Next Article in Journal
Powder Bed Fabrication of Copper: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Bioleaching of Lithium-Ion Battery Black Mass: A Comparative Study on Gluconobacter oxydans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Selective Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery NMC Cathodes Using a Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent

1
Institute of Combustion Problems, Almaty 050012, Kazakhstan
2
Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2025, 15(10), 1113; https://doi.org/10.3390/met15101113
Submission received: 17 August 2025 / Revised: 30 September 2025 / Accepted: 4 October 2025 / Published: 7 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Extractive Metallurgy)

Abstract

A hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent (HDES) composed of Aliquat 336, decanoic acid, and n-hexanol, diluted with kerosene, was investigated for the selective leaching of LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 (NMC-111) cathode materials. While conventional choline chloride-based DESs co-dissolve Li and transition metals almost completely, the present HDES–acid hybrid system deliberately sacrifices maximum recovery to achieve selectivity. In combination with a low concentration of H2SO4, the HDES enabled preferential dissolution of Co and Ni (~84% and ~80% after 6 h at 90 °C, respectively), while Li and Mn largely remained in the solid residue (>93%). Kinetic modeling indicated that the process is controlled by a surface chemical reaction with apparent activation energies of ~~49 kJ mol−1 (for Ni recovery) and ~51 kJ mol−1 (for Co recovery). The leaching residues were enriched in stable Li-Mn-O phases in a way that offers a basis for stepwise recovery. These findings show that hydrophobic eutectic media coupled with mild acid activation provide a sustainable pathway for the selective recycling of LIB cathodes.

1. Introduction

The exponential growth in lithium-ion battery (LIB) production and consumption has led to an urgent need for efficient and environmentally sustainable recycling methods. Among the various components of LIBs, the cathode active material (CAM) contains critical metals such as cobalt, nickel, and lithium, which are economically and strategically important [1,2,3]. Conventional pyrometallurgical approaches, while industrially mature, are energy-intensive and result in loss of lithium and degradation of material quality [4,5,6,7]. As an alternative, hydrometallurgical recycling has received significant attention due to its higher metal recovery efficiency and potential compatibility with decentralized processing [8,9,10,11,12].
A major direction in hydrometallurgical LIB recycling has been the development of deep eutectic solvents (DESs) as greener alternatives to strong mineral acids. DESs, typically formed by mixing a hydrogen bond donor (HBD) and acceptor (HBA), offer advantages such as low volatility, tunable properties, low toxicity, and recyclability. Over the last decade, DESs based on choline chloride (ChCl) have become the most studied systems for leaching cathode materials, with combinations like ChCl:urea [13,14,15], ChCl:glycerol [16,17,18], ChCl:ethylene glycol [19,20,21,22,23] or others, demonstrating metal extraction capabilities across a range of compositions and conditions.
Table 1 summarizes recent studies that employed DESs for leaching LIB cathodes, showing key operational parameters, and extracted metals.
Regardless of the nature of the hydrogen bond donor—be it lactic acid, oxalic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, or formic acid—and regardless of reaction temperature or duration, all tested systems result in significant or nearly complete lithium recovery from the cathode matrix.
This trend is particularly evident even in mild conditions. For example, the ChCl:formic acid system achieved complete Li and Co extraction in just 10 min at 70 °C [25], and similar outcomes were reported for ChCl: p-toluenesulfonic acid:H2O [27] and ChCl:oxalic acid [24] systems. Even water-containing systems such as ChCl:CA (citric acid) with 35% water at 40 °C showed over 98% extraction efficiency for cobalt, with lithium co-leached as confirmed [31].
From a mechanistic standpoint, this outcome is expected. The Li–O bonding in layered oxides is more labile than Co–O or Ni–O, owing to the lower lattice energy of Li-containing oxides and the strong solvation affinity of Li+ [33]. Acidic or protic DES media promote simultaneous lattice disruption and solvation of Li+ and transition metal ions. Redox-stable matrices and hydrophobic domains can reduce Co/Ni mobility by limiting redox cycling and solvation, but, under the strongly solvating conditions of acidic DES, these restrictions are overcome, explaining the good dissolution of Ni and Co. Li, although generally the most labile species, is under our conditions preferentially retained in the solid phase [34,35].
At the same time, retaining lithium in the solid residue simplifies downstream processing by avoiding complex separation from multi-metal leachates. It preserves lithium for targeted recovery under milder, selective conditions and enables stepwise processing where high-value transition metals are extracted first. This approach reduces reagent use, improves selectivity, and supports a more efficient and sustainable resource recovery pathway.
This can be achieved by using hydrophobic deep eutectic solvents (HDES) specifically designed to limit lithium solubility through low polarity, reduced hydrogen-bonding capacity, and poor Li+ coordination. Such media selectively solvate and mobilize transition metal ions like Co2+ and Ni2+, while lithium remains in the solid phase due to unfavorable solvation thermodynamics. HDES have recently been explored in various fields, including the leaching ofnickel laterite ore [36], ytterbium-lutetium oxides [37], and platinum group metals [38].
In a recent study, Sato et al. [39] demonstrated the application of a hydrophobic diluted deep eutectic solvent (HD-DES) composed of methyltrioctylammonium chloride (Aliquat 336), decanoic acid, and n-hexanol in a molar ratio of 1:2:5, diluted with 40 wt% kerosene. This system was successfully used for the solid–liquid extraction of nickel from laterite ores at ambient conditions. Inspired by this approach, we adopt the concept of non-aqueous, hydrophobic DES systems for direct leaching of transition metals from LIB cathodes, while aiming to suppress lithium solubility. As the model material, we used LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 (NMC-111) cathode powder, which offers a representative composition of transition metals and a well-defined layered structure suitable for evaluating selective leaching and lithium retention. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to apply such a strategy to layered NMC cathode materials.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Spent lithium-ion batteries (LG Chem 18,650 cells) were collected from post-consumer electronic waste. Cells were first fully discharged by immersion in a 5% NaCl solution for 24 h to eliminate residual voltage. After drying, the batteries were manually dismantled in a fume hood. The steel casing, separator, and anode were removed, and the cathode foil (Al coated with NMC-based active material) was separated. The cathode material was gently scraped from the aluminum foil using a plastic blade, and then sieved through a 100 µm mesh. The resulting powder was washed with ethanol and deionized water to remove electrolyte residues, and dried at 80 °C under vacuum for 12 h prior to leaching experiments.
All other reagents were of analytical grade and used as received: methyltrioctylammonium chloride (Aliquat 336, ≥95%), decanoic acid (≥98%), n-hexanol (≥99%), sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 98 wt%), and kerosene (technical grade).

