, IEEE International](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref218)\n[Symposium on Electronics and the Environment: Conference Record,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref218)\n[2003, pp. 120–124.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref218)\n\n[[219] L. Lin, Z. Lu, W. Zhang, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 167 (2021) 105416.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref219)\n\n[[220] M.X. Sun, Y.T. Wang, J.L. Hong, J.L. Dai, R.Q. Wang, Z.R. Niu,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref220)\n[B.P. Xin, J. Clean. Prod. 129 (2016) 350–358.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref220)\n\n[[221] M. Rinne, H. Elomaa, A. Porvali, M. Lundstrom, Resour. Conserv.€](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref221)\n[Recycl. 170 (2021) 105586.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref221)\n\n[[222] E. Kallitsis, A. Korre, G.H. Kelsall, J. Clean. Prod. 371 (2022) 133636.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref222)\n\n[[223] M. Raugei, P. Winfield, J. Clean. Prod. 213 (2019) 926–932.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref223)\n\n[[224] Y.X. Wang, B.J. Tang, M. Shen, Y.Z. Wu, S. Qu, Y.J. Hu, Y. Feng,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref224)\n[J. Environ. Manag. 314 (2022) 115083.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref224)\n\n[[225] U.S.E.P. Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/](https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract_id/788/report/0)\n[display.abstractDetail/abstract_id/788/report/0, 2003. (Accessed 11 March](https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract_id/788/report/0)\n2023).\n\n[[226] H. Hao, Z. Mu, S. Jiang, Z. Liu, F. Zhao, Sustainability 9 (2017) 504.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref226)\n\n[[227] X. Shu, Y. Guo, W. Yang, K. Wei, G. Zhu, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 2302–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref227)\n[2315.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref227)\n\n[[228] P. Marques, R. Garcia, L. Kulay, F. Freire, J. Clean. Prod. 229 (2019)](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref228)\n[787–794.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref228)\n\n[[229] X. Xia, P. Li, Sci. Total Environ. 814 (2022) 152870.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref229)\n\n[[230] Q. Wang, M. Xue, B.L. Lin, Z. Lei, Z. Zhang, J. Clean. Prod. 275](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref230)\n[(2020) 123061.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref230)\n\n[[231] E. Yoo, M. Kim, H.H. Song, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (2018) 19267–](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref231)\n[19278.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref231)\n\n[[232] C. Bauer, J. Hofer, H.-J. Althsus, A.D. Duce, A. Simons, Appl. Energy](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref232)\n[157 (2015) 871–883.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref232)\n\n[[233] J. Peters, D. Buchholz, S. Passerini, M. Weil, Energy Environ. Sci. 9](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref233)\n[(2016) 1744–1751.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref233)\n\n[[234] Y.Deng,J.Li,T.Li,X.Gao, C.Yuan,J.PowerSources343(2017) 284–295.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref234)\n\n[[235] M. Zackrisson, K. Fransson, J. Hildenbrand, G. Lampic, C. O'dwyer,](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref235)\n[J. Clean. Prod. 135 (2016) 299–311.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref235)\n\n[[236] L. Roberson, J.P. Helveston, Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 084003.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref236)\n\n[[237] Polaris Energy Storage Network, 2022. https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/](https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20221219/1277150.shtml)\n[20221219/1277150.shtml. (Accessed 3 February 2023).](https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20221219/1277150.shtml)\n\n[[238] Q. Hoarau, E. Lorang, Energy Pol. 162 (2022) 112770.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref238)\n\n[[239] Central Government of the People's Republic of China, 2018. http://www.](http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2018-02/26/content_5268875.htm)\n[gov.cn/xinwen/2018-02/26/content_5268875.htm. (Accessed 2 March](http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2018-02/26/content_5268875.htm)\n2023).\n\n[[240] Polaris Energy Storage Network, 2022. https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/](https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20221219/1277150.shtml)\n[20221219/1277150.shtml. (Accessed 3 February 2023).](https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20221219/1277150.shtml)\n\n[[241] S. Matsumoto, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2011) 325–334.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref241)\n\n[[242] J. Hiratsuka, N. Sato, H. Yoshida, J Mater Cycles Waste 16 (2014) 21–30.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2468-0257(23)00126-7/sref242)\n\n[243] Viewpoint: Battery Recycling Key to Net Zero in Japan, Argus, 2022.\n\n[https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2400483-viewpoint-battery-](https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2400483-viewpoint-battery-recycling-key-to-net-zero-in-japan)\n[recycling-key-to-net-zero-in-japan. (Accessed 3 January 2023).](https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2400483-viewpoint-battery-recycling-key-to-net-zero-in-japan)\n\n@29@\n'''
data = {
    "text": text,
    "arango_db_name": 'base',
    "arango_id": 'sci_articles/test',
    "is_sci": True
}

# Send the data to the FastAPI server
url = "http://192.168.1.11:8100/summarise_document"
response = requests.post(url, json=data)
print(response.json())