Challenges Faced by Lithium-Ion Batteries in Effective Waste Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents many writing problems, mainly they must be defined the first time they appear in the paper and made standard.

The title of the paper should be more in line with the content presented.

Since the authors propose the use of "narrative review" they should explain more about the methodology and importance of its use, since some of us are not very familiar with this methodology and the paper does not describe it very well.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing of the paper needs to be greatly improved in all its parts.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your constructive feedback on this manuscript and for the time and expertise you devoted to its review. We have carefully considered all feedback and made corrections accordingly. We hope that these revisions enhance the manuscript and meet your approval standards.

The answers to each question or comment were made one at a time. The details are presented below.

 

REVIEWER 1

The paper presents many writing problems; mainly, they must be defined the first time they appear in the paper and made standard.

Writing issues were addressed, along with terms, acronyms, and organization throughout the manuscript.

The title of the paper should be more in line with the content presented.

The title of the paper was reviewed and is now aligned with the objectives outlined on page 2.

Since the authors propose the use of "narrative review" they should explain more about the methodology and importance of its use, since some of us are not very familiar with this methodology and the paper does not describe it very well.

The methodology section has been restructured, and additional information was included to emphasize its importance.

The writing of the paper needs to be greatly improved in all its parts.

An English proofreader reviewed the text, resulting in substantial revisions to the methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a review of the challenges associated with the end-of-life (EoL) management of Lithium-Ion Batteries (LIBs) used in electric vehicles (EVs). The authors have conducted a narrative review to identify key challenges and propose actionable solutions. It aims to analyze the possible pathways, identify the challenges that LIBs face to reach the proper destination, and suggest actions to overcome these challenges.

However， this article cannot achieve the expected purpose or make the readers understand well as it has some major problems and fatal mistakes.

1. The organization of the review article is very confused since it is written as a research paper. Sections such as “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion” are related to the research works that really did by authors themselves, should not be included in a review, in which the research works are done by others. Additionally, there are some many “In summary”, “In conclusion” in different parts in this review, which should be in the conclusion section.

2.Authors should write down the content that “what they want the readers know” directly and straightforwardly. It is not necessary to let readers know “how authors think about it and how authors want to express it”. Therefore, the content about“methodology for how to make this review” is useless and should be avoid.

3. In this manuscript, some parts of the language organization are very mechanical and rigid, making it appear as if artificial intelligence has been involved in writing. For example, section“Phase 1 - Introduction ” and “Phase 4 – Conclusions” can be used in any review paper.

All in all, this review is confusingly structured, lengthy, tasteless and has too much useless information, and cannot make the reader understand the author's intentions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your constructive feedback on this manuscript and for the time and expertise you devoted to its review. We have carefully considered all feedback and made corrections accordingly. We hope that these revisions enhance the manuscript and meet your approval standards.

The answers to each question or comment were made one at a time. The details are presented below.

 

REVIEWER 2

1.The organization of the review article is very confused since it is written as a research paper. Sections such as “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion” are related to the research works that really did by authors themselves, should not be included in a review, in which the research works are done by others. Additionally, there are some many “In summary”, “In conclusion” in different parts in this review, which should be in the conclusion section.

The manuscript was thoroughly revised to comply with the proper review paper format. The “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion” sections were reorganized to emphasize the synthesis and critical analysis of existing research. Furthermore, the updated version differentiates our analysis and perspectives from the original research findings, improving the paper’s clarity and structure.

2.Authors should write down the content that “what they want the readers know” directly and straightforwardly. It is not necessary to let readers know “how authors think about it and how authors want to express it”. Therefore, the content about“methodology for how to make this review” is useless and should be avoid.

The methodology section was reviewed, enhancing the writing and making it more relevant. The paper's objectives were explicitly included for improved clarity and understanding.

Pag. 02

3. In this manuscript, some parts of the language organization are very mechanical and rigid, making it appear as if artificial intelligence has been involved in writing. For example, section“Phase 1 - Introduction ”and “Phase 4 – Conclusions” can be used in any review paper.

The manuscript was carefully revised to ensure a cohesive and well-connected narrative, reinforcing that it was written with a critical and analytical perspective. Pag.03

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to analyze the challenges faced by lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) after reaching end-of-life in electric vehicles, and proposes corresponding solutions. Overall, the topic of this paper has significant academic value and practical significance, but there is still room for improvement in terms of content depth.