2.2. Preparation of Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent

The HDES was prepared by mixing Aliquat 336, decanoic acid, and n-hexanol in a molar ratio of 1:2:5 under constant stirring at 60 °C until a homogeneous clear liquid was obtained. The resulting eutectic was cooled to room temperature, and then diluted with 40 wt% kerosene.

2.3. Leaching Experiments

Leaching experiments were conducted in glass reactors(GG-17, Yuhua Instrument Co., Ltd., Gongyi, China) equipped with reflux condensers and continuous magnetic stirring. For each run, 0.1 g of cathode powder was introduced into a fixed volume (1, 2, 3, or 4 mL) of the prepared HDES diluted with 1 wt% of de-ionized water. A measured amount of H2SO4 (0.2, 0.8, and 1.2 M) was added as a proton source to activate metal dissolution. The temperature was controlled at 60, 80, or 100 °C using a thermostatic oil bath. The leaching duration was 6 h; aliquots of the leachate were taken at regular intervals (1 h) for analysis using a micropipette.

2.4. Analysis of Metal Content

The elemental composition of both the leachates and solid residues was analyzed using atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) with a GBC Savant system (GBC Scientific Equipment Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia). Prior to analysis, solid samples were subjected to complete microwave-assisted digestion in a hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide mixture (HCl:H2O2) at 80 °C for 2 h to ensure full dissolution. All analyses were carried out in triplicate, with relative standard deviations maintained within ±3%.

2.5. Physicochemical Characterization of HDES

FTIR spectra were recorded using an InfraLUM FT-08 FTIR spectrometer (Lumex, St. Petersburg, Russia) in the range of 4500–500 cm−1. The viscosity of the HDES was measured using a VPZh-4M capillary viscometer (ZIP, Ivanovo, Russia).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of NMC Powder Sample

The XRD pattern of the initial powder sample is presented in Figure 1.
The powder XRD pattern exhibits characteristic reflections at approximately 18.7°, 36.5°, 44.7°, 59.0°, and 65.3° 2θ, which correspond to the (003), (101), (104), (018)/(110), and (113) planes of the layered LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 phase with a hexagonal structure (space group R 3 m). These features confirm the presence of a well-formed layered oxide without significant cation mixing. A peak around 26.5° is also observed, consistent with the (002) reflection of turbostratic graphite.
The chemical composition of the initial powder is presented in Table 2.
Thermal treatment of the cathode powder at 620–680 °C for 3 h in a nitrogen atmosphere resulted in a mass loss of approximately 6–7% due to the removal of organic binders and conductive carbon additives. After this treatment, the remaining solid residue is consistent with the stoichiometry of the active phase LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2. Leaching procedures were performed by using the non-treated powder.

3.2. HDES Characterization

The FTIR spectrum (Figure 2) of the freshly prepared HDES (1:2:5 MTAC:decanoic acid:n-hexanol) shows key features confirming hydrogen bonding and component integrity. A broad O-H stretching band at ~3350 cm−1 indicates strong hydrogen bonding. Peaks at ~2925 and ~2854 cm−1 correspond to aliphatic C–H stretching. The sharp band at ~1730 cm−1 is assigned to the C=O group of decanoic acid, confirming its molecular form. Bands at ~1465, ~1385, and ~1160 cm−1 reflect CH2 bending and C-O/C-N stretching, characteristic of the eutectic structure.
The thermal behavior of the initial HDES was characterized by combined TGA-DSC analysis (Figure 3).
The TGA curve shows a progressive mass loss up to ~300 °C, which corresponds to the volatilization of the organic components of the HDES. Above this temperature no liquid phase remains, and the mass stabilizes. The mass decrease between 250 and 300 °C produced no distinct DSC peak because evaporation occurred gradually and the heat flow was distributed over a broad range. A small exothermic signal is observed below 100 °C, which may be related to residual moisture release or structural rearrangements in the eutectic mixture. A pronounced endothermic peak appears at ~140 °C, associated with accelerated volatilization, while a broader exothermic event above 200 °C is attributed to partial decomposition of organic constituents. The pronounced increase in weight loss occurs at ~200–220 °C.
The variation of density and viscosity of the HDES as a function of temperature is presented in Figure 4.
The density decreases from 0.92 g cm−3 at 25 °C to 0.86 g cm−3 at 80 °C, exhibiting a slight curvature typical for organic eutectic mixtures. The viscosity demonstrates a strong Arrhenius-type decline, dropping from ~150 mPa·s at 25 °C to ~20 mPa·s at 80 °C, which reflects the pronounced sensitivity of molecular mobility to thermal energy in this solvent system. The modest scatter of experimental points indicates good reproducibility of the measurements. This profile confirms that the pure HDES maintains relatively high viscosity at ambient conditions, but becomes substantially more fluid at elevated temperatures, which can facilitate enhanced mass transfer during leaching.
For the practical leaching tests, the HDES was diluted with 40 wt% kerosene to reduce viscosity and improve mass transfer. The temperature dependence of density and viscosity for this diluted system is shown in Figure 5.
The density decreases from ~0.87 g cm−3 at 20 °C to 0.76 g cm−3 at 80 °C, while the viscosity drops from ~54 mPa·s to ~10 mPa·s over the same range.
Compared to the undiluted HDES (Figure 4), which exhibits higher density (0.92→0.86 g cm−3) and significantly higher viscosity (150→20 mPa·s), kerosene dilution yields a ~3–4-fold reduction in viscosity across the studied temperature range, without dramatically altering the density–temperature profile. This reduction in viscosity is expected to enhance diffusion of dissolved species, and shorten leaching times, particularly at moderate temperatures where mass-transfer limitations are most pronounced.

