Energy &Environmental
Science
View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

REVIEW

Cite this: Energy Environ. Sci.,
2021, 14, 6099

View Journal | View Issue

Environmental impacts, pollution sources
and pathways of spent lithium-ion batteries
Wojciech Mrozik, *abc Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar,ab Oliver Heidrichab andPaul Christensenabc
There is a growing demand for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for electric transportation and to support theapplication of renewable energies by auxiliary energy storage systems. This surge in demand requires
a concomitant increase in production and, down the line, leads to large numbers of spent LIBs. The
ever-increasing battery waste needs to be managed accordingly. Currently, there are no universal or
unified standards for waste disposal of LIBs around the globe. Each country uses one or a combinationof practices such as landfilling, incineration and full or partial recycling depending on the number ofbatteries leaving the market, current legislation and infrastructures. Informal disposal or reprocessing is
not a rare activity. This review records, identifies and categorises the environmental impacts, sources
and pollution pathways of spent LIBs. The drawbacks of the disposal practices are highlighted and thethreats associated with them are discussed. The evidence presented here is taken from real-life
incidents and it shows that improper or careless processing and disposal of spent batteries leads tocontamination of the soil, water and air. The toxicity of the battery material is a direct threat toorganisms on various trophic levels as well as direct threats to human health. Identified pollution

Received 5th March 2021,
Accepted 12th October 2021

pathways are via leaching, disintegration and degradation of the batteries, however violent incidents

DOI: 10.1039/d1ee00691f

knowledge gaps for future assessments. The current study oﬀers a comprehensive overview of the

rsc.li/ees

threats and hazards that need to be managed in order to ensure the design and implementation of safe
disposal and processing options for spent LIBs.

such as fires and explosions are also significant. Finally, the paper discusses some of the main

Broader context
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are permeating ever deeper into our lives – from portable devices and electric cars to grid-scale battery energy storage systems,
which raises concerns over the safety and risk associated with their disposal. Spent LIBs are currently landfilled, incinerated, partially/fully recycled, or a
combination of these, depending on the existing infrastructure, legislation etc. of the country concerned. Spent LIBs are considered hazardous wastes(especially those from EVs) due to the potential environmental and human health risks. This study provides an up-to-date overview of the environmental
impacts and hazards of spent batteries. It categorises the environmental impacts, sources and pollution pathways of spent LIBs. Identified hazards include fireand explosion, toxic gas release (e.g. HF and HCN), leaching of toxic metal nanooxides and the formation of dangerous degradation products from theelectrolyte. Ultimately, pollutants can contaminate the soil, water and air and pose a threat to human life and health. In this work, we discuss some of the mainknowledge gaps and probe questions on the environmental impacts of spent LIBs that might help to manage these better in the future to design and implement
safe disposal and processing options for spent LIBs.

1. Introduction
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are found in all aspects of our lives –from small portable electronic devices through electric vehiclesaSchool of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Faraday Institution (ReLIB project), Quad One, Harwell Science and Innovation
Campus, Didcot, UK
cFaraday Institution (SafeBatt project), Quad One, Harwell Science and Innovation
Campus, Didcot, UK. E-mail: wojciech.mrozik@ncl.ac.ukbThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

(EVs) to battery energy storage systems (BESS). LIBs are perceived
as crucial to support the wide adoption of renewable energy
sources as these do require BESS to manage the intermittency
in their power supply for a reliable operation of the electricity
grid. The application of LIBs in electric traction has initiated a
revolution in the automotive industry that is motivated todecarbonise the transport sector and reduce local air pollution.
In 2009, there were nearly 25.6 GW h (about 134 000 tons) of LIB
energy storage capacity placed on the global market, in 2019 it
was about 218 GW h (over 1.2 million tons), and it has been

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6099

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review

Energy & Environmental Scienceestimated that in 2030 more than 2500 GW h (over 12.7 million
tons) will be placed on the market, which subsequently results
in a vast amount of waste from the spent LIBs.1
Various international and domestic initiatives like the European Green Deal in the EU,2 the UK Government pledge to ban
new ICE cars by 2030 (hybrids by 2035)3 or the need to establish
zero-emission mobility as an urgent priority,4 require a verylarge increase in the production of new LIBs. Moreover, transitioning to a low carbon economy5 requires building new,more powerful BESS all around the world. These installations
will be used as storage of intermittent solar, wind, or wave
electricity, grid support, frequency stabilisation and behindthe-meter-storage, replacing conventional technologies. On one

hand, the increased number of LIBs has created concerns over
the availability of some critical metals, and their wild shortterm price volatility which could aﬀect the sustainable supply ofsuch energy storage devices.6 There are also some ethical andenvironmental concerns with the extraction of some metals for
LIBs.7 On the other hand, this surge in demand for batteries
will require a concomitant increase in production and, down
the line, large numbers of LIBs reaching end-of-life (EoL).
Hence, that will cause an ever-increasing battery waste thatneeds to be managed accordingly.8 However, many types ofbatteries currently do end up in landfills or are incinerated,primarily due to the lack of adequate standards; enforcement ofregulatory controls, ineﬃcient, or absence of, national battery

Wojciech Mrozik is a Faraday
Institution Research Fellow at
Newcastle University, UK. He ispart of the ‘‘SafeBatt – Science ofBattery Safety’’ and previously‘‘Reuse and Recycling of lithiumion Batteries’’ projects funded by
Faraday Institution. He is anexpert in environmental andanalytical chemistry with a particular interest in environmental
fate assessment and removal ofanthropogenic pollutants. Last
Wojciech Mrozik
few years Wojciech’s research
focused on the safe application, operation and utilization oflithium-ion batteries. That concerns understanding of battery
thermal runaway, fire prevention and mitigation.

Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar iscurrently a research associate at
Newcastle University. He studies
technologies and management
strategies and provides sustainability analysis of diﬀerent production systems. He started his
MSc in the area of sustainableagriculture and biofuel production in 2013. Then he extended
his research to sustainability
assessment of biorefineries, lowcarbon transport systems andMohammad Ali Rajaeifar
waste
management
systems
during his PhD and post-doctoral studies. More recently, he hasdeveloped his research area by focusing on the sustainability of EVs
and lithium–ion batteries. Mohammad is also an expert in datacollection and analysis, compiling data inventories, and assessing
the environmental impacts of complicated industrial systems.

Since 1992 Oliver has worked
with national and international
companies, local authorities andUniversities in waste, recycling,
environmental, life cycle assessment, stakeholder and corporate
management. He was a directorof Econoplas, a plastic manufacturing business and SEQM abusiness consultancy business.
He provides detailed understanding of the inter-relationships between resource use andOliver Heidrich
their spatial distribution within
and outside cities, in relation to climate change, the built
environment, and associated resource requirements. Besides his
many expert reports and research papers, Oliver is concerned to see
the results of his research disseminated through the wider press
and digital media.

Senior Advisor to the UK National
Fire Chiefs Council, member of
UK Department of Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy
Energy (BEIS) Storage Healthand Safety Governance, and
BEIS Storage safety – Fire Service
Working groups. Working with
Fire and Rescue Services acrossthe UK, New Zealand and Australia. Commissioned by UK Officefor Product and Safety Standards& BEIS to research the Safety ofPaul Christensen
Second Life Batteries in Domestic
Battery Energy Storage Systems. Over 180 papers in international,
peer-reviewed journals, H-index of 53. Editorial Board member,
Nature Special Reports.

6100 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental ScienceFig. 1

Review

Disposal routes of LIBs.

collection and recycling schemes.9 As a result, human health andenvironmental quality could be placed at risk as a wide range ofpollutants could be released like heavy metals or hydrofluoric acid(HF) when batteries are disposed of inappropriately.
The main aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date
overview of the environmental impact and hazards of spentbatteries. This paper reports and discusses the fate, disposalroutes and potential pollution sources and pathways fromspent LIBs. Despite the clear importance of this area, the dataon the environmental impact of EoL LIBs is extremely limited,
thus, this study identifies the possible environmental impacts
associated with battery EoL. There is an urgent need frommanufacturers, waste handling companies, recycling firms
and public stakeholders to understand this matter as wrong
disposal practices, lack of data or improper identification of
hazards will drastically increase the number of incidents, fires
and potentially fatal accidents. The possible emission routes
and pollution pathways e.g. air, water and land, are also
evaluated through the course of this study. We have also
recognised possible hazards to human health and ecosystem
quality due to diﬀerent battery treatment and disposal practices. Finally, the knowledge gaps are identified that need tobe covered if the right disposal practices and management
systems are to be implemented.

2. Disposal of spent batteries
The management of spent LIBs incorporates reuse, recycling,
landfilling, processing or (unfortunately) illegal disposal (Fig. 1).
The local disposal routes depend on national legislation andregulations, recycling capacities, collection systems, consumer
behaviours and the battery retail markets.10 Clearly, diﬀerent
approaches are required for small batteries compared to large ones.
Small LIBs are returned by the customer either throughbattery drop-oﬀ points (LIBs that can be easily detached fromthe device) or given to waste electrical and electronic equipment sites (WEEEs) if the user cannot remove them from theThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

electrical device. From these collection points, they are transported to sorting facilities and later to be recycled or landfilled.
Through ignorance of the collection system or idleness, small
spent LIBs may be put into general waste or into recycle bins bycustomers, which led to damaging fires during transportation
or in material recovery facilities (MRFs). Veolia, one of the
global waste handling companies, has noted a 38% increase ofincidents since 2017,11 due to the presence of the LIBs in thewaste stream. At MRFs, LIBs will be crushed or penetrated
during the standard processing, which can also lead to fires oreven explosions. The Environmental Services Association estimates that12 there were ca. 250 fires in the UK waste treatment
facilities caused by small LIBs between April 2019 and March
2020, compared to ca. 130 in the year to March 2020, a rise of
25% of all fires in these facilities.13,14 The German steel
recyclers confederation (BDSV) has claimed that 90% of fires
at their associated sites in the last years were caused by LIBs.15
Some specific examples of such fires are the incident at theGreat Blakenham scrapyard, UK (15th Sep 2017) where 100
tonnes of metal and a crane were caught up in fire;16 multiple
incidents at Tokyo’s Musashino Clean Center garbage disposal
facility, Japan, in 2017 and 2018;17 and some other regularincidents in the UK, USA, Scotland, and Germany.18
Large LIBs are typically transported by professional services
once removed from EVs,19 however, their health status is usually
unknown. If internally damaged, they are in slow thermal
runaway and hence remain unnoticed for a long time, after
which they may either burst into flames or they release gases
and droplets of solvent, the ‘‘white vapour’’, composed of toxic
and explosive gases.7,20–24 These events may take place duringtransportation, storage, recycling or landfilling.
2.1

Recycling

2.1.1 Low recovery rates. Material recovery from the EoL
batteries is the preferred option over the other disposal routes10,25,26
since LIBs are now considered a strategically valuable waste
stream containing relatively valuable metals such as cobalt,

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6101

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
nickel or lithium.27,28 These are of significant value, especiallyin light of the shrinking global supply of critical materials.29–32
Material recovery is also the way to be less dependent on raw
mining elsewhere or to protect the country’s own small
reserves. For instance, the lithium demand for LIBs producedin China by 2050 could meet up 60% by recycling.33 Currently,
China is the largest consumer and producer of LIBs andrecycling of spent LIBs has only started recently.34 Althoughsome 14 pieces of legislation try to manage the emission
pathways of all types of batteries waste, effective regulationof controlling spent LIB is still in its infancy.34 In the USA
the management and regulation of LIBs is also fragmented,
due to its Federal States, with some federal policies guiding
battery disposal, specifically the 1996 Mercury-Containing andRechargeable Battery Management Act to manage certifications
and standards of batteries.35 However, overall, it is patchworkof state by state regulations with different levels of maturity andcontrol.36 In the EU, new legislation is coming into force in2022 to manage and control the raw material sourcing, disposal
and recycling of LIBs.1
Clearly, material recovery should avert the environmental
burden from ore mining and beneficiation of metals used in
LIBs by replacing the recycled ones in the production chain,37
and could also avoid the environmental burdens from the otherharmful disposal routes. In 2018, it is estimated that 97 000
tonnes of LIBs were recycled globally,19 including LIBs from portable electronics as well as LIBs from EVs and BESS applications.
Small LIBs currently dominate recycling (i.e. more than 80% of
the recycled batteries) as the number of batteries reaching actual
EoL from EVs is relatively low.38 This is due to the relatively
nascent application of LIBs in EVs, and the fact that when EV
LIBs have reached EoL they still have potential use in otherapplications, such as supporting the Grid or renewable energy
generation, as they typically retain up to 80% of their original
capacity.39 Thus, LIBs from EVs may be finally discarded up to
10 years after their first life.40
A closer look at the recovery of LIBs reveals that compared tothe amount of LIBs placed on the global market, the actual
recovery rates are quite low. For example, the average collection
rate in the EU, one of the well-regulated markets, is nearly 40%
while only 12% belongs to LIBs.41 The average recovery rates arealso lower for some other less-regulated markets such as
Australia and the US.29,42 However, there are still few markets
that perform better than the EU. More specifically, South Korea
and China together showed better recovery rates. Actually, thesecountries are the destination of most of the exported batteries(either in a separate battery form or as part of electronic
devices) from many parts of the world especially Europe andNorth America. This is also reflected in the total quantity of
LIBs recycled: from 97 000 tonnes treated globally in 2018,
67 000 were processed in China and 18 000 in South Korea.19
However, it is estimated that less than 40% of the total battery
materials actually can be recycled under the current materials
flow scheme.43 For instance, in 2016, only around 30% of
nickel, 33% of cobalt, 23% of lithium and 5% of graphite wererecovered in China.44 Such poor management resulted in

6102 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
economic loss due to the free discharge of valuable materials,
as well as damage to the environment and human health.45,46
Various national and international initiatives have been implemented to tackle this low recovery problem such as the 2006 EU
battery directive47 and the proposed new EU regulation which
concerns batteries and waste batteries.48 The key challenge,
however, is the lack of recycling infrastructure around theworld, there are only a few full-scale recycling facilities(Table 1).49,50 Illustration of this problem is the UK situation.
Prior to exiting the EU on the 31st December 2020, the regular
practice was to ship batteries to mainland Europe for recycling,e.g. to Umicore in Belgium. However, with the restricted accessto the EU market and strict regulations treating large LIBs as
hazardous materials, the UK, without proper recycling infrastructure, may either have to landfill its batteries51 or temporarily store them in dedicated facilities until suitable facilities arebuilt or until an appropriate trade deal with the EU is agreed.
Both landfilling and stockpiling will have a potentiallynegative eﬀect on the surrounding environment as they canrelease pollutants, contaminants and cause accidental fires,
which are discussed below.
2.1.2 Recycling methods. Material recovery from the EoL
LIBs is currently carried out by one of three major processes:
pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and direct recycling.25,40
Pyrometallurgy employs smelting in a high-temperature process,which usually involves burning and subsequent separation to
produce a mixed metal alloy of Co, Cu, Fe and Ni.52 That is anestablished technology commonly applied to small and large
LIBs, especially to cobalt-rich batteries. Usually this method
does not require pre-sorting of battery types, however, theresulting alloy requires further processing. Hydrometallurgy
recovers the desired metals from cathode material via leachingin an acidic or basic aqueous solution. Additional steps such as
subsequent concentration and purification are later required.
This process allows the recovery of almost all LIBs components
with high purity.53 However, the separation of the metals fromeach other requires additional purification steps: in addition,
unlike pyrometallurgy, sorting is required. Finally, direct recycling involves the direct re-use of the cathode and/or anodematerial from the electrodes of spent LIBs after reconditioning.
Although promising in principle, as it allows the simple recovery and re-use (without further processing) of most of thebattery constituents,25,54,55 it is still not fully matured as atechnology. There are also alternative technologies under investigation such as plasma smelting technology,37 bioleaching,56
redox targeting-based material recycling,57 etc.
Each of the listed technologies has its own limitations inrecovering LIB’s materials. Therefore, the final process should
involve a combination of various techniques with a well-definedmaterial flow chart to assure the highest eﬃciency ofrecycling.58 The enormous research and development eﬀort
should tackle this issue, however, the gradual but constantchange in battery chemistry will require the facilities to shift
their operational mode in just a few years. Is the process safe tooperate with new chemistry? Are there any hazardous by- andend-products that need to be treated accordingly? These andThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Energy & Environmental Science

