Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223130›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Pathway decisions for reuse and recycling of retired lithium-ion batteries considering economic and environmental functions.

Ruifei Ma, Shengyu Tao, Xin Sun, Yifang Ren, Chongbo Sun, Guanjun Ji, Jiahe Xu, Xuecen Wang, Xuan Zhang, Qiuwei Wu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Upcycling Spent Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Into Fe-CNAngewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ruifei Ma *Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2546-3867
Shengyu Tao *Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5249-432X
Xin SunIntegrated Research on Energy, Environment and Society (IREES), Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen (ESRIG), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1772-8623
Yifang RenTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.
Chongbo SunTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.
Guanjun JiTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2351-2792
Jiahe XuTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.
Xuecen WangTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China.
Xuan ZhangTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China. xuanzhang@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7537-4002
Qiuwei WuTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China. quiwudtu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-2567
Guangmin ZhouTsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China. guangminzhou@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3629-5686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reuse and recycling of retired electric vehicle (EV) batteries offer a sustainable waste management approach but face decision-making challenges. Based on the process-based life cycle assessment method, we present a strategy to optimize pathways of retired battery treatments economically and environmentally. The strategy is applied to various reuse scenarios with capacity configurations, including energy storage systems, communication base stations, and low-speed vehicles. Hydrometallurgical, pyrometallurgical, and direct recycling considering battery residual values are evaluated at the end-of-life stage. For the optimized pathway, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries improve profits by 58% and reduce emissions by 18% compared to hydrometallurgical recycling without reuse. Lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) batteries boost profit by 19% and reduce emissions by 18%. Despite NMC batteries exhibiting higher immediate recycling returns, LFP batteries provide superior long-term benefits through reuse before recycling. Our strategy features an accessible evaluation framework for pinpointing optimal pathways of retired EV batteries.

Identifiers

PMID39223130
PMCPMC11369104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.