3.3. Leaching Results

An initial series of leaching experiments was carried out using the prepared HDES without any added mineral acid, in order to assess its intrinsic ability to dissolve metals from the cathode material. In each run, 0.1 g of cathode powder was treated with 4 mL of the HDES solution, and all experiments were conducted at 80 °C for 4 h, with periodic sampling and subsequent ICP-OES analysis of Li, Co, Ni, and Mn. The results (Table 3) show that lithium and manganese exhibited very low dissolution under these conditions, while cobalt and nickel were leached to a greater extent but still insufficiently for practical recovery.
The notably low extraction yields of lithium and manganese in HDES stem from their intrinsic solvation and redox chemistry. Li+ ions are strongly solvated and stabilized in highly polar, protic environments. In contrast, hydrophobic DES offer low polarity and lack sufficient proton activity, making Li+ transfer into the organic phase highly energetically unfavorable [40]. Manganese (primarily Mn(IV) in NCM materials) is chemically robust and requires proton-mediated oxidative dissolution to break the Mn–O bonds; in neutral or slightly reducing, acid-free DES conditions, such dissolution is negligible [31]. Meanwhile, cobalt and nickel ions, especially in their lower oxidation states, can form weak complexes with components of the DES or undergo partial reduction (e.g., Co3+ → Co2+), enhancing their solubility even without acid assistance [41].
Although Co and Ni exhibited higher extraction yields than Li and Mn, their final recoveries after 4 h (≈38–43%) were still far from the levels required for efficient downstream recovery. To intensify metal dissolution, mineral acid was introduced as a proton source to disrupt the metal–oxygen framework more effectively and to promote complexation of the released metal ions.
Sulfuric acid was selected as the proton source, due to its low cost, wide industrial availability, and high proton activity in aqueous–organic systems. In addition, sulfate anions can facilitate cobalt and nickel dissolution through the formation of soluble MeSO42− complexes, while avoiding chloride-induced corrosion issues associated with HCl. A small amount of de-ionized water (1 wt%) added to activate proton transfer and facilitate metal–oxygen bond cleavage while maintaining low polarity to restrict Li+ solvation [42].
Time-dependent leaching behavior of Li, Mn, Co, and Ni from NCM cathode material in HDES containing 0.2 mol L−1 H2SO4 at 100 °C and L:S = 40:1 mL:g is presented in Figure 6.
Li and Mn exhibited very limited dissolution, reaching only ~7% and ~12% extraction, respectively, after 6 h. In contrast, Co and Ni showed a progressive increase in recovery over time, attaining ~58% and ~52% after 6 h. The pronounced gap between Co/Ni and Li/Mn extraction confirms the high selectivity of the system under low-acid conditions, while highlighting the need for higher acid concentrations or adjusted parameters to achieve complete transition-metal recovery.
The effect of sulfuric acid concentration on metal leaching was investigated at 100 °C and a liquid-to-solid ratio of 40:1 mL:g, using acid concentrations of 0.2, 0.8, and 1.2 mol L−1 (Figure 7).
For Ni (Figure 7a), the extraction increased markedly when the acid concentration was raised from 0.2 to 0.8 mol L−1, with the final recovery after 6 h rising from about 52% to approximately 80%. A further increase in acid concentration to 1.2 mol L−1 resulted in only a marginal improvement, reaching ~82%, indicating that 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 was sufficient to achieve near-maximum Ni dissolution under the tested conditions.
For Co (Figure 7b), increasing the acid concentration from 0.2 to 0.8 mol L−1 led to a pronounced rise in extraction, with the 6 h recovery improving from about 58% to approximately 85%. Further acid increase to 1.2 mol L−1 produced only a negligible gain, reaching ~86%. This confirms that 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 was effectively sufficient to achieve near-complete Co dissolution under the given conditions.
Li and Mn exhibited only minor dissolution under all tested acid concentrations, with final recoveries not exceeding 4% and 6%, respectively, after 6 h at 100 °C.
Subsequently, the effect of temperature on metal leaching was investigated at an acid concentration of 0.8 mol L−1 and a liquid-to-solid ratio of 40:1 mL:g, using temperatures of 60, 80, 90, and 100 °C (Figure 8 and Figure 9).
For Ni, raising the temperature from 60 to 80 °C substantially increased extraction, with the 6 h recovery rising from ~60% to ~79% (Figure 8).
A further increase to 90 °C brought the recovery to ~81%, and heating to 100 °C resulted in only a marginal gain (~82.5%), indicating that near-maximum dissolution was already achieved at 90 °C.
For Co, extraction improved from ~65% at 60 °C to ~74% at 80 °C, reaching ~85% at 90 °C (Figure 9). Increasing the temperature to 100 °C yielded only a slight further increase (~86.5%), confirming that 90 °C was sufficient to approach the maximum achievable recovery under these conditions.
The L:S ratio strongly influences reagent availability, mass transfer, and metal concentration in the leachate. Therefore, we tested L:S values of 10:1, 20:1, and 40:1 mL:g under 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 at 90 °C to balance recovery and solution concentration (Table 4).
At 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 and 90 °C, increasing the L:S ratio from 10:1 to 20:1 markedly improved cobalt and nickel extraction at all leaching times. After 6 h, Co recovery rose from 75.0% to 83.9% and Ni recovery from 70.3% to 79.6%. A further increase to 40:1 produced only marginal gains, reaching 85.1% for Co and 80.8% for Ni, indicating that 20:1 is close to optimal for balancing high recovery with a sufficiently concentrated leachate.
It should be emphasized that the observed selectivity is not solely a property of the HDES itself, but rather of its combination with a low concentration of H2SO4. The hydrophobic eutectic medium suppresses Li+ solubility, while the mineral acid provides the necessary proton activity for disrupting the NMC lattice and mobilizing Co/Ni. In contrast to conventional aqueous leaching, the acid dosage is reduced by an order of magnitude, thereby mitigating environmental impact while retaining high transition-metal recovery efficiency.
Thus, sequential variation of acid concentration, temperature, and liquid-to-solid ratio showed that high Co/Ni recovery can be achieved while keeping Li and Mn dissolution low. Increasing H2SO4 concentration from 0.2 to 0.8 mol L−1 markedly enhanced Co/Ni leaching, whereas a further increase to 1.2 mol L−1 gave negligible improvement. Raising temperature from 60 to 90 °C significantly accelerated dissolution, with near-maximum yields reached at 90 °C; heating to 100 °C offered only marginal gains. Increasing the L:S ratio from 10:1 to 20:1 mL:g substantially improved recovery, while 40:1 provided only a slight additional effect and diluted the leachate.
Under these optimal conditions—0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, 90 °C, L:S = 20:1 mL:g, 6 h—the process delivered about 84% cobalt and 80% nickel recovery, while lithium and manganese remained low, at under 6–7%.
Compared to conventional ChCl-based DES systems, which typically achieve nearly complete co-dissolution of Li and transition metals under mild conditions, the present HDES system delivers slightly lower absolute recovery of Co and Ni (~80–85%). However, the key advantage lies in its ability to retain Li in the solid residue, thereby enabling stepwise recovery. In this sense, the method deliberately sacrifices maximum overall extraction in favor of enhanced selectivity, reducing the burden of downstream separation and improving process sustainability.