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Table 1

Review

Current recycling facilities around the world adopted from ref. 49 and 50

Company nameLocation

Processa

Capacity (tonne ofbattery per year)

Accurec Recycling
Akkuser
Aubermacher Redux
Bangpu Ni\\& Co High Tech
BatrecDowa Eco-System Co. Ltd
Duesenfeld
Envirostream
Euro Dieuze
GEM
GlencoreHigh Power International
Huayou Cobalt
Hunan Brunp Recycling Tech
InmetcoJiangxi Ganfeng Lithium
JX Nippon Mining & Metals Corp
KOBAR
LiCycleNickelhütte Aue
Nippon Recycle Center Corp
Recupyl
SNAM
SungEel Hitech
Sungeel Hi-techTaisen Recycling
Tele Recycle
TES (Recupyl)
UmicoreUte Vilomara

Germany
FinlandGermany
China
Switzerland, Wimmis
Japan
Germany
Australia
FranceChina
USA, Canada, Norway
China
China
China
USA
China
Japan, Tsuraga
South Korea
CanadaGermany
Japan
France/Singapore
FranceSouth Korea
Hungary
China & South Korea
China
FranceBelgium
Spain

P, M
M
M
H
P
P, H
M
P
M, H
H
P
P, H
H
H
P
H
P, H
H
H
P, H
P
H
P, M, H
H
M, H in South Korea
HHM, H in Singapore
P, H
H

4000
1000
1000
3600
200
1000
3000
3000
6000
100 000
7000 (Norway)
10 00060 00030 000
6000
5000
600
1000
2500
1000
2000
110/1200
1500
8000
3000
6000
2000
1000
7000
453.32aP – pyrometallurgy, H – hydrometallurgy, M – physical separation.

other questions must be answered to ensure the safety of theworkers and mitigate the environmental impact of the process.
2.1.3 Pollution specific to recycling and the potential
environmental impacts. Materials recovery is not a pollutionfree activity. For example, pyrometallurgy is a highly energydemanding process, resulting in GHG emissions and thegeneration of toxic gases or hazardous slag that may need tobe landfilled.31 Moreover, the intermittent product, so-called‘‘black mass’’ (a sludgy mixture of lithium, manganese andcobalt), may also contain other hazardous substances such asalkylfluorophosphates that are a serious health concern.59
Pyrometallurgical recycling process could impose environmental risks in global warming, photochemical ozone creation,
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic eﬀect, ozone layer depletionand eutrophication impact categories.18 A recent study on
plasma smelting recycling showed that the employed energy
source (for the smelter), recycling eﬃciency, the quality of therecycled materials, aluminium recovery and adopting a battery
waste improvement process could significantly aﬀect the overall
environmental impacts of pyrometallurgy.37
In contrast, hydrometallurgy produces far less GHG emissions
but requires supplementary wastewater treatment to ensure thatreceiving waters do not suﬀer additional pollution, e.g. from acids.
Hydrometallurgical recycling processes were reported to impose
environmental risks on freshwater and terrestrial acidification.18
Mohr et al. (2020) compared the environmental impacts ofrecycling of diﬀerent battery chemistries (i.e. NMC, NCA, LFP

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

and solid-state) using a conventional pyrometallurgical, a conventional hydrometallurgical process and an advanced hydrometallurgical process (that recovers graphite and electrolyte).60 The
results indicated that the advanced hydrometallurgical processes
could perform the best (in terms of global warming impact) due
to additional recovery of graphite and electrolyte, while thepyrometallurgical process performs the worst due to highenergy consumption and lack of Li recovery. The authors alsosuggested that a cell chemistry specific approach for recycling
should be taken into consideration since some recycling processes could lead to unfavourable impact on the environment
when treating some specific chemistries, for example, hydrometallurgical recycling of LFP and sodium-ion batteries (SIB)
could add more burden in abiotic resource depletion potential;or pyrometallurgical recycling of LFP cells could increase theglobal warming impact.
As direct recycling is still in its very early stages of development,
there are no real-world data on potential pollution. According toDunn et al. (2015), using a direct recycling process for NMC, LCO,LFP and LMO batteries could significantly reduce the emissions of
GHGs and SOx (from the production of batteries) and thus mitigate
global warming and acidification potential of the whole battery life
cycle.61 It should be noted that when talking about the environmental impacts of a specific recycling process, the net impact on
the environment is usually considered which is calculated bysubtracting the released emissions from the avoided emissions(recycling benefits). Thus, a recycling process itself may have a

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6103

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
negative impact on the environment in a specific environmental impact category while the credits from the recycledmaterials (environmental impacts avoided due to returning therecovered material to the market) might compensate thosenegative impacts and make the net environmental impact
favourable. Overall, it should be noted that the environmental
impacts of diﬀerent recycling processes could vary based on theprocessed cell chemistry, the employed emission reduction
technology, recycling eﬃciency and the quality of the materials
recovered.
2.1.4 Comparison to non-lithium ion battery recycling
methods. Finally, there is a lesson to be learnt from the alreadyestablished recycling processes for other battery types. For
example, the processing of lead-acid batteries is of major
concern especially in developing, countries62 as, in suchlocations, recycling is often performed without controlling leademissions.63 In addition, there is also often a lack of appropriate regulation and the consequent existence of informal andpolluting recycling industries. Thus, in the absence of adequate
standards and/or lack of enforcement of regulatory controls,
the lead recycled from batteries results in significant environmental contamination and human exposure even in established,industrial-scale recycling facilities.64 It has been estimated thatover 495 000 deaths and more than 9 million disability-adjusted
life years (DALYs) occur as a result of the long-term impact of lead
exposure on health. Reports also show that low- and middleincome countries have the highest death rates associated withlead exposure.65 Comparative analysis reveals that current
environmental and social influence such as consumption of
raw material/metal, energy demand, scrap emissions, recycling
or disposal cost; of the lead-acid battery system is greater thanthat of the LIB system.66 However, it should be highlighted thatsuch studies are performed on retrospective data (i.e. for China
in 2016) and do not fully reflect the future with much higher
numbers of production and recycling/disposal of LIBs. Therefore,
it is essential to assess in detail all the gaps in knowledge andtechnology, as well as socio-economic issues, and apply these to
the future LIB recycling industry. This is important not only fordeveloped countries but even more for emerging economies thatusually have lax or weak environmental legislation.67
2.2

Landfill

Landfilling is the main method of disposing of solid waste68 –with the rates of deposition of municipal waste ranging from
53% in the USA,69 79% in China70 to 94% in Malaysia.71
Of these, around 4% includes electronic wastes (e-waste), often
containing batteries.72 Given the low global recovery rates, it isclear that most e-wastes containing small LIBs are discarded
into the landfill sites rather than recovered.73–76 This is the casenot only for many emerging economies but also in developed
ones due to (as stated above) lax or weak regulations as well as
the lack of recycling infrastructure. Therefore, in the short-term
at least, it is certain that LIBs (especially those from small
portable devices) will be buried. Currently, due to the relatively
small number of EVs, large LIBs are usually recovered.44
However, with the rapid growth in volume and still inadequate

6104 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
infrastructure, even high-powered batteries may be either landfilled or temporarily stored. Yet, in the long-term, it is more
likely they will follow the recovery route rather than landfilling,
as it would be a waste of a significant resource of valuable
materials.67
The landfill itself can be both a sink or source of pollutionthat can have negative impacts on surrounding communities.68
The main sources of emissions from landfills are surface dust,
landfill gases (e.g. biogas), leachate and fires.77,78 The extent ofpollution from a site depends upon location, waste composition and age, and geo-climatic conditions.51,79–81 However, inthe future it’s possible that landfills may be a place of valuable
resources for urban mining – the sink of the rare and needed
metals that can be extracted without actual mining.
2.2.1 Landfill fires. Landfill fires are clearly undesirable
but unfortunately quite frequent.82–86 There are two types offire, surface and subsurface (cavity): and in most cases, they are
due to the spontaneous auto-ignition of methane.87 Surface fire
spreads outside the landfill area but is relatively easy to extinguish. Cavity fires are a form of combustion (pyrolysis) where
the thermal reaction takes place under anoxic conditions deep
below the landfill surface.77,88 These are difficult to detect andmay create large voids in the landfill, which can cause thelandfill surface to cave in. Buried LIBs, which may be holding acharge and contain flammable electrolytes, may trigger,
amplify and prolong landfill fires.
Landfill fires caused by (usually small) LIBs are a major
emerging problem. The Environmental Services Association(ESA), the trade body representing the UK’s resource and waste
management industry, reported that 25% of total landfill fires(4500) in the UK in the period 2017–18, were attributed to
LIBs: a significant 20% increase in comparison to the previous
year.89 Examples of such fires include that at the Dunbar
landfill site on 22nd January 2019, where around 300 tonnesof waste burst into flames in waste sorting building.90 Fires in
pre-landfilling facilities may be illustrated by Shoreway MRF,
USA. At least 25 fires at this facility were caused by LIBs
between April 2013 and September 2017. The most severe fire,on the 9th September 2017, required over 100 firefighters to
extinguish it, and the fire shut the facility for 3 months and costover $8.5M in restoration.91
Accurate prediction of the ignition potential of LIBs ischallenging, as spent batteries will have various compositions,
States of Health (SoH) and charge (SoC); besides, it is likely thatcells, modules and packs will be dumped and landfilled.
In landfills, batteries may be damaged during compacting
and hence ignite either immediately or after burial: in the latter
case, serious fires could result due to surrounding flammablematerials and existing methane in the landfill environment. Even
if damaged batteries do not ignite, the pyrolysis that accompanies
thermal runaway will generate significant heat and toxic andpotentially explosive gases.92 It should be noted that fires caused
by batteries may occur months or even years after they wereburied.
The hazards of damaged LIBs are in addition to conventional landfill fires, which produce a mixture of toxic gases andThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Sciencesmoke77,93 consisting of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs),94–96 dioxins/furans,97–101 volatile organic compounds(VOCs),102,103 heavy metals104,105 polychlorinated biphenyls ororganochlorine pesticides104 and finally, particulate matter (PM)with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 mm.106,107
Subsurface fires favour the generation of harmful gases suchas CO, SO2 or H2S77 – some of these gases are also generated
within burning batteries.7,20–24 Landfill fires do not only affectthe air around the site as the smoke can carry particulatematter and chemicals to further distances: for example, it has
been shown that there may be a short term rise in theconcentrations of heavy metals and Chemical Oxygen Demand(COD) or PAHs86 in water bodies next to burning sites. Therefore,
avoiding battery landfilling or at least neutralization/immobilization of hazardous content must be seriously considered. That
could be for instance (i) complete discharging-no excess of theenergy, immobilization of copper on aluminium foil; (ii) removalof the flammable electrolyte from the battery – reduced fire risk,
formation of hazardous gasses and vapour cloud explosion;(iii) using additional liners (bentonite clay etc.) capable of binding
heavy metals – no transport through landfill layers.
2.3

Illegal disposal and processing

Wherever there is a potential of making profit there areattempts to bypass oﬃcial routes of making business. As therecycling of LIBs will be profitable at least to some degree, there
is a big chance that some illegal processing will occur, as it
happened for waste electronic equipment. Such activity will
result in pollution surrounding the processing site, poor working
conditions of workers and thus worsening their health andquality of life. Illegal disposal will occur if the recycling or oﬃcial
landfilling will be to ‘‘too expensive’’ for some ‘‘business’’. The
dumpsites will be located in very random places, completely
not fit for purpose and that will result in severe pollution,
unexpected fires and huge additional costs to local residents/
councils – utilization and remediation of the area. Unexpected
incidents (e.g. fires) may even occur months after the disposal
making the process of finding responsible/guilty person very
tricky.
It is certain that LIBs will be illegally recycled and disposed
of.67,108 Moreover, the burden of illegal processing will bemostly put on emerging economies due to the high costs oflabour, lack of recycling facilities and strict environmental laws
in developed countries.6 A good example of this exploitation isthe export of e-waste facilitated by rich and developed nations
to poor and developing ones.109,110 This is also reflected in thestatistics: for instance, two-thirds of global e-waste collected in2014 were exported, but more importantly, half of it was
through illegal routes.111 This resulted in over 3 million tonnesof e-waste exported outside of regulated schemes. Data for 2019show that 82.6% of global e-waste flows were neither formallycollected, properly managed nor documented.72 The EU generates ca. 44.3 Mt of e-waste annually, however only 0.6 Mt is
known to reach landfills whilst the rest is dumped, traded,
informally exported or recycled in a non-environmentally
appropriate way.112 Hence there is no guarantee that exported

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Review
EoL LIBs will be recycled or processed in regulated, safe andenvironmentally friendly ways.44
2.3.1 E-Waste problem. Interestingly, even now with arelatively low number of EoL EVs, it is possible to buy used
LIB cells, modules on the popular, online, auction portals. Thismeans that they are sold outside oﬃcial collection/recycling
schemes, even though they have reached their first EoL. With
the growing demand from individuals, e.g. for behind-themeter energy storage, some of the batteries may be illegallysold, especially in countries with weak or no regulations, andthe obvious question arises: what happens to such self-madesystems when they reach real EoL? Will they be passed toaccredited recycling centres or dumped? In addition, what
would be the impact of the illegal processing of LIBs on humanhealth and the natural environment? These issues can beillustrated by current informal WEEE operations - often therecycling is carried out without any environmental and healthprotection, and this results in the contamination of soil, airand water and a serious impact on human health.108,113–121
The findings include the fact that heavy metals (i.e. lead or
cadmium) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soils or
watercourses surrounding such centres are significantly above
national safety limits. Cobalt, copper and nickel are also heavy
metals included in LIBs that might cause hazards if LIBs areinappropriately treated. Lead-acid battery informal processing canhighlight potential issues for LIBs in the future. For instance,
estimates have shown that there could be between 10 000 and
30 000 informal lead-acid battery recyclers in 90 low- and middleincome countries that pose a major threat to up to 16 million
people.122 Such sites elevate levels of lead in soils and plants123 andhave caused higher concentrations of the metal in children’s bloodin Serbia,124 Australia,125 China126 and India.127,128 Informal sites
rarely control their harmful emissions, are subject to weak or no
regulation, and are often located within residential areas.124,129,130
2.4

Incidents involving LIBs

Incidents involving LIBs are mostly focused on fires and therelease of toxic gases. In addition to the risk of these hazards tofirst responders and spectators at, for example, a road traﬃc
accident, there is also the broader spectrum of the environmental impact of such fires. Fig. 2131,132 shows typical emission
pathways from a burning LIB to the surroundings. In addition
to heat, fire or a toxic and potentially explosive vapour cloudthere is also a possibility of air transportation of substances
and with time, their deposition in other, distant places. The
close surroundings are also aﬀected by the fire debris, transportation of pollutants by fire extinguishing agents and releaseof remaining contamination from burnt carcasses – dependingon the type and place of the disposal.
The sometimes explosive failure of LIBs is always due tosome form of abuse which can be from heat, penetration, blunttrauma or overcharging, and examples of the results of thesecan be found in the literature citing examples on the land, sea
and in the air.133,134 Spontaneous ignition of LIBs has also beenreported, particularly concerning electric vehicles;135 the events
leading to this remain essentially unknown, but contamination

