Title: A Comparative Analysis of Battery Recycling Using Different Solvents

Introduction

The surging demand for lithium-ion batteries, propelled by the rapid expansion of electric
vehicles and renewable energy technologies, has sparked heightened concerns about the
environmental repercussions associated with the disposal of spent batteries. In response to
this pressing challenge, researchers have delved into diverse recycling methodologies with
the twin objectives of recovering valuable materials and mitigating the ecological footprint
associated with battery production and disposal. This essay undertakes a comparative
exploration of two research studies employing distinct solvent-based approaches for the
recycling of used lithium-ion batteries: "Low-carbon recycling of spent lithium iron
phosphate batteries via a hydro-oxygen repair route" and "Lithium recovery from effluent of
spent lithium battery recycling process using solvent extraction."

Jurnal 1: Low-carbon recycling via Hydro-Oxygen Repair (HOR) Route

In the inaugural study, the authors propose the innovative hydro-oxygen repair (HOR) route
for the comprehensive recycling of depleted lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries. This
multifaceted process encompasses critical stages comprising the separation of cathode
electrodes, the oxidative extraction of lithium (Li), and the rejuvenation of LiFePO4
crystals.(Liu.K,2023)

The HOR route commences with the utilization of a hydro-oxygen environment,

characterized by a cathode electrode:H2O2 ratio of 30 g mL−1. This configuration is
instrumental in achieving a rapid and non-destructive separation of the LiFePO4 cathode
material and the aluminum foil, culminating in a significantly abbreviated processing time
and reduced energy consumption.(Liu.K,2023)

The augmentation of the redox potential within the liquid-phase system ushers in a pivotal
transformation. Here, the lithium (Li) ensconced within the lithium iron phosphate (LFP)
crystals is liberated into the hydro-oxygen solution. This transformative event induces a
metamorphosis within the LFP crystal, causing it to metamorphose into FePO4, as visually
illustrated in Figure 3a. In an environment enriched with LFP and H2O2, Li undergoes a
metamorphosis into a soluble state, recognized as LiOOH or lithium hydroperoxide. This
chemical transition facilitates the separation of Li from the FePO4 framework, propelled by
elevated chemical potential and a decline in pH levels. With an escalation in H2O2
concentration, discernible alterations emerge, including the bending vibration of tetrahedral
PO4 at 532 and 576 cm−1 and the stretching vibration of octahedral FeO6 at 647 and 686
cm−1, spanning the spectral range of 500–800 cm−1. These spectroscopic shifts
unequivocally signify the de-intercalation of Li, an intricate process elucidated in Figure 3b.
Additionally, the conspicuous presence of the characteristic band associated with olivine
FePO4 at 1236 cm−1 is discernible in the solid residues, an attribute conspicuously absent in
the spent LFP.(Liu.K,2023)
In our proposed methodology, H2O2 stands as the exclusive reagent deployed within the
all-encompassing hydro-oxygen repair (HOR) route. This judicious selection effectively
circumvents potential disruptions arising from the introduction of impurities, such as external
cations and anions. Within the liquid phase, Li is judiciously concentrated and subsequently
selectively reclaimed through chemical precipitation. The intricate mechanism underpinning
the oxidative extraction of Li finds lucidity. (Liu.K,2023) Exposed to the influence of H2O2,
Fe2+ within spent LFP undergoes a transformation into Fe3+, thereby instigating the
liberation of Li+ from the LFP crystals. The liberated Li+ ion readily associates with
hydroxide ions, eventually materializing into soluble LiOH. Meticulously curated
mechanochemical extraction parameters for Li are meticulously documented in Figure S13.
The hermetically sealed mechanochemical oxidation milieu not only augments the efficiency
of Li extraction but also expedites the leaching of Li from spent LFP, thus substantially
curtailing dust emissions during practical applications. The apex parameters encompass a
solid-to-liquid ratio of 1 : 37.5 g mL−1, a temporal threshold of 10 minutes, and a rotational
velocity of 1000 rpm. Under these optimized conditions, the initial leaching efficiency of Li
attains a commendable 83.0 wt%.(Liu.K,2023)

Of profound significance, the study successfully rejuvenates LiFePO4 crystals through a

solid-phase sintering process. This innovative approach leverages the extracted Li in
conjunction with the residual iron phosphate framework, resulting in the regeneration of
LiFePO4 crystals characterized by a significant specific electrochemical capacity (∼151.2 mA
h g−1, 1C) (Liu.K,2023). This capacity proves comparable to that of commercial cathode
materials, thereby substantiating its pivotal role in maintaining the performance standards of
recycled battery materials. Furthermore, a comprehensive life cycle assessment
unequivocally underscores the capability of the HOR route to drastically curtail carbon
emissions and smog release during battery recycling endeavors, effectively contributing to
the ethos of a circular economy and global decarbonization.(Liu.K,2023)