3.4. Leaching Kinetic Analysis

In leaching kinetics studies, the shrinking core model (SCM) is among the most widely applied approaches [43,44,45]. In this model, leachable particles are idealized as uniform spheres whose radius gradually decreases as the solid phase dissolves into the solution. The relationship between the fraction of solid dissolved and the leaching time is expressed by different equations, depending on the rate-controlling step of the process [46]:
1 2 3 X M e ( 1 X M e ) 2 3 = k τ
1 ( 1 X M e ) 1 3 = k τ
1 3 ln 1 X M e 1 + ( 1 X M e ) 1 3   = k τ
where X M e denotes the fraction of the solid phase dissolved, k is the leaching rate constant for the chemical reaction, and τ is the time required to reach the specified X M e .
The presented equations describe leaching processes controlled by different rate-limiting mechanisms: diffusion through the product layer (Equation (1)), surface chemical reaction (Equation (2)), and a mixed control involving both diffusion and surface reaction (Equation (3)). Although an L:S ratio of 20:1 (mL/g) was identified as optimal for leaching, the kinetic evaluation was carried out at an increased ratio of 40:1 (mL/g) to ensure stable acid concentration and to minimize possible deviations from the assumptions of the SCM.
To determine the controlling step, the left-hand sides of Equations (1)–(3) were plotted against leaching time at three temperatures, using the data from Figure 8 (Ni) and Figure 9 (Co). The analysis was restricted to the initial 4 h of leaching in order to reduce the influence of acid depletion, solubility limitations. The corresponding determination coefficients are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.
Based on the data in Table 4 and Table 5, it can be concluded that the surface chemical reaction model (Equation (2)) provides the highest determination coefficients across all temperatures for both Ni and Co recovery; this indicates that the leaching process is predominantly controlled by the surface reaction rather than by diffusion or mixed control mechanisms.
To evaluate the kinetic parameters of Ni and Co leaching, the data from Figure 8 and Figure 9 were analyzed using Equation (1), and the corresponding plots of 1 ( 1 X M e ) 1 3 versus leaching time at three temperatures are shown in Figure 10a,b.
The kinetic plots for Ni (Figure 10a) and Co (Figure 10b) obtained at an L:S ratio of 40:1 (mL/g) and evaluated within the initial 4 h exhibited satisfactory linearity with the surface chemical reaction model. For Ni, the apparent rate constant increased from 0.0417 h−1 at 60 °C to 0.1223 h−1 at 80 °C and 0.1755 h−1 at 90 °C. In the case of Co, k rose from 0.0399 h−1 at 60 °C to 0.1099 h−1 at 80 °C and 0.1849 h−1 at 90 °C. The consistently high determination coefficients (R2 > 0.94) support the applicability of the surface reaction model.
Arrhenius plots for Ni and Co leaching from NCM cathodes in HDES were constructed using the calculated rate constants (Figure 11). The linear fits indicate that the dissolution of these metals is governed by a surface-controlled chemical reaction.
Both metals show linear correlations with high coefficients of determination (R2 = 0.9992 for Ni and 0.9953 for Co), indicating that the process follows Arrhenius behavior. The apparent activation energies, derived from the slopes (−Ea/R), are approximately 48.9 kJ mol−1 for Ni and 51.1 kJ mol−1 for Co. These values fall within the range typical of chemically controlled leaching reactions and are in agreement with the kinetic analysis based on the shrinking core model. The slightly higher activation energy for cobalt reflects the stronger Co–O bonding compared with Ni–O in the layered oxide structure, which requires more energy to disrupt during dissolution.