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6105

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review

Fig. 2

Energy & Environmental Science

Emission pathways from fires (adapted from ISO, 2011; Stec et al., 2019).

during production or poor design is often quoted. An increasing
and slightly worrying phenomenon is the incidence of fires andexplosions in large LIB energy storage systems (LIBESS). The firstsuch incident occurred in Arizona in 2012 in a new 1.5 MW LIBESS
owned by Arizona Public Services.136 Several design flaws wereidentified following the incident including a lack of proper ventilation and inadequate monitoring all of which were supposed
to have been addressed137 when a second LIBESS owned by APS
exploded in April 2019 injuring four first responders, two of whom
badly. The incident is now believed to have been a vapour cloud
explosion.138,139 We listed some other examples of LIBESS
incidents in Table 2 to illustrate the rising problem.
In essence, LIBs in thermal runaway produce gases that are a
mixture including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
HF, short-chain alkanes and alkenes, HCN, NOx and droplets ofsolvent,21,23,138,140–142 the last giving the mixture the appearance of a white cloud.143 In broad terms, the composition of thewhite vapour varies little as a function of cell chemistry, form
factor or manufacturer.138 The gas mixture will be vented either
when safety valves/blast caps activate or when a pouch cellbursts: at high SOC and in the presence of sufficient oxygen,the white vapour ignites to produce flare-like flames. At low
SOC or in the absence of sufficient air (e.g. the air is displacedby the vapour or by fire suppressant) the white vapour does not
ignite,144 in which case, in a confined space, there could be apossibility of a flash fire, fireballs developing, or in extreme
cases, even a vapour cloud explosion.
LIBs are also more and more used in marine transportation.
They can work as a propulsion system, powering ferries or evensubmarines,145 energy recapture systems or hybrid systems.
The advantage is usually lower weight and better eﬃciency incomparison to i.e. lead-acid systems.146 As in the case of theEVs and BESS, there is a possibility of faults, incidents, fires
and thus pollution of water ecosystems. An example of such an
incident is a fire and subsequent gas explosion on board adiesel-electric ferry in Norway on the 10th of October 2019147 – the6106 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

fire was spotted during the crossing, but the ferry returned to theharbour under its power where everyone was safely evacuated.
Overnight, however, a serious gas explosion rocked the battery
room causing significant damage. It was reported that twelve
firefighters were hospitalized due to exposure to hazardous gases
associated with the burning batteries. Table 2 also shows someother known up-to-date incidents.
Fire extinguishing agents (water, foam etc.) used to mitigate
the incidents will be a carrier to all pollutants released from
LIBs. That can broader the area of the impact. For instance,
HF released during a fire may form a solution with the fire
extinguishing agent and thus, at concentrations as low as 0.01%,
could cause injury to the more sensitive areas of human skinfollowing exposures as short as 5 min.148 If we add that between
20 and 200 mg of HF could be released per W h of an EV battery
pack,22 such solution or even higher concentrations may be of no
surprise. This reaction should be also taken into account when
designing and using any extinguishing systems in places dealing
with larger amounts of LIBs. The first responders must also beaware of the additional hazards, thus proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) and operating procedures should be in place.
When the fire is gone there are left carcasses of burnt
batteries. Except probably some steel parts (pack cover, modulecase etc.) they would not represent any value for recycling thus
probably discarded/landfilled. These carcasses may be treatedas fire debris according to Fig. 2. Currently, there are no data
directly revealing what kind of pollutants may be released fromsuch waste. Given the typical post-fire analysis132,149 and thecomposition of LIBs, we can suspect these may be remains of
nanooxides, metals, PAHs and VOCs.

3. Sources and pollution pathways
Spent LIBs are considered hazardous wastes (especially thosefrom EVs) due to the potential environmental and humanThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Energy & Environmental Science
Table 2

Review

List of some major involving LIBESS and Maritime incidents

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Major LIBESS incidents
Place

Date

Comments

APS Arizona, USA

February
2012

Wisconsin, USA

Various places across South Korea

August2016
November2017
2018–2019

Surprise Arizona

April 2019

Nathan campus of Griﬃths
University, Brisbane, Australia
Carnegie Road, Merseyside, UK

March
2020
September
2020

Perles-et-Castelet, Ariège France

December
2020

SBG-2 OVHcloud data centre in
Strasbourg, France
Hongseong, South Chungcheong
Province, China
Shopping mall in Beijing, China

March
2021
April 2021

Testing a new 1.5 MW BESS linked to a solar energy system when it was destroyed by fire.
Subsequent investigation concluded that lack of ventilation and inadequate monitoring werethe major causes of the incident and recommended improved ventilation, 24/7 monitoring
and the ability to send remote alarms.a
The damage is estimated up to $4M. The fire started in the DC power and control systemrather than the lithium ion batteries.b
Fire badly damaged the container of a 1 MW BESS after the fire detection and control systemfailed to control the blaze.c
Up to 30 fires involving LG Chem lithium ion BESS. The causes of these fires have not been
made public as yet, but defective lithium ion cells were not believed to be a major
contributing factor. The concatenation of multiple factors have been postulated.d
Vapour cloud explosion. Four first responders were injured, 2 very badly. 9 first responders
contaminated with hydrogen cyanide.e
LFP BESS exploded causing major damage to buildings. The cause of the fire and explosion
has been stated as having been an internal short circuit.f
One of three containers exploded in the early hours of 15 September, followed by a fire. The
ventilation units were blown oﬀ the roof of the container by the blast, with debris (including one ofthe doors) scattered across a wide area. The cause of the explosion remains under investigation.g
A BESS containing 60 ‘‘batteries’’ ignited. The container was situated on top of a second
container and presented some diﬃculties to the fire service, which had to pull the burning
container down. The cause of the fire is under investigation.h
One data centre was completely destroyed and 4 of the 12 rooms of a second centre were also
destroyed. Unconfirmed reports that fire started in BESS.ij
Fire in the BESS supporting a solar energy facility, supplied by LG Energy Solution (LGES).
The fire destroyed the facility causing ca. 440 M Won damagek.
Explosion and fire in a 25 MW h LFP BESS situated on the roof of a shopping mall. The BESS
supported a solar array. 2 firefighters were killed, 1 injured. The BESS consisted of two
sections, North and South: whilst dealing with a fire in the Southern section and explosion
occurred in the Northern section, killing the firefighters.l
Fire in one of the 18 containers at a LFP BESS near the La Salle Generation Station nuclear
power plant.m
The Moorabool installation is the largest LiBESS in Australia. The fire started in one
container and spread to a second, paired container which was adjacent to the first. The
firefighters adopted a defensive strategy due to the challenges of the installation, andallowed the containers to burn out in a controlled manner over 3 days.n

Drogenbos, Belgium

Invenergy storage facility, LaSalle
County, USA‘‘Victorian Big Battery’’, Moorabool,
Geelong, Australia

Maritime incidents
Place
Hybrid tug Campbell Foss, USA

April 2021

July 2021
July/August
2021

Date
November
2012

Boat Carila Sis, Sneek harbour,
May 2019
Netherlands
Russian nuclear submarine Losharik, July 2019
Barents Sea
Hybrid electric ferry Ytterøyningen,
NorwayOctober2019

Hybrid passenger vessel Brim,
NorwayMarch
2021

Comments
Fire in BESS of the vessel after it had finished assisting a second vessel in the port of Long
Beach. The fire started in the battery compartment and spread to the engine room via a
ventilation duct. The vessel’s engineer was hospitalized. The incident has been attributed tolong term overcharging of the battery.o
The explosion occurred on board a pleasure craft whilst moored in the harbour. A fireball wasobserved above the boat by local residents.p
An electrical short circuit occurred while the nuclear submarine was docking with the
Podmoskovye, its mothership. This caused lithium ion cells to go into thermal runaway
resulting in explosions and fire, killing 14 high-ranking oﬃcers on board.q
Coolant leaked from the 1989 kW h BESS on the vessel causing a small fire. This was
extinguished by the seawater sprinkler system. However, the seawater then caused shortcircuits in the battery which exploded on the following day. 12 firefighters were hospitalized
due to exposure to hazardous gases.r
Fire in the 790 kW h battery compartment of the 24-meter hybrid catamaran passenger vessel
Brim in Oslofjord.sahttps://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-fire-at-an-aps-battery-facility. b https://www.fox6now.com/news/
damage-may-exceed-3-million-after-lithium-ion-battery-fire-at-sc-electric-in-franklin. c Deign J. In: Media G, editor. Engie investigates source of Belgian
battery blaze. Boston, MA, USA: Greentech Media Headquarters; 2017. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/engie-investigates-source-of-belgianbattery-blaze, (accessed 25th May 2020). d Yoon-seung K. Faulty batteries blamed for ESS fires: panel. South Korea: Yonhap News Agency; 2020. e DNV GL,
McMicken Battery Energy Storage System Event Technical Analysis and Recommendations, Arizona Public Service, https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOMPDFs/About/Our-Company/Newsroom/McMickenFinalTechnicalReport.ashx?la=en&hash=50335FB5098D9858BFD276C40FA54FCE, 2020. f Dennien M.
Firefighter’ knocked on his back’ in fire blast at Griﬃth University. Brisbane, Australia: Brisbane Times; 2020. g https://www.energy-storage.news/news/
fire-at-20mw-uk-battery-storage-plant-in-liverpool. h https://www.ouest-france.fr/region-occitanie/ariege/ariege-un-incendie-dans-un-container-debatteries-au-lithium-une-quarantaine-de-pompiers-mobilises-7070012. i https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ovh-fire-update-four-hallssbg1-destroyed-well-all-sbg2/. j https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/industry-perspectives/give-ovh-break-and-use-data-center-fire-teachable-moment.
kFire at Solar Plant in Hongseong Involves EV Batteries from LG Energy Solution – Businesskorea. l https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/21/
two-firefighters-killed-and-one-missing-after-beijing-battery-blaze/. m https://www.shawlocal.com/mywebtimes/news/local/2021/07/19/no-evacuationsfor-battery-fire-at-energy-storage-facility-east-of-grand-ridge/. n https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/blaze-at-tesla-big-battery-extinguished-after-three-daybattle-for-control-20210802-p58f6x.html. o https://www.professionalmariner.com/battery-related-fire-damages-famed-hybrid-tug-puts-it-out-of-service/.
p
https://112-water.nl/inzetten-verslagen/201-brand-aan-boord-bij-hybride-boot. q https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/12/russ-j12.html. r https://
gcaptain.com/fire-and-gas-explosion-in-battery-room-of-norwegian-ferry-prompts-lithium-ion-power-warning/. s https://maritime-executive.com/arti
cle/newly-built-hybrid-passenger-vessel-suffers-battery-fire-under-way.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6107

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
health risks associated with heavy metals.74,150–154 The disposal
and processing of LIBs, as well as their properties (e.g. chemistries), will have a significant impact on various environmental
compartments (Fig. 3). LIBs contain a variety of chemicals
including reactive salts, volatile organic electrolytes and additives: the latter are often commercial secrets and hence their
toxicity and combustion products are largely unknown.155,156
Moreover, battery fires, in combination with biogas from landfills,
may release toxins into the air or leach the harmful contents
into the soil, groundwater and surface water.118,157,158 Oncereleased, they pose risks to the surrounding environment alone
or in combination with other pollutants.159–165
Fig. 3 shows likely pollution routes (originated from EoL
LIBs disposal/processing) to the environment and possible
cross-contamination within diﬀerent compartments. Pollutants
once released from LIBs may enter one compartment first andlater be transported to another one. For instance, heavy metals
may be collected by dumpsite leachate and transported into thesoil or groundwater outside the initial site. On the other hand,
if a battery leaches onto open ground, heavy metals may run-oﬀ
with the rain to a nearby river or lake. However, due to knowledge and data gaps, not all routes could be fully reviewed inthis work.

3.1

Emissions to air

3.1.1 Dust. Fine particles may be released from LIBs to the
air during disassembly and recycling processes; from a landfill
or dumpsite by degradation or fire/explosion; and are considered as a part of the total dust emissions.166 Generally, dust isa mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets of a wide rangeof sizes (nanometres to few micrometres) and chemical composition, all together suspended in the atmosphere.167,168
Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters of less than
10 or 2.5 mm (PM10 and PM2.5) can jeopardize human health,adversely aﬀect climate and reduce visibility at local andregional scales.169–171 Particulates may contain matter-boundmetals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper orlead due to the decomposition of recyclable batteries, scrap
metals and electronic waste.172–174 Dust can enter the respiratory
system causing adverse health effects such as cardiovascularFig. 3 Possible emission routes of pollutants from LIBs into theenvironment.

6108 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Scienceand respiratory diseases, carcinogenicity, or disruption of theendocrine system.175–187
During disassembly and material recovery of LIBs, shreddingis the main mechanical processing option25 that could generate
dust emissions. These emissions could potentially cause a
respiratory hazard to workers in recycling centres as well as thoseliving or working in the vicinity. Moreover, particles and chemicals (e.g. PAHs) released from batteries may aggregate together in
the atmosphere, be transported on larger distances and settled
down causing for example soil pollution. As LIBs particles may
be of diﬀerent materials and sizes, it is mandatory to assess andinvestigate their possible toxicity and respiratory hazard.
The potential negative eﬀect of three battery materials:
lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium titanium oxide (LTO)
and lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) was studied utilizing mousebioassays.188 The mixed metal oxides present in the cathodes of
LIBs could release particles small enough to penetrate thelungs and induce inflammation. The extent of the impact varies
depending on the chemistry of the LIB. From the materials
tested by Sironval et al. (2018), LTO was the least harmful,whereas LCO induced the strongest inflammation. As a result,the fibrotic responses were observed in cells with higher
inflammation rates.188
Another generator of dust and particles are explosions andfires. During thermal runaway the particles are first ejectedfrom the safety vent together with other gases, resulting inheavy smoke with black colour.189,190 After cooling down, they
settled as surface dust. The composition of these powders fromlithium nickel cobalt manganese (NMC) cells was mainly C, O,
Al, Mn, and F. This result suggests that it is mostly the negative
carbon particles of the battery, as well as the oxidized positive
substances of the electrode, that are ejected during gas
venting.190 Another study191 found that thermally abused prismatic automotive NMC cells released PM that contained heavy
metals. The authors found that nickel and copper were detected
in all collected fractions (1.45 to 500 mm) whereas zinc andchromium settled with bigger fractions (50 to 500 mm). Ni had
the largest mass percentage followed by Cu, Zn and Cr. In termsof the total emitted quantity, PM accounted for 1.7% of the cellmass. Once settled, such particulates may interact with surrounding waters and soil and ultimately be of threat to crops.
3.1.2 Hydrofluoric acid. Out of various hazardous gases
released from LIBs to air, HF is of the highest concern andmust be treated with high caution. It can enter the human body
via the skin or respiratory systems and causes severe corrosive
eﬀects and systemic toxicity.192 Inhalation of just a few ppm of
HF can result in serious toxic eﬀects. HF readily penetrates theskin and moves quickly to the deeper tissue layers where it
releases the freely dissociable fluoride ion. This ion is extremely
toxic, due to its strong reactivity.193 Moreover, HF gas is hygroscopic and readily soluble in water.158,194,195 Concentrated
solutions of HF are highly corrosive to the skin and underlying
tissues and accidental dermal exposure has been reported tocause death in humans.148,196
HF is generated in LIBs during the first charge and by
subsequent cycling, a phenomenon known as gassing.197–200

