Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41470381›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025

A Review of Direct Recycling Processes for Lithium-Ion Battery Cells.

Michał Łach, Agnieszka Przybek, Piotr Duda, Piotr Bielaczyc

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Michał ŁachDepartment of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Materials Science and Physics, Cracow University of Technology, al. Jana Pawła II 37, 31-864 Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5713-9415
Agnieszka PrzybekDepartment of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Materials Science and Physics, Cracow University of Technology, al. Jana Pawła II 37, 31-864 Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1984-1219
Piotr DudaInterdisciplinary Center for Circular Economy, Cracow University of Technology, ul. Warszawska 24, 31-155 Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4043-7963
Piotr BielaczycDepartment of Motor Vehicles, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, al. Jana Pawla II 37, 31-864 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2957-3710

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, circular economy principles have become a key paradigm in the design and evaluation of industrial processes, including recycling technologies. Direct recycling of used lithium-ion batteries is attracting particular attention, as it can significantly reduce energy consumption, reagent costs, and the carbon footprint of the entire process compared to traditional hydro- and pyrometallurgical methods. This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, synthesizes contemporary methods of Li-ion battery cell recycling, and presents the most important achievements in the field of direct recycling, with particular emphasis on the regeneration and re-leaping of cathode materials, and discusses the implementation and economic premises. Key challenges and research gaps are also identified, including the need to use computational modeling (CFD/DEM, kinetic and data-driven models) to optimize the deactivation, separation, and regeneration stages. This review concludes that direct recycling has the potential to become the leading circular economy pathway for Li-ion batteries, provided that quality standardization and process modeling tools are developed in parallel.

Indexed as

cathode regenerationcircular economydirect recyclingLCA/TEAlithium-ion batteriesprocess modeling

Identifiers

PMID41470381
PMCPMC12734468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.