3.5. Leaching Residue Analysis

Elemental composition of leaching residue, obtained under the optimized conditions of 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 in HDES at 90 °C, L:S = 40:1 mL:g, and 6 h leaching time, was, wt%: Li—10.3; Mn—26.5; Co—4.9; Ni– 6.1.
The XRD pattern of the leaching residue (Figure 12) indicates the presence of Li-Mn-O phases, including Li2MnO3 and MnO2, as well as minor peaks corresponding to Li2CO3.
Notably, the characteristic graphite (002) reflection at ~26.5° 2θ is absent, which may be attributed either to the removal of graphite from the solid residue or to its significant modification, resulting in a highly disordered and dispersed carbon phase, likely amorphous in nature after extended treatment in the HDES medium. No distinct crystalline phases of Co or Ni are observed, despite their confirmed presence in the residue by elemental analysis. This discrepancy is likely due to the formation of poorly crystalline hydroxides or amorphous oxyhydroxides of Ni and Co, which do not give rise to well-defined Bragg reflections in XRD patterns, and may also be explained by the incorporation of Ni and Co into manganese phases as solid solutions due to the chemical similarity of these ions.
The persistence of Mn in the residue should not be considered a drawback but rather a feature of the stepwise recovery strategy. Concentrating Mn together with Li in stable Li-Mn-O phases enables their targeted extraction in a subsequent leaching stage under more oxidative or alkaline conditions. This sequential approach reduces reagent consumption in the primary step while ensuring that Mn can be recovered efficiently without interfering with Co/Ni separation.