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Energy & Environmental Science

Review

The acid can also be produced due to accidental spillage andhence the exposure of the LiPF6 in the electrolyte to humid
air158 according to:
LiPF6 + H2O - LiF + 2HF + POF3

(1)

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

201

although this is disputed.
As well as the direct reaction of LiPF6 with water, at ambient
temperature in the organic carbonate solvents employed,
LiPF6 exists in equilibrium with its decomposition products
according to:
LiPF6 2 LiF + PF5(2)

PF5 is prone to degradation upon exposure to traces of water,
moisture or alcohols202 to form HF which is also highly toxic:158
PF5 + H2O 2 POF3 + 2HF(3)

To mitigate the eﬀect of reaction (3), commercial LIB electrolytes often contain additives, up to 5% by mass or volume, someof which suppress PF5 formation. Others are added to protect
against overcharge, provide fire-retarding protection or improve
Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) formation or quality.203 It is notclear what eﬀect these may have on reaction (2) or other decomposition reactions, or their toxicity or the identity of the products
from their combustion.
The second likely source of HF from LIBs is a thermal
runaway and fire. The amount of HF produced during an incident
depends on the size of the cell and its chemistry21,23,142,204–206 andmay incorporate endothermal decomposition of the binder –polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).159
Sturk et al. (2015) detected significant quantities of HF fromburning NMC and LFP type pouch cells.141 Surprisingly, LFP
cells produced the highest levels of hydrofluoric acid fumes.
So far this type of chemistry was regarded as one of the safest as
having the highest cathode decomposition temperature;135
however, the cells employed in the LIBESS that exploded at
Griﬃths University in March 2020 were LFP cells.207
Larsson et al. (2017) have estimated that between 20 and
200 mg of HF could be released per W h of an EV battery pack.22
Thus, the amount of HF could be greater than 80–800 times
the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH) level.208
3.1.3 Vapours and gases. It is now apparent that thermal
runaway generates a white vapour during venting the cells,
essentially independent of chemistry, form factor and manufacturer.139 This white vapour contains H2, SO2, NO2, HF, HCl,
CO, CO2, droplets of organic solvent (giving the white colour)
and a large range of small chain alkanes and alkenes.7,20–24 The
exact composition of the white vapour appears to depend on
the State of Charge (SoC) and battery chemistry.20,142,209,210 The
white vapour is produced when cell is venting as a result ofvarious chemical processes, triggered at successively higher
temperatures.135 There is insufficient oxygen produced when
the cathode structure collapses to sustain fire, but when thewhite vapour vents from the cells it may or may not ignite: at
SoC 4 50% and if sufficient oxygen is present, the vapour canThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

ignite to produce jet-like flames.144 However, if there is insufficient oxygen, e.g. inside a LIBESS with air displaced by thevapour and/or a suppressant,138 the vapour represents a wholly
novel hazard concerning LIBs; if the white vapour contacts anignition source, there could be a possibility of a flash fire,
fireballs developing, or in extreme cases even a vapour cloud
explosion.211

3.2

Emissions to soil and water

Once physically disposed of, LIBs will leach their contents
into the surrounding soils, infiltrate to deeper layers, pollute
groundwater and can run-oﬀ into surface waters. As water isvery often a carrier of pollutants in the soil, it is challenging toascertain the individual impact of LIBs on these two spheres
alone, and hence we discuss the impact on them jointly.
3.2.1 Landfill/dump leachate. One of the most importanthazards associated with landfilling and illegal processing is thegeneration of leachate: it is formed as a result of various
biological and chemical degradation processes, and rain
percolating through waste. Non-LIB related leachates are acomplex mixture of substantial amounts of dissolved organics,
inorganic salts, ammonia, heavy metals and xenobiotic organic
compounds that are remains of personal care products, pharmaceuticals, industrial, household chemicals, their transformationand degradation products, especially from landfills.212–214
Leachate could impose a serious environmental impact as it
can act as a transportation medium for hazardous species.
It may pollute soils or groundwater and transport contaminates
over considerable distances, often many kilometres from thesite215–219 potentially contaminating groundwater.212
LIB leachates will potentially carry various pollutants suchas heavy metals, additives, electrolyte degradation products but
also dissolved gases. The latter, such as HF, HCl or SO2 (in formof sulphuric acid) not only have a straightforward toxic eﬀect
but also alter the properties of receiving waters and solutions insoil. The acidification caused by these corrosive species may
have the same eﬀect as ‘‘acid rain’’, lowering the pH and thus
strongly impacting plants and animals.220 They would alsoenhance the release of soil-bound heavy metals. Under more
acidic conditions the actual toxicity of heavy metals is higher than
it would be predicted from the metal concentration alone.221
3.2.2 Heavy metals. The content of metals in batteries
depends upon their design and size (i.e. cylindrical, prismaticor pouch cells), as well as their chemistry (i.e. NMC, LCO etc.).
Typically they are in the range of 0.05–0.37 kg Co per kW h,
0.25–0.86 kg Ni per kW h and 0.46–0.9 kg Li per kW h.222–225
These figures translate to tens of kilograms of such materials in
EV packs that potentially may be released to the environment
if improperly disposed of, representing a series of threats tohuman health and the environment.
The toxicity of heavy metals from LIBs includes attaching,blocking and disturbing the conformational structure of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins or enzymes.226–228 Heavy metals polluting crops, fruits or dust are known to induce genetic damage
in children229,230 and cause lower academic performance.231

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6109

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
Nickel released into the environment binds strongly to small
solid particles, especially containing iron or manganese. Ni hasa low tendency to accumulate in fish and small animals. With
respect to human health, nickel is the most common allergic
metal. It may also cause respiratory disorders and even cancer
at higher concentrations.232 Lithium has relatively low toxicity
and small dosages are beneficial for various trophic levels oforganisms.233 Nevertheless, it is quite an active element and, inhigher concentrations, may cause digestive and neurologic
systems disorders.234,235 Small dosages of cobalt are beneficial tohumans (synthesis of vitamin B12) but larger dosages cause
respiratory problems and skin rashes.236 In general, adverse reactions to Co exposure depend primarily on its chemical form.237
The leachate from LIBs penetrating through landfill or
illegal dumpsites will collect and carry various metals, including
lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, chromium andcopper.155 A few studies have reviewed various leaching scenarios
to assess the correlation of typical mass compositions in diﬀerent
types of LIBs to their contamination potential.238–241 Metals
found in leachates (both real and artificial) that exceeded toxicity
limits were lead, mercury, cobalt, copper, nickel, chromium
and thallium – depending on the type of test used. One of thestudies242 analysed the leachate from a landfill containing NMC
batteries: the authors found that less than 4% of the total cobalt,
nickel, aluminium, copper, and iron from the battery were insolution, whilst 11.45% of the manganese and 42.50% of thelithium were present.
It is unlikely that metals will be released only in metallic orionic form from buried LIBs: they will likely be mobilized as
nanoparticles (NPs) as well. Such nanomaterials (mostly ofcathode origin) and their ecotoxicological potential towards
various organisms were assessed by several studies. Thus
Hang et al. (2017) studied the impact of NMC on the soil
bacteria Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 and found that exposure
to 5 mg L 1 NMC significantly impaired bacterial population
growth and respiration.243 The authors showed that theseeﬀects were due to the release of metal ions from the NMC,
with the largest eﬀects arising from Ni2+ and Co2+ species.
Gunsolus et al. (2017) also investigated the toxicity of NMC
towards the same bacteria, varying the relative composition of
the metals in the mixed metal oxide.244 The authors found thatlowering the Ni and Co content and increasing the Mn content,
lowered the biological impact significantly. In fact, reducing
the cobalt content and increasing Ni has been a key aspectof NMC battery development over the last few years, driven
by safety considerations245,246 and global supply chain
issues.247,248 Another study assessed the biological impact of
NMC on a Gram-positive model bacterium, Bacillus subtilis.249
Growth and cellular respiration of the bacteria were inhibited
significantly by free Ni2+ and Co2+ ions released from theincongruent dissolution of the NMC. DNA damage tests at thesingle-cell level confirmed that the toxicity caused by the redesigned NMC (enriched in Mn) was lower in comparison tosolutions containing either free Ni and Co or original NMC
material. A recent paper250 reported a study on the influence ofmultiphase lithiated cobalt phosphate (mLCP) nanomaterial on

6110 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 and Bacillus subtilis. The authors
found that mLCP was toxic to both species due to the release ofcobalt ions.
The toxicity of NMC and LCO materials towards eukaryoticorganisms was studied using Daphnia magna.251 The work
showed that there is negligible acute toxicity to daphnid at
the highest concentrations of 25 mg L 1, whereas there is asignificant impact on daphnid reproduction and survival during chronic exposure (21 days) at concentrations of 0.25 mg L 1
for LCO and 1.0 mg L 1 for NMC. They confirmed that toxicity
depends on chemical composition – the replacement of Co by
Ni and Mn resulted in better daphnid survival, reproduction,and body size. Finally, the authors highlighted there was astrong nanomaterial-specific impact – probably due to adhesion.252
Although, the effect could not be fully confirmed by experiments with just free Li, Ni, Mn, and Co ions dissolved insuspension metal.
LCO and NMC have been shown to have adverse eﬀects on
the benthic invertebrate Chironomus riparius253 by inhibiting
growth and development. The increased toxicity of these materials was associated with quick sedimentation of nanoparticles
and thus faster interaction with benthic organisms. As inprevious studies, a reduction in the biological impact of NMC
versus LCO was observed.
On the higher trophic level, the fish class, there is an evident
impact of LCO on rainbow trout gill epithelial cells.254 It was
found that exposure to Li+ and Co2+ alone, did not reduce cell
viability, however strong toxic eﬀects were observed for LCO
nanoparticles and these were found to increase the concentration of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Overproduction of ROS
may cause biochemical damage, overstress to cells and ultimately, their damage.255 These negative eﬀects were measured
at sub-toxic concentrations of LCO which are close to predictedenvironmental levels. Finally, it was found that the nanomaterials
were internalized in cellular organelles, which was not the casefor bacteria.243 A subsequent paper256 reported studies on the
response of the same type of cells to LCO-induced oxidative
stress. The authors postulated a ‘‘two-hit’’ model for LCO
toxicity. Initially, the intact LCO material induces high levels
of ROS leading to gradual engagement of stress response genes(‘‘first hit’’). In the next step, the gradual release of metal ionsfrom NPs starts to suppress the expression of these genes,
disrupting the cell response to elevated ROS levels (‘‘second
hit’’). This mode of action ultimately confuses the cell responseto stress and may lead to severe damage.
The take-home message from all ecotoxicity studies is thatthe replacement of toxic metals (Co and Ni) with less toxic
ones (Mn) may increase the environmental compatibility andsustainability of the next generation of LIB materials.
Heavy metals from LIBs may also enter the natural environment due to materials recovery processes, as well as legal andillegal disposal routes. Due to the lack of valid data concerning therecycling of LIBs, for analytical purposes, we can consider otherwell-established processing of automotive batteries. Critical analysis of the lead-acid batteries recovery reveals that large quantitiesof potentially toxic slag have to be dealt with. In most countries,

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Sciencesuch wastes are often disposed of in waste dumps that may lackproperly designed engineered landfills, especially in emerging
economies. Analysis of slag revealed that apart from high pH(12.22) it contained also high concentrations (g kg 1) of Pb(4101), Cu (42.5), Cr (41.2), Zn (0.5), Cd (40.5) and Ni (0.1),
indicating a poor metal recovery in the recycling processes.257 The
authors suggested that there was a greater risk of release of theseheavy metals over the long-term following disposal into theenvironment. Fujimori et al. (2016) found elevated levels of Pb
in some China soils located next to recycling plants.258 In the caseof LIB recycling, we also have to deal with the slag resulting fromthe pyrometallurgical route, mainly containing Mn, Li, and Al.259
3.2.3 Battery degradation products. The study undertaken
by Grützke et al. (2015) may give indications of the fate ofprocessed battery material when kept in storage (i.e. prior torecycling) or landfilled.59 The authors shredded NMC LIBs from
EVs and enclosed them in sealed tinplate and plastic cans.
Their main goal was to assess which compounds are released
from spent, processed material, and if there is any further
degradation of original compounds, and the possible emergence of hazardous transformation products. The so-called‘‘black mass’’ was monitored for over 20 months with regularanalyses of gases, liquids and remaining salts. Their results
showed that the tinplate cans underwent fast corrosion – firstspots were visible after a few days, and after five months someof the cans were already perforated by rusting. Plastic cans did
not show any visual signs of degradation. In addition to HF, theauthors found traces of phosphoric acids, LiPF6, other additives(i.e. cyclohexylbenzene) and solvents – DMC, EC, EMC and theirdegradation products. More importantly, they identified several
alkylfluorophosphates, including dimethyl fluorophosphate(DMFP) and diethylfluorophosphate (DEFP). Alkylfluorophosphates are of concern as they have similar structures to thechemical warfare agents such as sarin.260 DMFP and DEFP werealso detected by Kraft et al. (2015 and 2016) who investigated
the thermal degradation of LIB electrolytes.160,261 Although
present in manageable low concentrations, they still may havetoxic potential both to humans and the environment.
These studies highlight the important issue of storing spentand processed battery materials. If real-life scenarios are envisaged, such as temporary storage in the canister or landfilling,certainly, the corrosion of containers or battery metal case(module or pack) will be speeded up by external environmental
factors such as leachate or humid air. It also indicates thatspent degraded battery already contains harmful content –these products may enter the air or be transported with thesolution to other compartments.
3.2.4 Additives. Finally, LIBs may also leach the remains ofelectrolyte and its additives.262,263 The most common additives
are polymers, Lewis acids, sulphur-containing and phosphorous
containing additives, polyfluoroalkyl substituted ethylene carbonates or ionic liquids (ILs). The latter, ILs, are particularly interesting as they can play many roles in the battery system: as a pure
electrolyte; in mixture with conventional solvents; as a gel polymer
electrolyte or as a binder.264,265 ILs are non-volatile and a nonflammable class of organic salts consisting of an organic cation

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Reviewand an organic or inorganic anion and there is a broad spectrumof cations (i.e. imidazolium, pyridinium, choline etc.) and anions(organic and inorganic).266 Therefore, there is a very broad
spectrum of the environmental impact of these compounds
depending on their structure. However, due to their properties,
the routes of exposure and potential hazards are limited tointeractions with solutions. The distribution of ionic liquids inthe environment is governed by their structure e.g. ILs withlonger alkyl chains absorb more easily on the soil surface.
Therefore, some ionic liquids may be quite mobile in wateror soil columns whereas others may bind strongly to various
environmental compartments and may become persistentpollutants. Additionally, the properties of soil such as highcation exchange capacity and/or abundance of organic matter
will greatly increase the uptake of ILs.267–275 Although their use
is usually restricted to small quantities, ILs could still haveconsiderable negative effects on wildlife and human health. For
instance, most of the ionic liquids in battery systems are
considered toxic and poorly biodegradable compounds.276,277
As in the case of the mobility and transport in environmental
media, the toxicity of ILs depends on the lipophilicity and alkyl
chain length, the direct interaction with the biological system(membrane, cell or organism) and trophic levels (bacteria,
plants, invertebrates or human cells). Usually, the longer thederivative the more toxic it is but there is also a strong impactof the counter-ion, especially fluorinated ones.278–287

4. Recommendations for futurestudies
Table 3 illustrates the possible routes of emission and pollutantsreleased from LIBs. Although partially supported by the existing
literature (see Sections 2 and 3), this is more of an indicative list.
There are lots of unknowns, incomplete data, not yet researched
specific topics or even contradictory results that need to beclarified to mitigate any negative impact of spent batteries.
Therefore, we identified some of the main knowledge gaps
and probe the following questions on the environmental
impacts of spent LIBs that might help to manage these betterin the future:(1) What are the current and prospective volumes ofspent LIBs?
(2) How much spent batteries reach the relevant disposal
stream?
(3) Where spent batteries will be processed/disposedof/abandoned?
(4) In what form: as a whole, partitioned, shredded etc. LIBs
will be processed/disposed of/abandoned?
(5) What is the impact of changing chemistries on the waste
streams in terms of needed technology but also in terms of thelife span?
(6) What, how, where and in which volumes are hazards
released from the spent batteries?
(7) What is the prevalence and distribution of battery
pollutants once being released into the natural environment?