1. Although the paper discusses in detail the characteristics and applicable conditions of four main treatment pathways (reuse, repurposing, recycling, disposal), it lacks deeper quantitative analysis of the economic feasibility and environmental impact of each pathway, especially their comparative advantages in different scenarios. For example, the paper could explore in more detail the environmental and economic trade-offs between different recycling methods (such as pyrometallurgical versus hydrometallurgical processes).

2. The discussion on certain challenges such as market regulations and economic feasibility is relatively superficial, lacking in-depth analysis. It is recommended to add specific cases or data to support the arguments.

3. The paper could also include discussion on how potential technological innovations (such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, or machine learning) could streamline LIB waste management and improve economic feasibility, which would provide the article with a more forward-looking perspective.

4. The "Conclusion" section could be further expanded to clearly propose directions for future research.

Author Response

 

Dear reviewer

 

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your constructive feedback on this manuscript and for the time and expertise you devoted to its review. We have carefully considered all feedback and made corrections accordingly. We hope that these revisions enhance the manuscript and meet your approval standards.

The answers to each question or comment were made one at a time. The details are presented below.

Although the paper discusses in detail the characteristics and applicable conditions of four main treatment pathways (reuse, repurposing, recycling, disposal), it lacks deeper quantitative analysis of the economic feasibility and environmental impact of each pathway, especially their comparative advantages in different scenarios. For example, the paper could explore in more detail the environmental and economic trade-offs between different recycling methods (such as pyrometallurgical versus hydrometallurgical processes).

In response to this feedback, a cross-analysis has been created to offer a more detailed examination of the environmental and economic trade-offs associated with various recycling methods. Consequently, a table has been added that clearly illustrates these comparative advantages across different scenarios. Pag.12

2. The discussion on certain challenges such as market regulations and economic feasibility is relatively superficial, lacking in-depth analysis. It is recommended to add specific cases or data to support the arguments.

In response to this feedback, it was completed. Pages 10-11.

3. The paper could also include discussion on how potential technological innovations (such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, or machine learning) could streamline LIB waste management and improve economic feasibility, which would provide the article with a more forward-looking perspective.

Following this feedback, it has been completed. Pag. 18

4. The "Conclusion" section could be further expanded to clearly propose directions for future research.

After considering this feedback, the “Conclusion” section was enhanced. Page 19

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a narrative review to assess the end-of-life management of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) in electric vehicles (EVs). The study aims to identify possible pathways for handling retired LIBs, analyse associated challenges, propose solutions, and highlight the role of stakeholders in ensuring sustainable LIB management. Given the increasing demand for LIBs driven by the growing popularity of EVs, the topic is timely and worth investigating. Overall, the paper content and the delivery look good and consistent.  However, a few areas require attention:

• Check for minor grammar and formatting errors and ensure all in-text references comply with the required format.
• The current "Section 3. Results and Discussion" is too long and could be improved by splitting it into several sections. Also, a significant portion of this section discusses existing studies. The authors may consider moving this content to a dedicated "Literature Review" section to clearly distinguish previous research from their own findings and analysis.
• The conclusion should be refined.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your constructive feedback on this manuscript and for the time and expertise you devoted to its review. We have carefully considered all feedback and made corrections accordingly. We hope that these revisions enhance the manuscript and meet your approval standards.

The answers to each question or comment were made one at a time. The details are presented below.

Check for minor grammar and formatting errors and ensure all in-text references comply with the required format.

In response to this feedback, an English proofreader review was developed.

The current "Section 3. Results and Discussion" is too long and could be improved by splitting it into several sections. Also, a significant portion of this section discusses existing studies. The authors may consider moving this content to a dedicated "Literature Review" section to clearly distinguish previous research from their own findings and analysis.

Section 3: Results and Discussion has been divided into two parts and enhanced. Sections 3 and 4 have also been restructured to better synthesize and critically analyze existing research. Moreover, the revised version clearly distinguishes our analysis and perspectives from previous studies, enhancing the paper’s clarity and organization.

Pag. 10 - 11

Pag. 12 - 20

The conclusion should be refined.

The Conclusion section has been reviewed and revised. Page 19

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper responded to all the observations made and is ready to be published

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the revised edition.