4. Conclusions

A hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent (HDES) composed of Aliquat 336, decanoic acid, and n-hexanol, diluted with kerosene, was applied for the selective leaching of spent LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 cathodes. Selectivity arose from the combined action of HDES and a low concentration of H2SO4: the acid provided protons for lattice disruption, while the hydrophobic medium suppressed Li+ solubility. Under optimized conditions (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, 90 °C, L:S = 20:1), ~84% Co and ~80% Ni were recovered within 6 h, whereas Li and Mn extraction remained below 7%.
Compared with conventional ChCl-based DESs, which dissolve all metals nearly completely, this approach deliberately sacrifices maximum recovery in favor of higher selectivity, simplifying downstream processing and reducing acid use. Kinetic analysis confirmed surface reaction-controlled dissolution with moderate activation energies (~33 kJ mol−1). The residue was enriched in Li-Mn-O phases, enabling their targeted extraction in a subsequent step.
To our knowledge, this is the first application of the Aliquat 336/decanoic acid/n-hexanol system, diluted with kerosene, for the selective leaching of Co and Ni from spent LIB cathodes. In a wider perspective, the approach can be scaled up because the organic components are low-cost, commercially available, and the solvent can be regenerated after solid–liquid separation by removing the dissolved metal ions, enabling its reuse in subsequent leaching steps. Moreover, the use of only moderate additions of H2SO4 and the reduced discharge of acidic effluents indicate a smaller environmental burden compared with conventional hydrometallurgy, which also translates into lower neutralization and wastewater treatment costs. These combined factors make the method a practical candidate for sustainable large-scale LIB recycling.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.N. and K.K.; methodology, A.B., K.K. and L.M.; investigation, L.M., A.B. and O.T.; resources, R.N.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K., O.T. and A.B.; writing—review and editing, R.N. and L.M.; project administration, R.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant no. AP19679106).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huang, B.; Pan, Z.; Su, X.; An, L. Recycling of lithium-ion batteries: Recent advances and perspectives. J. Power Sources 2018, 399, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, P.; Luo, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Lin, Y.; Xu, C.; Guo, J.; Cheali, P.; Xia, X. Progress, challenges, and prospects of spent lithium-ion batteries recycling: A review. J. Energy Chem. 2024, 89, 144–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bae, H.; Kim, Y. Technologies of lithium recycling from waste lithium ion batteries: A review. Mater. Adv. 2021, 2, 3234–3250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pan, C.; Shen, Y. Pyrometallurgical recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries from conventional roasting to synergistic pyrolysis with organic wastes. J. Energy Chem. 2023, 85, 547–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brückner, L.; Frank, J.; Elwert, T. Industrial recycling of lithium-ion batteries—A critical review of metallurgical process routes. Metals 2020, 10, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhou, M.; Li, B.; Li, J.; Xu, Z. Pyrometallurgical technology in the recycling of a spent lithium ion battery: Evolution and the challenge. ACS EST Eng. 2021, 1, 1369–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reinhart, L.; Vrucak, D.; Woeste, R.; Lucas, H.; Rombach, E.; Friedrich, B.; Letmathe, P. Pyrometallurgical recycling of different lithium-ion battery cell systems: Economic and technical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 416, 137834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, L.; Ge, J.; Chen, R.; Wu, F.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X. Environmental friendly leaching reagent for cobalt and lithium recovery from spent lithium-ion batteries. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2615–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aaltonen, M.; Peng, C.; Wilson, B.P.; Lundström, M. Leaching of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries. Recycling 2017, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, L.; Dunn, J.B.; Zhang, X.X.; Gaines, L.; Chen, R.J.; Wu, F.; Amine, K. Recovery of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries with organic acids as leaching reagents and environmental assessment. J. Power Sources 2013, 233, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gao, W.; Liu, C.; Cao, H.; Zheng, X.; Lin, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Z. Comprehensive evaluation on effective leaching of critical metals from spent lithium-ion batteries. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, L.; Bian, Y.; Zhang, X.; Guan, Y.; Fan, E.; Wu, F.; Chen, R. Process for recycling mixed-cathode materials from spent lithium-ion batteries and kinetics of leaching. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 362–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Jafari, M.; Shafaie, S.Z.; Abdollahi, H.; Entezari-Zarandi, A. Green recycling of spent Li-ion batteries by deep eutectic solvents (DESs): Leaching mechanism and effect of ternary DES. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 109014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cruz-Reyes, I.G.; Mendoza-Pérez, J.A.; Ruiz-Guerrero, R.; Medina-Velázquez, D.Y.; Zepeda-Vallejo, L.G.; Morales-Ramírez, Á.d.J. Kinetics of Zn–C battery leaching with choline chloride/urea natural deep eutectic solvents. Recycling 2022, 7, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, B.; Li, Q.; Wang, Q.; Yan, X.; Shi, M.; Wu, C. Deep eutectic solvent for spent lithium-ion battery recycling: Comparison with inorganic acid leaching. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 19029–19051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, Y.; Sun, M.; Cao, Y.; Yu, K.; Fan, Z.; Cao, Y. Designing Low Toxic Deep Eutectic Solvents for the Green Recycle of Lithium--Ion Batteries Cathodes. ChemSusChem 2024, 17, e202301953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, J.K.J.; Rana, M.; Khan, I.H.; Jo, Y.T.; Park, J.-H. Choline chloride-lactic acid-ascorbic acid (ChCl-LA-AA) based green deep eutectic solvent for leaching LiMn2O4 cathode material of spent Li-ion batteries. Hydrometallurgy 2025, 236, 106529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, J.; Lyu, Y.; Zeng, R.; Zhang, S.; Davey, K.; Mao, J.; Guo, Z. Green recycling of spent Li-ion battery cathodes via deep-eutectic solvents. Energy Environ. Sci. 2024, 17, 867–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ebrahimi, E.; Kordloo, M.; Khodadadmahmoudi, G.; Rezaei, A.; Ganjali, M.; Azimi, G. Solvometallurgical recycling of spent LiNixCoyMnzO2 (NCM) cathode material using ternary choline chloride-ethylene glycol-p-toluenesulfonic acid deep eutectic solvent. Hydrometallurgy 2023, 222, 106184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shahid, M.; Sahadevan, S.A.; Ramani, V.; Sankarasubramanian, S. Recommended Practices for the Electrochemical Recovery of Cobalt from Lithium Cobalt Oxide: A Case Study of the Choline Chloride:Ethylene Glycol Deep Eutectic Solvent. ChemSusChem 2025, 18, e202401205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alhashim, S.H.