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6111

View Article Online

Review
Table 3

Energy & Environmental Science
Possible pollutants and routes of their emission released from LiBs

Battery
component

Source of pollutant

Specific pollutant

Route

Pack casing– Steeli.e. Fe, Al, Ni, Cr other

Leaching

Module casing– Steel– Aluminium– Aluminium foil
– Polymers– Ni-Coated steel– Metal– Metal oxides– Fe, Ni, Cr other– Al– Al, Ni
– PET, PP

Leaching

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Cell packing
Cathode– Al– LMO – Li/Mn/O– LFP – Li/Fe/P/O– NMC – Li/Ni/Mn/Co/O– LCO – Li/Co/O– NCA – Li/Ni/Co/Al/O– Cu– C (nanomaterial)– LTO – Li/Ti/O– Polyethylene (PE)– Polypropylene (PP)Anode

– Copper– Graphite

Separator– Polymers

Binder– PDVF– HF

Electrolyte– Ethylene carbonate– Propylene carbonate– Dimethyl carbonate– Diethyl carbonate– Salts: LiPF6– Additives

– HF
– SOx
– HCN
– H2
– CO
– CO2
– NOx
– COS
– HCl
– Degradation productsof electrolyte(i.e. C2H4; CH3COCHO etc.)– Ionic liquids– Unknown additives/degradation products(8) What is the circulation and interactions of battery
pollutants among the land–water–air-emission pathways andthe wildlife nexus?
(9) What is the (eco)toxicity and (bio)accumulation of LIBs
materials to various organisms and humans?
(10) How should or would environmental studies support
the design and disposal of spent LIBs?
Although, some of these questions could be partiallyanswered already based on approximations i.e. prospective
volumes are estimated on sales number; but there is an urgent
need for reliable and verified data. Obtaining reliable andaccurate data will have serious implications for the safety of
the recycling and disposal facilities and helps to shape, implement and regulate appropriate practices and legislations. The
real data should be supported by various Life Cycle Assessments methodology, cost-benefit studies and the use of moremodelling in the prediction of i.e. life cycle of the specificbattery in a given application.
As the growing demand for new LIBs will result in increased
numbers of spent batteries, we recommend that this quantity
must be appropriately managed and controlled across thevarious disposal routes. The best-case scenario assumes highcollection rates of spent batteries with an almost full recovery ofmaterials that can be reused (boosting the circular economy).

6112 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Aﬀectedenvironment

HazardLand
Natural waters
Land
Natural waters
Natural waters
Land
Air
Land
Natural waters
Air– In excess toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in plants and crops– In excess toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in plants and crops– In excess toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in plants and crops

Leaching

Land
Natural waters

Leaching
Fire
Dust
Fire

Land
Natural waters
Air
Air– In excess toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in plants and crops– Toxic to humans if breathed– Microplastics accumulation

Fire
Vapours/gases
Leaching

Air
Land
Natural waters

Leaching
Fire
Leaching
Dust– Toxic to the various organism– Toxic to humans if breathed– In excess toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in plants and crops– Toxic to humans if breathed– Toxic to humans if in contact– Toxic to humans if breathed– Toxic to humans if in contact– Toxic to wildlife– Accumulation in soils

It is evident that domestic i.e. decentralised recycling will be
more profitable than centralised recycling, however, it will taketime for the industry to scale up collection, processes andinfrastructures.6 It is also argued that latecomers will be threatened by the existing industry that may benefit more quickly
from the larger economies of scale. Decentralised systems do
require a substantial amount of spent LIBs (especially large EV)
to reach economy of scale as it was estimated that recycling
costs will decrease if between 1000 and 15 000 tonnes per year
are recycled at one plant.6 Collection of spent and ‘‘second-life’’large batteries, might be linked with some business model e.g.
sale of the car but the lease of battery – then the responsibility
is on dealer/seller or can be governed by local councils withi.e. specialized collection centre – responsibility on the user.
To improve the collection and later decision on the re-use,
recycling or landfilling knowing the usage history of ‘‘first life’’of EV/BESS batteries would be of great use – the battery’s
condition can be determined much faster and more economically. That will speed up the streamlining of LIBs to an accurateroute of processing. However, we must bear in mind thatmodules in the pack can age differently288 – so possible thatthe selection will be on the modules not pack level. Nevertheless, improving the reuse of the materials could reduce theenvironmental, economic and social burden of the existingThis journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Science
battery supply chain including disposal practices is inevitable.
However, the challenges in the collection, dismantling andrecycling of LIBs must be overcome. It is of crucial importanceto develop innovative technologies to lower the cost of material
recovery and reduce the environmental impacts of thisindustry.6 Furthermore, illegal disposal and informal processing that leads to serious pollution must be prevented. This
could be achieved through better collection schemes, expansions, and improvements in the current recycling infrastructure
and posing legal obstacles for exporting second-hand EVs or
LIBs. The last anybody wants is that LIBs to become, forinstance, a source of soil pollution by heavy metals. Moreover,there should be a constant drive to produce LiBs containing
less hazardous and more ‘‘green’’ materials289 that not only
improve the capacity and efficiency of the battery but also
prevent destructive behaviour and have minimal negative
impact on the environment if improperly disposed of.290 New
LIBs should be designed for recycling meaning the materials
can be easy separate from each other and able to be re-used in
new batteries (direct recycling). That links to new technologies
of material recovery that are less energy intensive, cheaper andproduce less or no secondary pollution.
The improvements must be guided by appropriate legislation,
regulations and management structures. These must encouragecustomers and manufacturers to properly handle spent batteries,
highlighting the benefits of recycling (in light of the obligations
for economic operators as regards the sourcing of raw materials)
and promote the circular economy model and finally, must also
clearly ensure where each liability lays.48
Finally, we must address the problem of penetration of large‘‘2nd life’’ LIBs into society. There is a general perception,
particularly in Europe, that the re-use (using an EV battery
without change in an EV), remanufacture (using an EV battery
after replacing defective modules in an EV) and repurposing(using modules from an EV at end-of-life to assemble a battery
for a purpose other than traction, e.g. stationary storage) of LIBs
can make a positive contribution to the decarbonization of theplanet.48 The safety of new cells, modules and battery packs canbe assessed using the ‘‘type tests’’ that form the basis of allcodes, standards and regulations governing, for example,
domestic and industrial battery energy storage systems. Typetesting relies on testing a sample of cells from a batch, usually
to destruction, and accepting the result as representative of thebatch. The use of type testing on new cells is valid due to theextremely tight quality control of their manufacture, however,such type testing is now accepted as inappropriate to assess thesafety of second life LIBs due to the wide variation in SoH
across an EV pack during its life and possible exposure to
extremes of temperature, overcharging and/or charging athigh currents,291–293 all of which can increase the potential
for thermal runaway.294,295 The draft standards IEC63330296(Requirements for reuse of secondary batteries) and IEC63338297(General guidance for reuse of secondary cells and batteries) fully
acknowledge the fact that type tests cannot be employed to assess
the safety of second life LiBs. The key challenge is determining theSoH, or more correctly, the State-of-Safety of second life LIBs.298

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Review
A part of the latter must be full knowledge of the first life of the
LIB in the EV, including full details of any abuse (e.g. overcharging) maximum charge and discharge currents & operational temperatures. The draft standards IEC63330 and
IEC63338 were intended to address this problem and hence
facilitate the safe application of second life LiBs, but have failed
to do so, as they do not require any testing and rely completelyon the original manufacturers of the EVs passing on full BMS
data (and hence potentially valuable intellectual property) toremanufacturers & repurposers, which is perceived as highly
unlikely. The draft EU Batteries Regulation also sidesteps thesafety issue of second-life batteries by requiring only that BMS
data is made fully available.
It is generally accepted that the re-use, remanufacturing andrepurposing of complete packs where the original EV manufacturer is retained in the supply chain is of low risk.299
However, second life cells, modules and even full battery packs
are freely available from online retailers, such that inexperienced organisations and even the general public can repurpose
LIBs. Thus, a major concern is the use of these suppliers byhomeowners to build do-it-yourself domestic BESS: domestic
battery energy storage systems are currently completely unregulated in the UK with respect to the application of lithium-ion
batteries. Concerns over the hazards posed by such systems in
the home environment have been addressed in other countries:
thus the US NFPA 855 standard300 and the draft DR2 AS/NZS
5139 : 2019 Australian and New Zealand standard301 do not
permit domestic lithium-ion BESS inside the home, and NFPA
855 does not permit do-it-yourself lithium-ion BESS at all.
The online trade-in 2nd life LIBs is completely unregulated,and delivery of these devices is often oﬀered by means illegal
under UN 38.3302 as they are classified as dangerous goods andhence require transportation in accordance with the European
agreement ‘‘Accord européen relatif au transport international desmarchandises dangereuses par route’’ (ADR) requirements.303

5. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the urgent need to decarbonise transportation puts LIBs at the forefront of the action. However, thegrowing stream of spent LIBs would impose an enormousthreat to the natural environment and human health, asbatteries contain hazardous materials. In this review, thecurrent, possible and likely waste management practices of
LIBs were identified – from collection and recycling to landfilling, through the EoL incidents up to illegal disposal. Currently, landfilling is the most common practice but there is a
growing share of recycling. The current review also assessed themost likely hazards and incidents during each EoL practice.
The fire and explosion incidents are currently the most common events that have been evidenced by real-life incidents.
Leaching is another pollution pathway that will co-dominate
in the future. Identified hazards released from LIBs containvapours and gases (i.e. HF, CO or HCN), metal nanooxides(i.e. LMO, NMC), degradation products of the electrolyte

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6113

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review(alkylfluorophosphates) and possible traces of additives. These
pollutants may be released to soil, water (groundwater) and air,depending on recycling, disposal method or abuse incident.
Released pollutants may pose a serious threat to wildlife andhumans with often immediate effects like in the case of contact
with HF during EV fire. Degradation of the battery content(especially electrolyte) in some cases may lead to the emergenceof chemicals structurally similar to chemical warfare agents.
The initial studies on the (eco)toxicity of the cathode nanomaterials showed that LIBs may pose a threat to living organisms
and human health. But the replacement of toxic metals (Co andNi) with less toxic ones (Mn) may increase the environmental
compatibility and sustainability of the next generation oflithium battery materials. Finally, we identified several urgent
knowledge gaps that need to be covered to mitigate the negative
impact on the environment of LIBs, and recommended someactions to tackle these issues.

Author contributions
Wojciech Mrozik: writing – original draft, writing – review &editing, conceptualization, visualization, investigation; methodology; Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar: writing – original draft,writing – review & editing; Oliver Heidrich: writing – originaldraft, writing – review & editing, conceptualization, funding;Paul Christensen: writing – original draft, writing – review &editing, funding.

Abbreviations
Aging

The loss of capacity due to, e.g. loss oflithium ions or spallation of the anodes. Thiscan be due to use (charging and discharging)
and/or sitting at open circuit (calendar
aging)AnodeThe negative electrode. In lithium-ion batteries this is most typically small particles ofgraphite
Battery (pack)The complete energy storage unit consistingof a number of modules
BESS
Battery energy storage system
CathodeThe positive electrode. These typically comprise lithium plus metal oxides: e.g. lithium
nickel manganese cobalt oxide (LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2)
Cell
The smallest unit of a battery
Electrolyte
In electrochemistry, this term is ambiguous
as it can refer to the inorganic salt (e.g. LiPF6)
or to the salt + organic solvent
End of Life (EoL) The point at which a battery ceases to besuitable for its current application. For automotive batteries this is typically 75–80%
State-of-Health
GHG
Greenhouse gases, gases that cause thegreenhouse eﬀect e.g. CO2 and CH46114 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
Landfill
LCO cathodeLIB
LIBESSLFP cathodeLMO cathodeLTO anode
MRF

NCA cathode
NMC cathode

PAHs
Recycling
Separator

A site for the disposal of waste materials
Lithium cobalt oxide, LiCoO2
Lithium-ion battery
Lithium-ion battery energy storage system
Lithium iron (ferrous) phosphate, LiFePO4
Lithium manganese oxide LiMnO2
Lithium titanium oxide Li4Ti5O12
Material recovery facilities; solid-waste management plant that processes recyclable
materials to sell to manufacturers as raw
materials for new products(lithium) Nickel cobalt aluminium oxide, e.g.
LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2(lithium) Nickel manganese cobalt oxide,e.g. LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 (NMC 111),
LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC 622)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; made up
of fused aromatic rings molecules
The process of converting waste materials
into new materials and objects
A plastic film permeable to lithium andhexafluorophosphate ions that prevents theanode and cathode from touching and causing a short-circuit

Solid Electrolyte
Interphase (SEI) The protective layer that forms on the anode
during the first charge from reduction of the
LiPF6 and solvent which prevents further,
explosive degradation of the electrolyte andthermal runaway
Solvent
Mixture of organic carbonates, containing
ethylene carbonate, as this is essential forthe formation of the SEI. Ethylene carbonate
is a solid at room temperature and othercarbonates are essential to reduce viscosity
State of Charge(SoC)
The amount of charge stored comparedto that equivalent to full charge, expressed as %State of Health(SoH)
The amount of charge stored currently when
fully charged compared to that stored (whenfully charged) at the beginning of the cell orbattery life, expressed as %VOCsVolatile organic compounds; compounds
that have a high vapour pressure and low
water solubility

Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the UK’s Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Faraday Institution

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Energy & Environmental Science

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

(EP/S003053/1) as part of its ‘‘Recycling of Li-Ion Batteries(ReLIB)’’ project (FIRG005) ‘‘SafeBatt – Science of Battery
Safety’’ (FIRG028). The funders had no input or role to playin the conceptualization, design, literature collection, analysis,
decision to publish or preparation of the study of thismanuscript.

References
1 H. E. Melin, M. A. Rajaeifar, A. Y. Ku, A. Kendall, G. Harperand O. Heidrich, Science, 2021, 373, 384–387.
2 European_Commission, 2019, COM/2019/640 final.
3 R. Harrabin, Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from2030 under PM’s green plan, 2020, accessed 20.11.2020.
4 UKRI, Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: Future of mobility,
2020, accessed 20.09.2020.
5 UKRI, Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, 2020, accessed
20.09.2020.
6 L. Lander, T. Cleaver, M. A. Rajaeifar, V. Nguyen-Tien,
R. J. R. Elliott, O. Heidrich, E. Kendrick, J. S. Edge andG. Oﬀer, iScience, 2021, 24, 102787.
7 G. Lombardo, B. Ebin, M. R. S. J. Foreman, B.-M. Steenari
and M. Petranikova, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2019, 7,
13668–13679.
8 M. A. Rajaeifar, O. Heidrich, P. Ghadimi, M. Raugei and
Y. Wu, Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 2020, 161, 104905.
9 M. J. Smith and F. M. Gray, in Alternative Energy and ShaleGas Encyclopedia, ed. J. H. Lehr, J. Keeley and T. B. Kingery,2016, pp. 566–577.
10 J.-P. Skeete, P. Wells, X. Dong, O. Heidrich and G. Harper,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2020, 69, 101581.
11 Veolia,
2020,
https://www.veolia.co.uk/press-releases/
preventing-battery-fires.
12 B. Morris, 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business54634802, accessed 01.10.2021.
13 D. Lisbona and T. Snee, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 2011, 89,
434–442.
14 FAA, An Introduction to Lithium Batteries and the Challenges
that they pose to the Waste and Recycling Industry, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjFHYpI7GrM&feature=youtu.
be, accessed 15.11.2020.
15 M. Reintjes, https://recyclinginternational.com/business/
at-least-one-scrap-fire-every-week-in-germany/28831/,
2020, accessed 05.03.2021.
16 BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire47976224, 2019, accessed 20.09.2021.
17 K. Akemi, 2020, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/
AJ202001100077.html, accessed 18.09.2021.
18 P. A. Christensen, P. A. Anderson, G. D. J. Harper,
S. M. Lambert, W. Mrozik, M. A. Rajaeifar, M. S. Wiseand O. Heidrich, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2021,
148, 111240.
19 H. E. Mellin, State-of-the-art in reuse and recycling of lithiumion batteries – A research review, The Swedish Energy
Agency, Circular Energy Storage, 2019.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Review
20 A. Lecocq, G. G. Eshetu, S. Grugeon, N. Martin, S. Laruelle
and G. Marlair, J. Power Sources, 2016, 316, 197–206.
21 F. Larsson, S. Bertilsson, M. Furlani, I. Albinsson and
B.-E. Mellander, J. Power Sources, 2018, 373, 220–231.
22 F. Larsson, P. Andersson, P. Blomqvist and B.-E. Mellander,
Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 10018.
23 S. Chen, Z. Wang, J. Wang, X. Tong and W. Yan, J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind., 2020, 63, 103992.
24 G. Lombardo, B. Ebin, M. R. S. J. Foreman, B.-M. Steenari
and M. Petranikova, J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 393, 122372.
25 G. Harper, R. Sommerville, E. Kendrick, L. Driscoll,
P. Slater, R. Stolkin, A. Walton, P. Christensen,
O. Heidrich, S. Lambert, A. Abbott, K. Ryder, L. Gainesand P. Anderson, Nature, 2019, 575, 75–86.
26 C. M. Costa, J. C. Barbosa, R. Gonçalves, H. Castro,
F. J. D. Campo and S. Lanceros-Méndez, Energy Storage
Mater., 2021, 37, 433–465.
27 C. J. Rydh and B. Svärd, Sci. Total Environ., 2003, 302,
167–184.
28 Y. Hua, S. Zhou, Y. Huang, X. Liu, H. Ling, X. Zhou,
C. Zhang and S. Yang, J. Power Sources, 2020, 478, 228753.
29 S. King and N. J. Boxall, J. Cleaner Prod., 2019, 215,
1279–1287.
30 F. O. Ongondo, I. D. Williams and G. Whitlock, Waste
Manage., 2015, 45, 4–9.
31 X. Zeng, J. Li and N. Singh, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2014, 44, 1129–1165.
32 European_Commission, 2020, COM(2020) 474 final.
33 D. Qiao, G. Wang, T. Gao, B. Wen and T. Dai, Sci. Total
Environ., 2021, 764, 142835.
34 S. Sun, C. Jin, W. He, G. Li, H. Zhu and J. Huang, Sci. Total
Environ., 2021, 776, 145913.
35 T. L. Curtis, L. Smith, H. Buchanan and G. Heath, A
Circular Economy for Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile
and Stationary Energy Storage: Drivers, Barriers, Enablers,and U.S. Policy Considerations, Report NREL/TP-6A2077035, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
2021.
36 Call2Recycle, Recycling Laws By State, https://www.call2recycle.org/recycling-laws-by-state/, accessed 25 Mar 2021.
37 M. A. Rajaeifar, M. Raugei, B. Steubing, A. Hartwell,
P. Anderson and O. Heidrich, J. Ind. Ecol., 2021, 1–12.
38 J. Heelan, E. Gratz, Z. Zheng, Q. Wang, M. Chen, D. Apelian
and Y. Wang, JOM, 2016, 68, 2632–2638.
39 Y. Bai, N. Muralidharan, Y.-K. Sun, S. Passerini,
M. S. Whittingham and I. Belharouak, Mater. Today,
2020, 41, 304–315.
40 M. Chen, X. Ma, B. Chen, R. Arsenault, P. Karlson,
N. Simon and Y. Wang, Joule, 2019, 3, 2622–2646.
41 H. E. Melin, The lithium-ion battery end-of-life market 20182025, Circular Energy Storage, United Kingdom, 2018.
42 EBRA, Noticeable Growth of the Quantity of Batteries
Recycled, European Battery Recycling Association, Brussels,
Belgium, 2012.
43 J. Song, W. Yan, H. Cao, Q. Song, H. Ding, Z. Lv, Y. Zhang
and J. Sun, J. Cleaner Prod., 2019, 215, 570–581.

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6115

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
44 R. Danino-Perraud, The Recycling of Lithium-ion Batteries:
A Strategic Pillar for the European Battery Alliance, Etudes del’Ifri, Ifri, 2020.
45 A. Akcil, C. Erust, S. Ozdemiroglu, V. Fonti and
F. Beolchini, J. Cleaner Prod., 2015, 86, 24–36.
46 A. P. Das, L. B. Sukla, N. Pradhan and S. Nayak, Bioresour.
Technol., 2011, 102, 7381–7387.
47 European_Commission, 2014 Directive 2006/66/EC.
48 European_Commission, 2020, COM(2020) 798/3.
49 J. Baars, T. Domenech, R. Bleischwitz, H. E. Melin and
O. Heidrich, Nat. Sustainability, 2021, 4, 71–79.
50 R. Sommerville, P. Zhu, M. A. Rajaeifar, O. Heidrich,
V. Goodship and E. Kendrick, Resour., Conserv. Recycl.,
2021, 165, 105219.
51 X. Zeng and J. Li, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8, 792–796.
52 C. Ekberg and M. Petranikova, in Lithium Process Chemistry, ed. A. Chagnes and J. Światowska, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015, pp. 233–267.
53 D. L. Thompson, J. M. Hartley, S. M. Lambert, M. Shiref,
G. D. J. Harper, E. Kendrick, P. Anderson, K. S. Ryder,
L. Gaines and A. P. Abbott, Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7585–7603.
54 L. Gaines, Sustainable Mater. Technol., 2014, 1-2, 2–7.
55 M. Fan, X. Chang, Y.-J. Guo, W.-P. Chen, Y.-X. Yin, X. Yang,
Q. Meng, L.-J. Wan and Y.-G. Guo, Energy Environ. Sci.,
2021, 14, 1461–1468.
56 M. Sethurajan and S. Gaydardzhiev, Resour., Conserv.
Recycl., 2021, 165, 105225.
57 J. Yu, X. Wang, M. Zhou and Q. Wang, Energy Environ. Sci.,
2019, 12, 2672–2677.
58 Y. He, X. Yuan, G. Zhang, H. Wang, T. Zhang, W. Xie and
L. Li, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 142382.
59 M. Grützke, S. Krüger, V. Kraft, B. Vortmann, S. Rothermel,
M. Winter and S. Nowak, ChemSusChem, 2015, 8,
3433–3438.
60 M. Mohr, J. F. Peters, M. Baumann and M. Weil, J. Ind.
Ecol., 2020, 24, 1310–1322.
61 J. B. Dunn, L. Gaines, J. C. Kelly, C. James andK. G. Gallagher, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 158–168.
62 T. J. van der Kuijp, L. Huang and C. R. Cherry, Environ.
Health, 2013, 12, 61.
63 A. Manhart, T. Amera, G. Kuepouo, D. Mathai, S. Mng’anya
and T. Schleicher, The deadly business – Findings from theLead Recycling Africa Project, Oeko-Institut EV, Freiburg,
Germany, 2016.
64 WHO, Recycling used lead-acid batteries: health considerations, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2017.
65 WHO, 2017, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/
recycling-used-lead-acid-batteries-health-considerations.
66 Y. Yu, J. Mao and X. Chen, Sci. Total Environ., 2020,
746, 140763.
67 F. Cerdas, R. Gerbers, S. Andrew, J. Schmitt, F. Dietrich,
S. Thiede, K. Dröder and C. Herrmann, Recycling ofLithium-Ion Batteries, Springer, 2018, pp. 83–97.
68 M. D. Vaverková, Geosciences, 2019, 9, 431.
69 W. Sun, X. Wang, J. F. DeCarolis and M. A. Barlaz, Waste
Manage., 2019, 91, 120–127.

6116 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
70 J. Havukainen, M. Zhan, J. Dong, M. Liikanen, I. Deviatkin,
X. Li and M. Horttanainen, J. Cleaner Prod., 2017, 141,
453–461.
71 S. T. Tan, C. T. Lee, H. Hashim, W. S. Ho and J. S. Lim,
J. Cleaner Prod., 2014, 71, 48–58.
72 V. Forti, C. P. Baldé, R. Kuehr and G. Bel, The Global
E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular
economy potential, United Nations University (UNU), United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR),SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association(ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Rotterda, 2020.
73 S. Karnchanawong and P. Limpiteeprakan, Waste Manage.,
2009, 29, 550–558.
74 A. D. Zand and M. A. Abduli, Waste Manage., 2008, 28,
2085–2090.
75 I. C. Nnorom and O. Osibanjo, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2009, 6, 641–650.
76 N. Ferronato and V. Torretta, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health, 2019, 16, 1060.
77 FEMA, Landfill fires their magnitude, characteristics, andmitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center,
Arlington, 2002.
78 J. M. Torrente-Velásquez, M. Giampietro, M. Ripa and
R. Chifari, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 706, 135988.
79 P. Kjeldsen, M. A. Barlaz, A. P. Rooker, A. Baun, A. Ledin
and T. H. Christensen, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2002, 32, 297–336.
80 K. Szymański, B. Janowska, A. Iżewska, R. Sidełko and
I. Siebielska, Environ. Monit. Assess., 2018, 190, 415.
81 O. Bridges, J. W. Bridges and J. F. Potter, Environmentalist,
2000, 20, 325–334.
82 A. E. Peter, S. M. Shiva Nagendra and I. M. Nambi, Waste
Manage., 2019, 85, 151–163.
83 P. Ruokojärvi, M. Ettala, P. Rahkonen, J. Tarhanen and
J. Ruuskanen, Chemosphere, 1995, 30, 1697–1708.
84 P. M. Lemieux, C. C. Lutes and D. A. Santoianni, Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci., 2004, 30, 1–32.
85 J. Downard, A. Singh, R. Bullard, T. Jayarathne, C. M.
Rathnayake, D. L. Simmons, B. R. Wels, S. N. Spak,T. Peters, D. Beardsley, C. O. Stanier and E. A. Stone, Atmos.
Environ., 2015, 104, 195–204.
86 J. K. Øygard, A. Måge, E. Gjengedal and T. Svane, Waste
Manage., 2005, 25, 712–718.
87 S. Moqbel, D. Reinhart and R. H. Chen, Waste Manage.,
2010, 30, 1600–1607.
88 D. Chavan, P. Lakshmikanthan, P. Mondal, S. Kumar and
R. Kumar, Waste Manage., 2019, 97, 123–130.
89 ESA, 2020, http://www.esauk.org/application/files/2615/9783/
3646/PRESS_RELEASE_Take_Charge_Campaign_v1.pdf.
90 Viridor, 2019, https://www.viridor.co.uk/who-we-are/latestnews/2019-news/lithium-ion-battery-warning-issued-afterlandfill-site-fire/, accessed 29.09.2021.
91 H. Gans, Shoreway Fire Hazard Mitigation Plan, Rethink
Waste South Bayside Waste Management Authority,

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Science
https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy_media/
022317-shoreway-operations.original.pdf, 2017.
92 W. Liu, X. Zhong, J. Han, W. Qin, T. Liu, C. Zhao and
Z. Chang, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2019, 7, 1289–1299.
93 S. Morales, G. E. Raúl, A. Toro, R. Morales, L. Leiva and
A. Manuel, Air Qual., Atmos. Health, 2018, 11, 111–121.
94 D. R. Nammari, W. Hogland, M. Marques, S. Nimmermark
and V. Moutavtchi, Waste Manage., 2004, 24, 9–18.
95 A. D. St-Amand, P. M. Mayer and J. M. Blais, Atmos.
Environ., 2008, 42, 2948–2958.
96 E. D. Vicente, A. M. Vicente, B. A. Musa Bandowe andC. A. Alves, Air Qual., Atmos. Health, 2016, 9, 653–668.
97 I. Vassiliadou, A. Papadopoulos, D. Costopoulou,
S. Vasiliadou, S. Christoforou and L. Leondiadis, Chemosphere, 2009, 74, 879–884.
98 Y.-H. Shih, S. J. e. Kasaon, C.-H. Tseng, H.-C. Wang,
L.-L. Chen and Y.-M. Chang, Air Qual., Atmos. Health,
2016, 9, 201–211.
99 L. Bastian, J. Yano, Y. Hirai and S.-I. Sakai, J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manage., 2013, 15, 229–241.
100 B. K. Gullett, B. Wyrzykowska, E. Grandesso, A. Touati,
D. G. Tabor and G. S. Ochoa, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010,
44, 394–399.
101 B. Gworek, A. Hajduk, E. Koda, A. Grochowalski and
A. Jeske, Chemosphere, 2013, 92, 753–759.
102 S. Weichenthal, D. Van Rijswijk, R. Kulka, H. You, K. Van
Ryswyk, J. Willey, R. Dugandzic, R. Sutcliﬀe, J. Moulton,
M. Baike, L. White, J.-P. Charland and B. Jessiman,
Environ. Res., 2015, 142, 46–50.
103 A. T. Nair, J. Senthilnathan and S. M. S. Nagendra, Process
Saf. Environ. Prot., 2019, 121, 143–154.
104 L. Chrysikou, P. Gemenetzis, A. Kouras, E. Manoli, E. Terzi
and C. Samara, Environ. Int., 2008, 34, 210–225.
105 B. Sahariah, L. Goswami, I. U. Farooqui, P. Raul,
P. Bhattacharyya and S. Bhattacharya, J. Geochem. Explor.,
2015, 157, 100–109.
106 S. Kumar, S. G. Aggarwal, P. K. Gupta and K. Kawamura,
Atmos. Environ., 2015, 108, 49–58.
107 R. Agarwal, K. Shukla, S. Kumar, S. G. Aggarwal and
K. Kawamura, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 2020, 11, 554–565.
108 D. Perkins, M.-N. Brune Drisse, T. Nxele and D. Sly, Ann.
Global Health, 2014, 80, 286–295.
109 M. Iqbal, K. Breivik, J. H. Syed, R. N. Malik, J. Li, G. Zhang
and K. C. Jones, Environm. Pollut., 2015, 207, 308–318.
110 M. Ackah, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2017, 24, 24092–24101.
111 J. Huisman, I. Botezatu, L. Herreras, M. Liddane, J. Hintsa,
V. Luda di Cor temiglia, P. Leroy, E. Vermeersch,
S. Mohanty, S. van den Brink, B. Ghenciu, D. Dimitrova,
E. Nash, T. Shryane, M. Wieting, J. Kehoe, C. P. Baldé,F. Magalini, A. Zanasi, F. Ruini and A. Bonzio, Countering
WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Repor t, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations
Roadma, Lyon, France, 2015.
112 V. Rotter, P. Maehlitz, N. Korf, P. Chancerel, J. Huisman,
H. Habib, L. Herreras, S. Ljunggren and A. Hallberg,
Prospecting Secondary raw materials in the Urban mine