Jurnal 2: Lithium Recovery via Solvent Extraction

In the second research endeavor, the authors introduce a novel methodology for lithium
recovery from the effluent generated during the recycling of spent lithium batteries. This
pioneering approach is anchored in solvent extraction and necessitates the composition of an
extraction system incorporating benzoyltrifluoroacetone (HBTA), trioctylphosphine oxide
(TOPO), and kerosene.(Zhang,2020)

The study meticulously scrutinizes the efficacy of various parameters, encompassing solution
pH values, saponification degrees, initial lithium concentrations, and phase ratios.
Experimental investigations conclusively affirm that more than 90% of lithium can be
efficaciously extracted through the medium of a saponified organic phase, meticulously
executed across a three-stage countercurrent extraction process. This notable achievement
underscores the method's inherent advantage in achieving high extraction efficiency. In
symbiosis with the empirical findings, the formation of a complex during the extraction of
lithium ions using the HBTA-TOPO system is methodically elucidated in scheme 1. Within
this complex formation, the lithium ion assumes a sp3 hybridization, culminating in the
generation of four vacant orbitals. These orbitals deftly coordinate with four oxygen atoms
residing within the extractant and the synergistic extractant, ultimately culminating in the
constitution of a tetrahedral structure. Notably, the oxygen atom residing within the P=O
bond of TOPO exhibits the presence of two unbound electron pairs, conferring upon it the
capability to coordinately interact with two lithium ions. This interaction precipitates the
formation of a complex bearing the chemical formula Li•BTA•TOPO.(Zhang,2020)

The elution phase of the study witnesses the utilization of hydrochloric acid and a lithium
chloride solution as elution agents. This selection aligns with the sequence of the
HBTA-TOPO extraction system: H+>>Li+>Na+>K+. This hierarchical order implies that
sodium ions resident within the organic phase would undergo elution antecedent to lithium
ions, either at the hands of hydrogen ions or lithium ions. Elution experiments are judiciously
executed employing the loaded organic phase and elution solutions characterized by varying
concentrations, all while maintaining an O/A ratio of 20:1. The ensuing analyses of elution
solutions illuminate the efficacy of the respective elution agents. (Zhang,2020)

In this context, it is noteworthy that the deployment of HCl solution conspicuously manifests
superior capability in expelling sodium, with approximately 95% of sodium being deftly
eluted via a 1.0 mol/L HCl solution. This concurrence ensues alongside a simultaneous
elution of roughly 15% of lithium into the aqueous phase. In stark contrast, when lithium
chloride assumes the mantle of the scrubbing reagent, it not only performs the task of sodium
removal from the organic phase but also elevates the lithium concentration within the organic
phase. This elevation emanates from the inherent high lithium concentration characterizing
the eluting solution. This judicious selection leads to the replacement of approximately 90%
of sodium with lithium, while concurrently ensuring the extraction of superfluous lithium
from the eluting solution into the organic phase. This dual-action sequence culminates in an
across-the-board augmentation of lithium content within the organic phase.(Zhang,2020)

The loaded organic phase is subsequently subjected to elution, initially employing dilute HCl
solution to effectuate the removal of non-target sodium ions. This preliminary phase is
promptly succeeded by a process of stripping utilizing 6 mol/L HCl, undertaken at a
significantly larger phase ratio. The outcome of this meticulous sequence is the acquisition of
a lithium-rich solution boasting a concentration of 4.322 mol/L lithium. This lithium-enriched
solution stands as a versatile raw material, aptly suited for the preparation of valuable lithium
compounds, including but not limited to lithium carbonate or lithium chloride.(Zhang,2020)
Comparative Analysis: Lithium Extraction

Both Jurnal 1 and Jurnal 2 employ different methods for lithium extraction from spent
batteries. This comparative analysis will focus on the efficiency, environmental impact, and
resource recovery aspects of lithium extraction from these two studies.

● Efficiency of Lithium Extraction:

Jurnal 1: Jurnal 1 employs a mechanochemical oxidation method for lithium extraction. This
method is described as selective and highly efficient. It involves a complex process that
achieves lithium extraction with speed, and it minimizes chemical usage. This efficiency is
critical for recycling facilities aiming to recover lithium from spent batteries rapidly and
effectively.

Jurnal 2: In contrast, Jurnal 2 relies on solvent extraction for lithium recovery. While the
study mentions high efficiency, it doesn't provide specific details about the speed of the
extraction process. Solvent extraction methods can be efficient but may involve longer
processing times compared to mechanochemical methods.

● Environmental Impact:

Jurnal 1: Jurnal 1 emphasizes its low-carbon recycling process, highlighting reductions in

carbon emissions and smog release. This is significant for environmental sustainability,
especially given the global push for cleaner technologies.