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Tromer, R.; Kabbani, A.; Babu, G.; Oliveira, E.F.; Galvao, D.S.; Ajayan, P.M. Mechanistic study of lithium-ion battery cathode recycling using deep eutectic solvents. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 6914–6922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bastos, H.; Schaeffer, N.; Pringle, J.M.; Coutinho, J.A.P.; Pozo-Gonzalo, C. Enhanced Dissolution of Metal Oxides in Hydroxylated Solvents—Towards Application in Lithium-Ion Battery Leaching. ChemSusChem 2023, 16, e202300455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yu, H.; Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Qiao, Q.; Wang, K.; Li, X. Recovery of cobalt from spent lithium-ion battery cathode materials by using choline chloride-based deep eutectic solvent. Green Process. Synth. 2022, 11, 868–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, Z.; Shao, H.; Zhao, Q.; Liang, Z. Use of microwave-assisted deep eutectic solvents to recycle lithium manganese oxide from li-ion batteries. JOM 2021, 73, 2104–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prasetyo, E.; Muryanta, W.A.; Anggraini, A.G.; Sudibyo, S.; Amin, M.; Al Muttaqii, M. Tannic acid as a novel and green leaching reagent for cobalt and lithium recycling from spent lithium-ion batteries. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 24, 927–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lu, Q.; Chen, L.; Li, X.; Chao, Y.; Sun, J.; Ji, H.; Zhu, W. Sustainable and convenient recovery of valuable metals from spent li-ion batteries by a one-pot extraction process. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 13851–13861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, W.; Liu, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Liang, Z. An efficient and precipitant-free approach to selectively recover lithium cobalt oxide made for cathode materials using a microwave-assisted deep eutectic solvent. Energy Fuels 2022, 37, 724–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, H.; Chen, N.; Liu, W.; Feng, H.; Su, J.; Fu, D.; Liu, X.; Qiu, M.; Wang, L. A reusable deep eutectic solvent for the regeneration of Li and Co metals from spent lithium-ion batteries. J. Alloy. Compd. 2023, 966, 171517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thompson, D.L.; Pateli, I.M.; Lei, C.; Jarvis, A.; Abbott, A.P.; Hartley, J.M. Separation of nickel from cobalt and manganese in lithium ion batteries using deep eutectic solvents. Green Chem. 2022, 24, 4877–4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chang, X.; Fan, M.; Gu, C.F.; He, W.H.; Meng, Q.; Wan, L.J.; Guo, Y.G. Selective extraction of transition metals from spent LiNixCoyMn1−x−yO2 cathode via regulation of coordination environment. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2022, 61, e202202558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, C.; Jin, J.; Yuan, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wu, L.; Wang, C. A Review on Leaching of Spent Lithium Battery Cathode Materials Adopting Deep Eutectic Solvents. ChemistryOpen 2024, 14, e202400258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tran, M.K.; Rodrigues, M.-T.F.F.; Kato, K.; Babu, G.; Ajayan, P.M. Deep eutectic solvents for cathode recycling of Li-ion batteries. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, Z.; Zhang, C.; Yuan, F.; Lyu, M.; Yang, P.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, M.; Wang, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, L. Ni-rich cathode materials for stable high-energy lithium-ion batteries. Nano Energy 2024, 126, 109620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xie, R.; Sun, D.; Tang, J.; Shen, X.; Pishva, P.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, K.; Peng, Z. Ecofriendly, Highly Selective Lithium Extraction by Redox-Mediated Electrodialysis. ACS Central Sci. 2024, 10, 2119–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chen, W.; Li, X.; Chen, L.; Zhou, G.; Lu, Q.; Huang, Y.; Chao, Y.; Zhu, W. Tailoring hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent for selective lithium recovery from the mother liquor of Li2CO3. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 420, 127648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sakamoto, T.; Hanada, T.; Sato, H.; Kamisono, M.; Goto, M. Hydrophobic deep eutectic solvents for the direct leaching of nickel laterite ores: Selectivity and reusability investigations. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2024, 331, 125619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Z.; Yang, F.; Sun, Z.; Chi, Q.; Li, Y. Efficient selective leaching of ytterbium and lutetium oxides by new hy-drophobic deep eutectic solvents. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2024, 343, 127097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kamisono, M.; Hanada, T.; Goto, M. Platinum group metal recycling from spent automotive catalysts using reusable hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent. ACS Sustain. Resour. Manag. 2024, 1, 1021–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sato, H.; Kamisono, M.; Goto, M. High-Purity Nickel Recovery from Low-Grade Nickel Laterite Ore Using Hydro-phobic Diluted Deep Eutectic Solvents. ACS Sustain. Resour. Manag. 2025, 2, 1400–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Srinivasan, H.; Sharma, V.K.; Mukhopadhyay, R.; Mitra, S. Solvation and transport of lithium ions in deep eutectic solvents. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153, 104505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Suriyanarayanan, S.; Babu, M.P.; Murugan, R.; Muthuraj, D.; Ramanujam, K.; Nicholls, I.A. Highly efficient recovery and recycling of cobalt from spent lithium-ion batteries using an N-Methylurea–Acetamide nonionic deep eutectic solvent. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 6959–6967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Amphlett, J.T.M.; Choi, S. The effect of increasing water content on transition metal speciation in deep eutectic solvents. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 332, 115845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nadirov, R.; Karamyrzayev, G. Selective ozone-assisted acid leaching of copper from copper smelter slag by using isopropanol as a solvent. Minerals 2022, 12, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gbor, P.K.; Jia, C.Q. Critical evaluation of coupling particle size distribution with the shrinking core model. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59, 1979–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nadirov, R.; Karamyrzayev, G. Enhancing Synthetic Zinc Ferrite Hydrochloric Acid Leaching by Using Isopropanol as a Solvent. Min. Metall. Explor. 2022, 39, 1743–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Safari, V.; Arzpeyma, G.; Rashchi, F.; Mostoufi, N. A shrinking particle—Shrinking core model for leaching of a zinc ore containing silica. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2009, 93, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. XRD pattern of the initial cathode powder.
Figure 1. XRD pattern of the initial cathode powder.
Metals 15 01113 g001