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Reviewand Mining waste – Deliverable 4.1 – Waste Flow Studies, http://
www.prosumproject.eu/sites/default/files/160324%20Pro
SUM%20Deliverable%20Report%20%204%201%20FINAL%20
Submitted.pdf, 2016.
113 S.-X. Quan, B. Yan, F. Yang, N. Li, X.-M. Xiao and J.-M. Fu,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2015, 22, 1290–1298.
114 Y. Liu, X. Huo, L. Xu, X. Wei, W. Wu, X. Wu and X. Xu, Sci.
Total Environ., 2018, 624, 621–627.
115 Y. Wang, J. Hu, W. Lin, N. Wang, C. Li, P. Luo, M. Z. Hashmi,
W. Wang, X. Su, C. Chen, Y. Liu, R. Huang and C. Shen,
Environ. Int., 2016, 87, 33–41.
116 Y. Lin, X. Xu, Y. Dai, Y. Zhang, W. Li and X. Huo, Sci. Total
Environ., 2016, 573, 760–766.
117 X. Tang, C. Shen, D. Shi, S. A. Cheema, M. I. Khan,
C. Zhang and Y. Chen, J. Hazard. Mater., 2010, 173,
653–660.
118 Z. Wu, G. Gao and Y. Wang, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2019,180, 705–714.
119 A. K. Awasthi, M. Wang, M. K. Awasthi, Z. Wang and J. Li,
Environ. Pollut., 2018, 243, 1310–1316.
120 M. Vaccari, G. Vinti, A. Cesaro, V. Belgiorno, S. Salhofer,
M. I. Dias and A. Jandric, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health,2019, 16, 1595.
121 B. H. Robinson, Sci. Total Environ., 2009, 408, 183–191.
122 B. Ericson, P. Landrigan, M. P. Taylor, J. Frostad and
J. Caravanos, Ann. Global Health, 2017, 82, 686–689.
123 P. Gottesfeld, F. H. Were, L. Adogame, S. Gharbi, D. San,
M. M. Nota and G. Kuepouo, Environ. Res., 2018, 161, 609–614.
124 S. Mandić-Rajčević, Z. Bulat, V. Matović, M. Popević,M. Lepić, B. Mandić, M. Jovanović, V. Haufroid,
M. Žarković and P. Bulat, Environ. Res., 2018, 167, 725–734.
125 M. P. Taylor, C. F. Isley and J. Glover, Environ. Int., 2019,
127, 340–352.
126 Y. Yan, S. Yang, Y. Zhou, Y. Song, J. Huang, Z. Liu, Y. Wangand S. Wei, Environ. Int., 2020, 137, 105553.
127 K. Varshney, P. K. Varshney, K. Gautam, M. Tanwar and
M. Chaudhary, Mater. Today: Proc., 2020, 26(2), 592–602.
128 M. Singh, P. S. Thind and S. John, Chemosphere, 2018, 203,
426–433.
129 L. Carrizales, I. Razo, J. I. Téllez-Hernández, R. TorresNerio, A. Torres, L. E. Batres, A. C. Cubillas and F. Dı́azBarriga, Environ. Res., 2006, 101, 1–10.
130 M. P. Taylor, D. Camenzuli, L. J. Kristensen, M. Forbes and
S. Zahran, Environ. Pollut., 2013, 178, 447–454.
131 ISO 26367-1:2011, Guidelines for assessing the adverse
environmental impact of fire eﬄuents – Part 1, General,2011.
132 A. A. Stec, K. Dickens, J. L. J. Barnes and C. Bedford,
Chemosphere, 2019, 226, 576–586.
133 L. Bravo Diaz, H. He, Z. Hu, F. Restuccia, M. Marinescu,
J. Varela Barreras, Y. Patel, G. Oﬀer and G. Rein,
J. Electrochem. Soc., 2020, 167, 090559.
134 J. Hemmerdinger, 2020, https://www.flightglobal.com/air
framers/eviation-alice-fire-involved-lithium-ion-batterieswhich-ignited-after-hours-of-powerplant-tests/141228.arti
cle, accessed 27.08.2021.

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6117

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
135 X. Feng, M. Ouyang, X. Liu, L. Lu, Y. Xia and X. He, Energy
Storage Mater., 2018, 10, 246–267.
136 H. Mai, 2019, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/aps-storagefacility-explosion-raises-questions-about-battery-safety/553540/,
accessed 01.09.2021.
137 G. Hering, 2019, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelli
gence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/51900636,
accessed 01.09.2021.
138 DNV GL, McMicken Battery Energy Storage System Event
Technical Analysis and Recommendations, Arizona PublicService, https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/
About/Our-Company/Newsroom/McMickenFinalTechnical
Report.ashx?la=en&hash=50335FB5098D9858BFD276C40
FA54FCE, 2020.
139 I. Exponent, Progress Report, APS McMicken, https://
docket.images.azcc.gov/E000007939.pdf, 2020.
140 Q. Wang, B. Mao, S. I. Stoliarov and J. Sun, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci., 2019, 73, 95–131.
141 D. Sturk, L. Hoﬀmann and A. Ahlberg Tidblad, Traﬃc Inj.
Prev., 2015, 16, S159–S164.
142 J. Sun, J. Li, T. Zhou, K. Yang, S. Wei, N. Tang, N. Dang,
H. Li, X. Qiu and L. Chen, Nano Energy, 2016, 27, 313–319.
143 P. A. Christensen, Z. Milojevic, M. S. Wise, M. Ahmeid, P. S.
Attidekou, W. Mrozik, N. A. Dickman, F. Restuccia, S. M.
Lambert and P. K. Das Methology, Appl. Therm. Eng., 2021,
116623.
144 P. A. Christensen, Z. Milojevic, M. S. Wise, M. Ahmeid, P. S.
Attidekou, W. Mrozik, N. A. Dickman, F. Restuccia,
S. M. Lambert and P. K. Das, Appl. Therm. Eng., under review.
145 X. Vavasseur, 2020, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/
2020/03/jmsdf-commissioned-its-1st-li-ion-battery-submariness-511-js-oryu-%E3%81%8A%E3%81%86%E3%82%8A%
E3%82%85%E3%81%86/, accessed 17.08.2021.
146 Z. Zhou, M. Benbouzid, J. Frédéric Charpentier, F. Scuiller and
T. Tang, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2013, 18, 390–400.
147 M. Schuler, 2019, https://gcaptain.com/fire-and-gas-explosionin-battery-room-of-norwegian-ferry-prompts-lithium-ionpower-warning, accessed 24.08.2021.
148 M. J. Derewku, S. C. Gad, F. Gavigan and B. J. Dunn,
J. Toxicol., Cutaneous Ocul. Toxicol., 1985, 4, 73–85.
149 A. A. Stec, Fire Saf. J., 2017, 91, 79–90.
150 A. M. Bernardes, D. C. R. Espinosa and J. A. S. Tenório,
J. Power Sources, 2004, 130, 291–298.
151 J. A. Guevara-Garcı́a and V. Montiel-Corona, J. Environ.
Manage., 2012, 95, S154–S157.
152 M. Sun, X. Yang, D. Huisingh, R. Wang and Y. Wang,
J. Cleaner Prod., 2015, 107, 775–785.
153 Y. Yu, X. Wang, D. Wang, K. Huang, L. Wang, L. Bao andF. Wu, J. Hazard. Mater., 2012, 229–230, 455–460.
154 Y. Choi, K.-J. Chen and T. L. Marsh, J. Consum. Behav.,
2020, 19, 382–396.
155 K. M. Winslow, S. J. Laux and T. G. Townsend, Resour.,Conserv. Recycl., 2018, 129, 263–277.
156 F. Rodrigues dos Santos, E. de Almeida, P. D. da Cunha
Kemerich and F. L. Melquiades, X-Ray Spectrom., 2017, 46,
512–521.

6118 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
157 H. Omar and S. Rohani, Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9,
15–32.
158 N. P. Lebedeva and L. Boon-Brett, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2016,
163, A821–A830.
159 J. Diekmann, M. Grützke, T. Loellhoeﬀel, M. Petermann,
S. Rothermel, M. Winter, S. Nowak and A. Kwade, in
Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries: The LithoRec Way, ed.
A. Kwade and J. Diekmann, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 39–51.
160 V. Kraft, W. Weber, B. Streipert, R. Wagner, C. Schultz,
M. Winter and S. Nowak, RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 8–17.
161 L. Terborg, S. Weber, F. Blaske, S. Passerini, M. Winter,
U. Karst and S. Nowak, J. Power Sources, 2013, 242,
832–837.
162 M. Grützke, V. Kraft, B. Hoﬀmann, S. Klamor, J. Diekmann,
A. Kwade, M. Winter and S. Nowak, J. Power Sources, 2015,
273, 83–88.
163 U. Heider, R. Oesten and M. Jungnitz, J. Power Sources,
1999, 81-82, 119–122.
164 A. V. Plakhotnyk, L. Ernst and R. Schmutzler, J. Fluorine
Chem., 2005, 126, 27–31.
165 T. Kawamura, S. Okada and J.-I. Yamaki, J. Power Sources,
2006, 156, 547–554.
166 E. Chalvatzaki, V. Aleksandropoulou and M. Lazaridis,
Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 2013, 225, 1782.
167 E. Chalvatzaki, V. Aleksandropoulou, T. Glytsos and
M. Lazaridis, Waste Manage., 2012, 32, 2456–2468.
168 K. H. Lui, T. Jones, K. BéruBé, S. S. H. Ho, S. H. L. Yim,
J.-J. Cao, S. C. Lee, L. Tian, D. W. Min and K. F. Ho,
Chemosphere, 2019, 230, 578–586.
169 E. Chalvatzaki, I. Kopanakis, M. Kontaksakis, T. Glytsos,
N. Kalogerakis and M. Lazaridis, Waste Manage., 2010, 30,
2058–2064.
170 L. Guan, Y. Liang, Y. Tian, Z. Yang, Y. Sun and Y. Feng, Sci.
Total Environ., 2019, 659, 764–772.
171 S. Madhwal, V. Prabhu, S. Sundriyal and V. Shridhar,
Atmos. Pollut. Res., 2020, 11, 156–169.
172 A. E. Peter, S. M. Shiva Nagendra and I. M. Nambi, Atmos.
Pollut. Res., 2018, 9, 1021–1031.
173 G. Feuyit, S. Nzali, J. N. Lambi and S. Laminsi, J. Chem.,
2019, 2019, 3021894.
174 Y. Wang, K. Cheng, W. Wu, H. Tian, P. Yi, G. Zhi, J. Fanand S. Liu, Atmos. Environ., 2017, 152, 6–15.
175 D. W. Dockery, Ann. Epidemiol., 2009, 19, 257–263.
176 S. K. Guttikunda and R. Goel, Environ. Dev., 2013, 6, 8–20.
177 L. Koshy, T. Jones and K. BéruBé, Biomarkers, 2009, 14,
49–53.
178 A. D. Kappos, P. Bruckmann, T. Eikmann, N. Englert,
U. Heinrich, P. Höppe, E. Koch, G. H. M. Krause,
W. G. Kreyling, K. Rauchfuss, P. Rombout, V. SchulzKlemp, W. R. Thiel and H. E. Wichmann, Int. J. Hyg.
Environ. Health, 2004, 207, 399–407.
179 N. Englert, Toxicol. Lett., 2004, 149, 235–242.
180 N. Li, G. Chen, F. Liu, S. Mao, Y. Liu, S. Liu, Z. Mao, Y. Lu,
C. Wang, Y. Guo, H. Xiang and S. Li, Environ. Res., 2020,
182, 109109.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Science
181 S. Lee, W. Lee, D. Kim, E. Kim, W. Myung, S. Y. Kim andH. Kim, Environ. Res., 2019, 171, 313–320.
182 X. Chen, X. Li, X. Yuan, G. Zeng, J. Liang, X. Li, W. Xu,
Y. Luo and G. Chen, Environ. Int., 2018, 116, 92–100.
183 C. Chen, P. Zhu, L. Lan, L. Zhou, R. Liu, Q. Sun, J. Ban,
W. Wang, D. Xu and T. Li, Environ. Res., 2018, 161,
188–194.
184 M. Kermani, M. Aghaei, M. Gholami, F. B. Asl, S. Karimzadeh,
S. F. Jokandan and M. Dowlati, Iran Occup. Health, 2016, 13,
49–61.
185 G. R. Zosky, C. E. Boylen, R. S. Wong, M. N. Smirk,
L. Gutiérrez, R. C. Woodward, W. S. Siah, B. Devine,
F. Maley and A. Cook, Respirology, 2014, 19, 58–66.
186 M. Gualtieri, E. Longhin, M. Mattioli, P. Mantecca,
V. Tinaglia, E. Mangano, M. C. Proverbio, G. Bestetti,
M. Camatini and C. Battaglia, Toxicol. Lett., 2012, 209,
136–145.
187 T. Maudgalya, A. Genaidy, G. Weckman, R. Shell,
W. Karwowski and S. Wallace, Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf.,
2008, 18, 358–373.
188 V. Sironval, L. Reylandt, P. Chaurand, S. Ibouraadaten,
M. Palmai-Pallag, Y. Yakoub, B. Ucakar, J. Rose,
C. Poleunis, R. Vanbever, E. Marbaix, D. Lison and S. vanden Brule, Arch. Toxicol., 2018, 92, 1673–1684.
189 X. Feng, S. Zheng, X. He, L. Wang, Y. Wang, D. Ren and
M. Ouyang, Front. Energy Res., 2018, 6.
190 Z. Liao, S. Zhang, K. Li, M. Zhao, Z. Qiu, D. Han, G. Zhang
and T. G. Habetler, J. Energy Storage, 2020, 27, 101065.
191 H. Wang, Y. Zhang, W. Li, C. Li and M. Ouyang, WSEAS
Trans. Syst. Control, 2020, 15, 30–38.
192 J. C. Bertolini, J. Emerg. Med., 1992, 10, 163–168.
193 J. J. R. Kirkpatrick, D. S. Enion and D. A. R. Burd, Burns,
1995, 21, 483–493.
194 R. A. Smith and K. Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
2003, , DOI: 10.1002/0471238961.0825041819130920.a01.pub2.
195 S. E. Sloop, J. K. Pugh, S. Wang, J. B. Kerr and K. Kinoshita,
Electrochem. Solid-State Lett., 2001, 4, A42.
196 K. Dennerlein, F. Kiesewetter, S. Kilo, T. Jäger, T. Göen,
G. Korinth and H. Drexler, Toxicol. Lett., 2016, 248, 25–33.
197 C. R. Fell, L. Sun, P. B. Hallac, B. Metz and B. Sisk,
J. Electrochem. Soc., 2015, 162, A1916–A1920.
198 J. Self, C. P. Aiken, R. Petibon and J. R. Dahn,
J. Electrochem. Soc., 2015, 162, A796–A802.
199 Z. Mao, M. Farkhondeh, M. Pritzker, M. Fowler and
Z. Chen, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2017, 164, A3469–A3483.
200 D. J. Xiong, L. D. Ellis, R. Petibon, T. Hynes, Q. Q. Liu andJ. R. Dahn, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2016, 164, A340–A347.
201 H. Yang, G. V. Zhuang and P. N. Ross, J. Power Sources,
2006, 161, 573–579.
202 K. Tasaki, K. Kanda, S. Nakamura and M. Ue,
J. Electrochem. Soc., 2003, 150, A1628–A1636.
203 S. S. Zhang, J. Power Sources, 2006, 162, 1379–1394.
204 A. R. Baird, E. J. Archibald, K. C. Marr and O. A. Ezekoye,
J. Power Sources, 2020, 446, 227257.
205 R. Spotnitz and J. Franklin, J. Power Sources, 2003, 113,
81–100.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Review
206 F. Diaz, Y. Wang, R. Weyhe and B. Friedrich, Waste
Manage., 2019, 84, 102–111.
207 M. Dennien, 2020, https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/
national/queensland/firefighter-injured-in-overnightblaze-at-griﬃth-university-campus-20200316-p54aet.html,
accessed 12.08.2021.
208 CDC, Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health (IDLH)
Values, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/default.html.
209 P. Ribière, S. Grugeon, M. Morcrette, S. Boyanov,
S. Laruelle and G. Marlair, Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5,5271–5280.
210 A. Nedjalkov, J. Meyer, M. Köhring, A. Doering, M. Angelmahr,
S. Dahle, A. Sander, A. Fischer and W. Schade, Batteries, 2016,
2, 5.
211 G. Atkinson, J. Hall and A. McGillivray, Review of Vapour
Cloud Explosion Incidents, HSE Research Report RR1113,
2017.
212 S. R. Samadder, R. Prabhakar, D. Khan, D. Kishan and
M. S. Chauhan, Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 580, 593–601.
213 T. H. Christensen, P. Kjeldsen, P. L. Bjerg, D. L. Jensen,
J. B. Christensen, A. Baun, H. J. Albrechtsen and G. Heron,Appl. Geochem., 2001, 16, 659–718.
214 P. Ghosh, I. S. Thakur and A. Kaushik, Ecotoxicol. Environ.
Saf., 2017, 141, 259–270.
215 K. Szymański and B. Janowska, - Archives of Environmental Protection L1 - http://journals.pan.pl/Content/102408/
PDF/aep-2016-0026.pdf L2 - http://journals.pan.pl/Con
tent/102408, 2016, DOI: 10.1515/aep-2016-0026.
216 Y. Xu, X. Xue, L. Dong, C. Nai, Y. Liu and Q. Huang, Waste
Manage., 2018, 82, 156–166.
217 I. A. Talalaj, J. Water Chem. Technol., 2014, 36, 144–151.
218 Y. Li, J. Li, S. Chen and W. Diao, Environ. Pollut., 2012, 165,
77–90.
219 J. Kapelewska, U. Kotowska, J. Karpińska, A. Astel,
P. Zieliński, J. Suchta and K. Algrzym, Chem. Eng. J.,
2019, 359, 790–800.
220 E. Bååth, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 1989, 47, 335–379.
221 T. Pennanen, J. Perkiömäki, O. Kiikkilä, P. Vanhala,
S. Neuvonen and H. Fritze, FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 1998,
27, 291–300.
222 P. Nelson, S. Ahmed, K. Gallagher and D. Dees, Modelingthe Performance and Cost of Lithium-Ion Batteries for ElectricDrive Vehicles, Argonne National Laboratory, USA, 2019.
223 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2018, International Energy Agency,
Paris, 2018.
224 M. Wentker, M. Greenwood and J. Leker, Energies, 2019,12, 504.
225 M. A. Cusenza, S. Bobba, F. Ardente, M. Cellura and F. Di
Persio, J. Cleaner Prod., 2019, 215, 634–649.
226 A. Prabhakar, S. Mishra and A. P. Das, Geomicrobiol. J.,
2019, 36, 894–903.
227 K. Chatham-Stephens, J. Caravanos, B. Ericson, J. SungaAmparo, B. Susilorini, P. Sharma, P. J. Landrigan and
R. Fuller, Environ. Health Perspect., 2013, 121, 791–796.
228 S. Mishra, C. c. Rath and A. P. Das, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2019,
140, 188–197.