Jurnal 2: Jurnal 2 does not provide specific environmental impact data. However, solvent
extraction processes generally involve the use of chemicals, which can have environmental
considerations related to chemical usage and waste disposal. The environmental impact of
this method may vary depending on the specific solvents and chemicals used.

● Resource Recovery:

Jurnal 1: Jurnal 1 primarily focuses on the regeneration of LiFePO4 crystals. This indicates a
strong emphasis on recovering the cathode material, which is valuable in battery production.
The study aims to ensure that the recovered material's electrochemical properties are
comparable to those of commercial materials, making it a valuable resource for battery
manufacturing.

Jurnal 2: In contrast, Jurnal 2 emphasizes the recovery of lithium itself. While lithium is a
valuable resource, this approach doesn't directly address the regeneration of other battery
components. The choice between these methods would depend on the specific goals of a
recycling facility. If the facility aims to recover lithium as a standalone resource, Jurnal 2's
approach may be suitable.
 ● Scalability:

Jurnal 1: Jurnal 1 mentions scalability, which is essential for practical implementation. This
indicates that the mechanochemical oxidation method can potentially be scaled up for
industrial use.

Jurnal 2: Jurnal 2 does not provide information on scalability. This lack of scalability
information could be seen as a limitation, as the ability to scale up a recycling process is
crucial for its real-world application.

The choice between these two methods of lithium extraction depends on various factors,
including the goals of a recycling facility, the speed of extraction required, and the emphasis
on environmental sustainability and resource recovery. Mechanochemical oxidation, as
presented in Jurnal 1, offers advantages in terms of efficiency and potential scalability, while
solvent extraction, as described in Jurnal 2, may have its merits, particularly if the primary
goal is the recovery of lithium as a valuable resource.

● The technology readiness level (TRL)

The technology readiness level (TRL) of the novel recycling technologies presented in the
two journals can be assessed using the criteria provided by the Australian Renewable Energy
Agency (ARENA) based on the US Department of Energy TRL definitions.

For Jurnal 1 (Low-carbon recycling via Hydro-Oxygen Repair):

1. TRL 6: The technology is at the engineering/pilot-scale. It demonstrates the selective

extraction of lithium from spent LiFePO4 batteries using a hydro-oxygen
environment. While the process has been demonstrated at an engineering scale,
further testing and scaling are needed for practical application. The prototype is
capable of performing the required functions but may require more testing in an
environment closely representing actual operating conditions.
2. TRL 7: Full-scale, similar (prototypical) system demonstrated in a relevant
environment. The study involves testing a full-scale prototype in the field with a range
of simulants. This represents a major step up from TRL 6, and the prototype is
capable of performing all functions required of the operational system.
3. TRL 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. The
study demonstrates that the technology works in its final form under expected
conditions. Developmental testing and evaluation have been conducted with actual
waste in hot commissioning. Operational procedures are virtually complete, and an
Operational Readiness Review (ORR) has been successfully completed.
4. TRL 9: Actual system operated over the full range of expected mission conditions.
While the study demonstrates the technology's effectiveness, it might not have
operated under the full range of mission conditions, as the focus is primarily on
recycling.
For Jurnal 2 (Lithium Recovery via Solvent Extraction):

1. TRL 4: Component and/or system validation in a laboratory environment. This study

integrates basic technological components to establish that they will work together.
However, it is a relatively "low fidelity" representation compared to the eventual
system. The components are tested in a laboratory environment with a range of
simulants.
2. TRL 5: Laboratory-scale, similar system validation in a relevant environment. The
study advances by integrating basic components so that the system configuration
closely resembles the final application. High-fidelity, laboratory-scale system testing
occurs in a simulated environment with simulants and actual waste.
3. TRL 6: Engineering/pilot-scale, similar (prototypical) system validation in a relevant
environment. This represents a significant step in the technology's readiness. An
engineering-scale prototype is tested with a range of simulants. The prototype can
perform all the required functions and is tested in an environment closely representing
the actual operating conditions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both studies offer valuable insights into solvent-based approaches for recycling
spent lithium-ion batteries. Jurnal 1's hydro-oxygen repair route emphasizes efficient lithium
extraction and low environmental impact, while Jurnal 2 focuses on lithium recovery through
solvent extraction. The choice between these methods depends on factors such as efficiency,
environmental concerns, and the desired end products. Further research and development in
battery recycling methods are essential for sustainable and environmentally friendly practices
in the growing field of battery technology.

Reference
Zhang, L., Li, L., Rui, H., Shi, D., Peng, X., Ji, L., & Song, X. (2020). Lithium recovery from
effluent of spent lithium battery recycling process using solvent extraction. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 398, 122840.
Liu, K., Wang, J., Wang, M., Zhang, Q., Cao, Y., Huang, L., ... & Tsang, D. C. (2023).
Low-carbon recycling of spent lithium iron phosphate batteries via a hydro-oxygen
repair route. Green Chemistry.