Figure 2. FTIR spectrum of the freshly prepared hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent (HDES) composed of methyltrioctylammonium chloride, decanoic acid, and n-hexanol in a 1:2:5 molar ratio.
Figure 2. FTIR spectrum of the freshly prepared hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent (HDES) composed of methyltrioctylammonium chloride, decanoic acid, and n-hexanol in a 1:2:5 molar ratio.
Metals 15 01113 g002
Figure 3. TGA-DSC curves of the freshly prepared HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio.
Figure 3. TGA-DSC curves of the freshly prepared HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio.
Metals 15 01113 g003
Figure 4. Temperature dependence of density and viscosity for the HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio).
Figure 4. Temperature dependence of density and viscosity for the HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio).
Metals 15 01113 g004
Figure 5. Temperature dependence of density and viscosity for the HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio), diluted with 40 wt% kerosene.
Figure 5. Temperature dependence of density and viscosity for the HDES (Aliquat 336:decanoic acid:n-hexanol, 1:2:5 molar ratio), diluted with 40 wt% kerosene.
Metals 15 01113 g005
Figure 6. Leaching profiles of Li, Mn, Co, and Ni from NCM cathode material in HDES with 0.2 mol L−1 H2SO4 at 100 °C and a liquid-to-solid ratio of 40:1 mL:g over time.
Figure 6. Leaching profiles of Li, Mn, Co, and Ni from NCM cathode material in HDES with 0.2 mol L−1 H2SO4 at 100 °C and a liquid-to-solid ratio of 40:1 mL:g over time.
Metals 15 01113 g006
Figure 7. Effect of sulfuric acid concentration on Ni (a) and Co (b) recovery kinetics in HDES at 100 °C (L:S = 40:1).
Figure 7. Effect of sulfuric acid concentration on Ni (a) and Co (b) recovery kinetics in HDES at 100 °C (L:S = 40:1).
Metals 15 01113 g007
Figure 8. Effect of temperature (60, 80, 90, and 100 °C) on the time-dependent extraction Ni in HDES with 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 at L:S = 40:1 mL:g.
Figure 8. Effect of temperature (60, 80, 90, and 100 °C) on the time-dependent extraction Ni in HDES with 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 at L:S = 40:1 mL:g.
Metals 15 01113 g008
Figure 9. Effect of temperature (60, 80, 90, and 100 °C) on the time-dependent extraction Co in HDES with 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 at L:S = 40:1 mL:g.
Figure 9. Effect of temperature (60, 80, 90, and 100 °C) on the time-dependent extraction Co in HDES with 0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4 at L:S = 40:1 mL:g.
Metals 15 01113 g009
Figure 10. A plot of 1 − (1 −XMe)1/3 vs leaching time for Ni (a) and Co (b) recovery from NCM cathode material in HDES (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, L:S = 40:1 mL:g).
Figure 10. A plot of 1 − (1 −XMe)1/3 vs leaching time for Ni (a) and Co (b) recovery from NCM cathode material in HDES (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, L:S = 40:1 mL:g).
Metals 15 01113 g010aMetals 15 01113 g010b
Figure 11. Arrhenius plots for for Ni and Co recovery from NCM cathode material in HDES (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, L:S = 40:1 mL:g).
Figure 11. Arrhenius plots for for Ni and Co recovery from NCM cathode material in HDES (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, L:S = 40:1 mL:g).
Metals 15 01113 g011
Figure 12. XRD pattern of the leaching residue.
Figure 12. XRD pattern of the leaching residue.
Metals 15 01113 g012
Table 1. Reported Li and Transition Metal Extraction Efficiencies from LIB Cathodes in ChCl-Based DES Systems.
Table 1. Reported Li and Transition Metal Extraction Efficiencies from LIB Cathodes in ChCl-Based DES Systems.
No.DES CompositionT (°C)Time (h)Extracted MetalsRefs.
1ChCl:Oxalic Acid:H2O1000.17Li: 99.05%, Co: 99.21%[24]
2ChCl:Oxalic Acid + microwave1000.17Li: 99.05%, Co: 99.21%[24]
3ChCl:Formic Acid + H2O700.17Co, Li ≈ 100%[25]
4ChCl:Lactic Acid 7024Li, Ni, Co, Mn ≈ 100%[26]
5ChCl:p-toluenesulfonic acid:H2O900.25Co, Li ≈ 100%[27]
6ChCl:Benzenesulfonic Acid: Ethanolamine902Co: 98%, Li: 99%[28]
7ChCl:Malonic Acid:PTSA10024Co: 98.6%, Li: 98.8%[29]
8ChCl:Oxalic Acid1202Li, Mn > 96%[30]
9ChCl:Citric Acid + 35% H2O401Co > 98%[31]
10ChCl:Ethylene Glycol180240Li: 91.6%, Co: 92.5%, Ni: 94.9%, Mn: 95.5%[32]
Table 2. Chemical composition of the cathode.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the cathode.
Li (wt%)Co (wt%)Ni (wt%)Mn (wt%)
6.7919.2119.1317.65
Table 3. Time-dependent extraction of metals from NCM cathode in HDES at 80 °C.
Table 3. Time-dependent extraction of metals from NCM cathode in HDES at 80 °C.
Time (h)Li (%)Mn (%)Co (%)Ni (%)
11.22.515.417.8
22.54.126.729.3
33.65.633.537.2
44.56.838.242.7
Table 4. Recovery of Co and Ni (%) at different L:S ratios over time (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, 90 °C).
Table 4. Recovery of Co and Ni (%) at different L:S ratios over time (0.8 mol L−1 H2SO4, 90 °C).
Time (h)L:S = 10:1L:S = 20:1L:S = 40:1L:S = 10:1L:S = 20:1L:S = 40:1
CoCoCoNiNiNi
133.239.439.830.235.135.9
250.45960.245.553.154.3
361.671.172.455.665.366.7
468.378.179.461.772.974.3
572.481.782.965.477.178.5
675.083.985.170.379.680.8
Table 5. Determination coefficients (R2) for the linear fits based on Equations (1)–(3), calculated from the data presented in Figure 8 (Ni recovery).
Table 5. Determination coefficients (R2) for the linear fits based on Equations (1)–(3), calculated from the data presented in Figure 8 (Ni recovery).
EquationTemperature, °C
60 80 90
1R2 = 0.7095R2 = 0.6371R2 = 0.6849
2R2 = 0.9641R2 = 0.9263R2 = 0.9572
3R2 = 0.6460R2 = 0.7516R2 = 0.6993
Table 6. Determination coefficients (R2) for the linear fits based on Equations (1)–(3), calculated from the data presented in Figure 9 (Co recovery).
Table 6. Determination coefficients (R2) for the linear fits based on Equations (1)–(3), calculated from the data presented in Figure 9 (Co recovery).
EquationTemperature, °C
60 80 90
1R2 = 0.6835R2 = 0.7219R2 = 0.7105
2R2 = 0.9547R2 = 0.9063R2 = 0.9342
3R2 = 0.5952R2 = 0.6834R2 = 0.6711
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nadirov, R.; Kamunur, K.; Mussapyrova, L.; Batkal, A.; Tyumentseva, O. Selective Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery NMC Cathodes Using a Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent. Metals 2025, 15, 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15101113

AMA Style

Nadirov R, Kamunur K, Mussapyrova L, Batkal A, Tyumentseva O. Selective Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery NMC Cathodes Using a Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent. Metals. 2025; 15(10):1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15101113

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nadirov, Rashid, Kaster Kamunur, Lyazzat Mussapyrova, Aisulu Batkal, and Olesya Tyumentseva. 2025. "Selective Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery NMC Cathodes Using a Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent" Metals 15, no. 10: 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15101113

APA Style

Nadirov, R., Kamunur, K., Mussapyrova, L., Batkal, A., & Tyumentseva, O. (2025). Selective Recovery of Cobalt and Nickel from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery NMC Cathodes Using a Hydrophobic Deep Eutectic Solvent. Metals, 15(10), 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15101113

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop