XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 3245
Comparing the generated output of black mass and the
possible output of coating, it becomes clear that all battery
types performed very well (Figure 5a). The higher than pos-
sible total output of P1 can be explained by the impurities.
An example is given by the amount of copper in the black
mass. This is mostly generated by too harsh stressing of the
current collector foil in the second crushing step. Generally,
the generation of copper to the black mass is higher after
the second crushing. Further on, the generated amount of
MeO to the black mass, which can be indicated as decoat-
ing of the cathode foil, is for P2, C2 and P6 quite similar.
However, when comparing the outputs of black mass and
MeO/MeP of the first and second crushing step of the pro-
cess, it is evident that the second crushing step primarily
serves to delaminate the cathode. This also makes it clear
that the cathode usually requires a higher energy input in
order to be decoated, which supports the statements in the
literature (Wuschke, 2018). Because the anode usually has
a different binder, it can be decoated more easily and for
the most part already in the first crushing step. The C3 type
stands out in particular. Here, the anodes and cathodes
only seem to be able to be decoated well during the second
crushing step, as the yield is much greater here. In addition,
in this case the MeP is primarily recovered after the second
crushing step (Figure 5a).
Concerning the recovery of the elements to the black
mass, an overview can be taken from Figure 5b. The recov-
ery rates are compared with the EU’s 2031 targets for the
recovery of recyclable materials from batteries. Green boxes
indicate that the targets have been met, red boxes that they
have not. For all batteries, except C3 the Li can meet the
regulations and therefore a sufficient recovery in hydromet-
allurgy is possible. Due to the overall poorer decoating of
the C3 cathode a lower recovery can be explained. Positive
is that the P2 batteries can meet all required targets for the
required metals in the black mass. This also indicates again
that the electrodes are successfully decoated. Problematic
with regard to the upcoming regulations are Ni for C2, P6
and P1 as well as Co for P1 and P6. For all three types an
insufficient decoating of the cathode can be a reason. That
is why it has to be investigated if a pre-treatment of the
electrode mixture before the second crushing is a possible
option, as already discussed for the separator. A harsher
second crushing may delaminate the electrodes further.
However, at the same time, the impurities of aluminium
and copper from the current collector foils is increased as
Figure 4. Recovery curves (a) and rates (b) of the metal casing to the casing fraction
Comparing the generated output of black mass and the
possible output of coating, it becomes clear that all battery
types performed very well (Figure 5a). The higher than pos-
sible total output of P1 can be explained by the impurities.
An example is given by the amount of copper in the black
mass. This is mostly generated by too harsh stressing of the
current collector foil in the second crushing step. Generally,
the generation of copper to the black mass is higher after
the second crushing. Further on, the generated amount of
MeO to the black mass, which can be indicated as decoat-
ing of the cathode foil, is for P2, C2 and P6 quite similar.
However, when comparing the outputs of black mass and
MeO/MeP of the first and second crushing step of the pro-
cess, it is evident that the second crushing step primarily
serves to delaminate the cathode. This also makes it clear
that the cathode usually requires a higher energy input in
order to be decoated, which supports the statements in the
literature (Wuschke, 2018). Because the anode usually has
a different binder, it can be decoated more easily and for
the most part already in the first crushing step. The C3 type
stands out in particular. Here, the anodes and cathodes
only seem to be able to be decoated well during the second
crushing step, as the yield is much greater here. In addition,
in this case the MeP is primarily recovered after the second
crushing step (Figure 5a).
Concerning the recovery of the elements to the black
mass, an overview can be taken from Figure 5b. The recov-
ery rates are compared with the EU’s 2031 targets for the
recovery of recyclable materials from batteries. Green boxes
indicate that the targets have been met, red boxes that they
have not. For all batteries, except C3 the Li can meet the
regulations and therefore a sufficient recovery in hydromet-
allurgy is possible. Due to the overall poorer decoating of
the C3 cathode a lower recovery can be explained. Positive
is that the P2 batteries can meet all required targets for the
required metals in the black mass. This also indicates again
that the electrodes are successfully decoated. Problematic
with regard to the upcoming regulations are Ni for C2, P6
and P1 as well as Co for P1 and P6. For all three types an
insufficient decoating of the cathode can be a reason. That
is why it has to be investigated if a pre-treatment of the
electrode mixture before the second crushing is a possible
option, as already discussed for the separator. A harsher
second crushing may delaminate the electrodes further.
However, at the same time, the impurities of aluminium
and copper from the current collector foils is increased as
Figure 4. Recovery curves (a) and rates (b) of the metal casing to the casing fraction