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6119

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Review
229 X. Zeng, X. Xu, H. M. Boezen and X. Huo, Chemosphere,
2016, 148, 408–415.
230 Y. Yu, X. Zhu, L. Li, B. Lin, M. Xiang, X. Zhang, X. Chen,
Z. Yu, Z. Wang and Y. Wan, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2019,
169, 178–184.
231 F. N. Soetrisno and J. M. Delgado-Saborit, Sci. Total Environ.,
2020, 717, 137099.
232 ATSDRHealth Public Statement for Nickel, 2005, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp15-c1-b.pdf,
accessed
15.01.2021.
233 H. Aral and A. Vecchio-Sadus, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.,
2008, 70, 349–356.
234 A. Chen, K. N. Dietrich, X. Huo and S.-M. Ho, Environ.
Health Perspect., 2011, 119, 431–438.
235 D. Pant, D. Joshi, M. K. Upreti and R. K. Kotnala, Waste
Manage., 2012, 32, 979–990.
236 ATSDRHealth Public Statement for Cobalt, 2004, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp33-c1-b.pdf,
accessed
15.01.2021.
237 L. Leyssens, B. Vinck, C. Van Der Straeten, F. Wuyts and
L. Maes, Toxicology, 2017, 387, 43–56.
238 D. H. P. Kang, M. Chen and O. A. Ogunseitan, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 2013, 47, 5495–5503.
239 Y. Li, J. B. Richardson, R. Mark Bricka, X. Niu, H. Yang,
L. Li and A. Jimenez, Waste Manage., 2009, 29, 2147–2150.
240 S. Yadav and S. Yadav, J. Environ. Manage., 2014, 144, 101–107.
241 S. Yadav, S. Yadav and P. Kumar, Waste Manage., 2014, 34,
1274–1278.
242 K. Richa, C. W. Babbitt and G. Gaustad, J. Ind. Ecol., 2017,21, 715–730.
243 M. N. Hang, I. L. Gunsolus, H. Wayland, E. S. Melby,
A. C. Mensch, K. R. Hurley, J. A. Pedersen, C. L. Haynes
and R. J. Hamers, Chem. Mater., 2016, 28, 1092–1100.
244 I. L. Gunsolus, M. N. Hang, N. V. Hudson-Smith, J. T.
Buchman, J. W. Bennett, D. Conroy, S. E. Mason, R. J.
Hamers and C. L. Haynes, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2017, 4, 636–646.
245 W. Yan, S. Yang, Y. Huang, Y. Yang and Y. Guohui, J. Alloys
Compd., 2020, 819, 153048.
246 Q. Wang, L. Jiang, Y. Yu and J. Sun, Nano Energy, 2019, 55,
93–114.
247 S. W. D. Gourley, T. Or and Z. Chen, iScience, 2020,
23, 101505.
248 I. Overland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2019, 49, 36–40.
249 Z. V. Feng, B. R. Miller, T. G. Linn, T. Pho, K. N. L. Hoang,
M. N. Hang, S. L. Mitchell, R. T. Hernandez, E. E. Carlson
and R. J. Hamers, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2019, 6, 305–314.
250 P. L. Clement, J. E. Kuether, J. R. Borgatta, J. T. Buchman,
M. S. Cahill, T. A. Qiu, R. J. Hamers, Z. V. Feng and
C. L. Haynes, Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2020, 33, 806–816.
251 J. Bozich, M. Hang, R. Hamers and R. Klaper, Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., 2017, 36, 2493–2502.
252 J. Chen, Z. Xiu, G. V. Lowry and P. J. J. Alvarez, Water Res.,
2011, 45, 1995–2001.
253 N. J. Niemuth, B. J. Curtis, M. N. Hang, M. J. Gallagher,
D. H. Fairbrother, R. J. Hamers and R. D. Klaper, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 3860–3870.

6120 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121

Energy & Environmental Science
254 E. S. Melby, Y. Cui, J. Borgatta, A. C. Mensch, M. N. Hang,
W. B. Chrisler, A. Dohnalkova, J. M. Van Gilder,C. M. Alvarez, J. N. Smith, R. J. Hamers and G. Orr,
Nanotoxicology, 2018, 12, 1166–1181.
255 C. Mihai, W. B. Chrisler, Y. Xie, D. Hu, C. J. Szymanski,
A. Tolic, J. A. Klein, J. N. Smith, B. J. Tarasevich and G. Orr,
Nanotoxicology, 2015, 9, 9–22.
256 Y. Cui, E. S. Melby, A. C. Mensch, E. D. Laudadio,
M. N. Hang, A. Dohnalkova, D. Hu, R. J. Hamers and
G. Orr, Nano Lett., 2019, 19, 1990–1997.
257 W. Gwenzi, G. T. Kosta and N. Chaukura, Environ. Processes, 2018, 5, 611–629.
258 T. Fujimori, A. Eguchi, T. Agusa, N. M. Tue, G. Suzuki,
S. Takahashi, P. H. Viet, S. Tanabe and H. Takigami,
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage, 2016, 18, 599–607.
259 W. Lv, Z. Wang, H. Cao, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang and Z. Sun, ACS
Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 1504–1521.
260 R. T. Delfino, T. S. Ribeiro and J. D. Figueroa-Villar, J. Braz.
Chem. Soc., 2009, 20, 407–428.
261 V. Kraft, W. Weber, M. Grützke, M. Winter and S. Nowak,
RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80150–80157.
262 D. C. Agourakis, I. M. C. De Camargo, M. B. Cotrim and
M. Flues, Quim. Nova, 2006, 29, 960–964.
263 A. M. Haregewoin, A. S. Wotango and B.-J. Hwang, Energy
Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 1955–1988.
264 A. Eftekhari, Y. Liu and P. Chen, J. Power Sources, 2016,
334, 221–239.
265 H. Qi, Y. Ren, S. Guo, Y. Wang, S. Li, Y. Hu and F. Yan, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 591–600.
266 N. V. Plechkova and K. R. Seddon, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2008,
37, 123–150.
267 P. Stepnowski, Sorption, Lipophiilicity and Partitioning phenomena of ionic liquids in environmental systems, Elsevier BV, 2007.
268 P. Stepnowski, W. Mrozik and J. Nichthauser, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 2007, 41, 511–516.
269 W. Mrozik, C. Jungnickel, M. Skup, P. Urbaszek and
P. Stepnowski, Environ. Chem., 2008, 5, 299–306.
270 W. Mrozik, J. Nichthauser and P. Stepnowski, Pol.
J. Environ. Stud., 2008, 17, 383–388.
271 W. Mrozik, A. Kotłowska, W. Kamysz and P. Stepnowski,
Chemosphere, 2012, 88, 1202–1207.
272 W. Mrozik, C. Jungnickel, M. Paszkiewicz and
P. Stepnowski, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 2013, 224, 1759.
273 W. Mrozik, J. Nichthauser and P. Stepnowski, Pol.
J. Environ. Stud., 2008, 17, 383–388.
274 M. Markiewicz, W. Mrozik, K. Rezwan, J. Thöming, J. Hupka
and C. Jungnickel, Chemosphere, 2013, 90, 706–712.
275 Q. Miao and E. Bi, J. Environ. Manage., 2018, 223, 975–983.
276 D. Coleman and N. Gathergood, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39,
600–637.
277 A. Jordan and N. Gathergood, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2015, 44,8200–8237.
278 S.-K. Ruokonen, C. Sanwald, M. Sundvik, S. Polnick,K. Vyavaharkar, F. Duša, A. J. Holding, A. W. T. King,
I. Kilpeläinen, M. Lämmerhofer, P. Panula and S. K. Wiedmer,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50, 7116–7125.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

View Article Online

Open Access Article. Published on 13 October 2021. Downloaded on 9/23/2024 5:51:15 PM.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence.

Energy & Environmental Science
279 T. P. Thuy Pham, C.-W. Cho and Y.-S. Yun, Water Res.,
2010, 44, 352–372.
280 B. Kudłak, K. Owczarek and J. Namieśnik, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res., 2015, 22, 11975–11992.
281 C.-W. Cho, S. Stolte and Y.-S. Yun, Sci. Rep., 2016, 6, 33403.
282 A. Latała, P. Stepnowski, M. Ne
˛dzi and W. Mrozik, Aquat.
Toxicol., 2005, 73, 91–98.
283 M. Amde, J.-F. Liu and L. Pang, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015,
49, 12611–12627.
284 C. Pretti, C. Chiappe, I. Baldetti, S. Brunini, G. Monni and
L. Intorre, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2009, 72, 1170–1176.
285 P. Stepnowski, A. C. Skladanowski, A. Ludwiczak andE. Laczyńska, Hum. Exp. Toxicol., 2004, 23, 513–517.
286 X.-D. Hou, Q.-P. Liu, T. J. Smith, N. Li and M.-H. Zong,
PLoS One, 2013, 8, e59145.
287 N. S. M. Vieira, S. Stolte, J. M. M. Araújo, L. P. N. Rebelo,A. B. Pereiro and M. Markiewicz, ACS Sustainable Chem.
Eng., 2019, 7, 3733–3741.
288 Z. Milojevic, P. S. Attidekou, M. Muhammad, M. Ahmeid,
S. Lambert and P. K. Das, J. Power Sources, 2021, 506, 230242.
289 C. Jin, J. Nai, O. Sheng, H. Yuan, W. Zhang, X. Tao and
X. W. Lou, Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 1326–1379.
290 S. S. Sharma and A. Manthiram, Energy Environ. Sci., 2020,
13, 4087–4097.
291 M. Fleischhammer, T. Waldmann, G. Bisle, B.-I. Hogg and
M. Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, J. Power Sources, 2015, 274,
432–439.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Review
292 D. Ren, H. Hsu, R. Li, X. Feng, D. Guo, X. Han, L. Lu, X. He,
S. Gao, J. Hou, Y. Li, Y. Wang and M. Ouyang, eTransportation, 2019, 2, 100034.
293 S. Bertilsson, F. Larsson, M. Furlani, I. Albinsson and B.E. Mellander, J. Power Sources, 2017, 365, 446–455.
294 A. I. Ilies- , I. Ciascai and D. Pitică, 2019 42nd International
Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology (ISSE), 2019,
DOI: 10.1109/ISSE.2019.8810304.
295 J. Liu, Q. Duan, M. Ma, C. Zhao, J. Sun and Q. Wang,
J. Power Sources, 2020, 445, 227263.
296 BSI_Group, BS EN 63330 Ed.1.0 Requirements for reuse of
secondary batteries, 2021, accessed 30.08.2021.
297 BSI_Group, BS EN 63338 Ed.1.0 General guidance for reuseof secondary cells and batteries, 2021, accessed 30.08.2021.
298 E. Cabrera-Castillo, F. Niedermeier and A. Jossen, J. Power
Sources, 2016, 324, 509–520.
299 INERIS, DRA06 – Opération B3, Seconde vie des batteries
Li-ion, INERIS, MINISTERE DE LA TRANSITION ECOLOGIQUE ET SOLIDAIRE, 2020.
300 NFPA, 2020, https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/
all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/
detail?code=855.
301 Electrical_Regulatory_Authorities_Council_(ERAC), 2021.
302 R. Coombes, Beginners guide: UN3480, UN3481 & IATA
regulations, 2021, accessed 30.08.2021.
303 HSE, https://www.hse.gov.uk/cdg/manual/index.htm, 2011,
accessed 14.09.2021.

Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 6099–6121 | 6121