Disassembly and Its Obstacles: Challenges Facing Remanufacturers of Lithium-Ion Traction Batteries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Lithium-ion batteries, key to decarbonizing transport and power systems, face growing end-of-use challenges, with remanufacturing preferred to extend their lifecycle and reduce environmental impacts. Remanufacturing focuses on restoring batteries by disassembling and replacing individual cells instead of entire modules, enhancing economic feasibility. Disassembly sequences and non-destructive cell replacement methods were analyzed for two traction battery systems to improve process efficiency. The topic is current; however, there are critical issues that need to be addressed in the paper. Please consider my comments below:
- The number of papers reviewed from the last three years is very limited, making it difficult to demonstrate the novelty of the study.
- The abstract does not highlight significant results and lacks key numerical findings.
- The authors need to include a dedicated contribution section.
- The novelty and contribution to the literature are not clearly defined.
- A paper organization statement should be added.
- The introduction does not provide any literature review.
- Are there any potential disadvantages of the proposed process?
- The test studies are not sufficiently explained.
- It is recommended that the authors create a conclusion section.
- Figures and tables are appropriate.
Author Response
First of all and again thank you for your comments.
I hope the revised version is now more in line with your expectations.
The number of papers reviewed from the last three years is very limited, making it difficult to demonstrate the novelty of the study.
I have added a new subsection (1.2) to sumarize and categorize the literature
- The abstract does not highlight significant results and lacks key numerical findings.
This paper focusses on a method to find preferable production sequences. The quantification of disassembly time reduction was not within the scope of this research, but will be in the future
- The authors need to include a dedicated contribution section.
Line 487-491
- The novelty and contribution to the literature are not clearly defined.
This is included in the new subsection 1.2
- The introduction does not provide any literature review.
I have added a new subsection (1.2) to sumarize and categorize the literature
- It is recommended that the authors create a conclusion section.
I have expanded the discussion, and have created a conclusion section.
Thanks again for the helpful comments
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The reviewed article presents the results of two (PH)EV battery disassembly studies. Disassembly is an important gatekeeper step in a circular economy because its design decides about different circular pathways such as recycling, refurbishment, or remanufacturing. The reported results are well-documented and comprehensive.
However, I see a weakness of the article in the novelty of the results as several disassembling studies have been reported in recent years. Consequently, I recommend at least adding one subsection about the current knowledge of EV battery disassembly and maybe even include a list of previously documented experiments. Some literature to start with: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104785; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155324
Although this will not entirely raise the novelty of the article, it at least shows that it is an ongoing research topic. I further recommend using the discussion section and actually discussing the findings of the newly conducted disassembling studies with those reported in the literature. At least the disassembled battery system in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104785; is fairly similar, if not equal, to the smart battery in your manuscript. Do your results align with the findings in other literature or did you find out something new?
In the discussion section (line 308) you state that you have shown the disassembling to electrode materials. In my opinion, this is not true. You have shown a successful disassembly to the module level and then explained how to separate the cells and which obstacles there are. You have not shown or documented the opening of cells, etc., that is needed to retrieve the electrode material.
I also see that a lot of the future works listed in lines 334 onwards have been done in other studies before. Please specify against the other literature why you or “someone” should deal with the topic.
Here are further points I came across that should be addressed during a review. Some of them are pretty basic (and can also be addressed in a later type setting stage).
· Line 3: Add a non-breaking space after the number and before the km
· Line 51:Try to use some wording throughout; do you refer to a module if you write “stack level”?
· Line 61: “are used to conclude the design of traction battery systems…” the sentence structure/grammar seems somehow wrong.
· Line 80 ff: Add some source to your explanation. E.g., “they are also used in a high amount…” request for me a source (statistic, etc.) to refer to.
· Line 82: E.g., ICT: Double check if you need to introduce all abbreviations throughout the manuscript; At least ICT is only used once
· Line 186: The subtitle is formatted differently than the others
· Table 1: I recommend adding the sources [15,16] to the table's title as you directly refer to their source.
· Line 236: “Once the modules are removed, …” à be as precise as possible: Once modules number 2 and 3 are removed, …
· Figure 2: Is there an error in the Figure, because the last disassembling steps are repeated twice (XXV and XXVI)? The disassembly graph should also not end with an arrow. This can be misleading.
· Line 253: There should be no line page break between the Figure and its caption.
· Figure 5: It is spelled B) instead of b)
· Line 305: see above: Caption should be on the same page as the figure.
· Line 307: Correct the numbering of the sections. It is number 4, not 5.
· Lines 311-318 is a general paragraph and does not add context to the “discussion”.
· Please explain how the “Rank” and “Priority” are calculated/retrieved in the disassembly matrixes.
Author Response
First of all thank you for your comments.
Dear Reviewer,
Unfortunately, I was very ill during the period of my revision, but I still tried to implement the first changes you requested.
I have incorporated your minor comments and also included the two publications in the investigations
I have also written a section on decompositions at the electrode level.
However, this was more of a secondary part of the disassembly, because we prefer product recycling, which is no longer possible when "destroying" the cells.
I am happy to adjust more points. Unfortunately, due to illness and the deadline, I was not able to do this so quickly.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article revised after my comments is not at an acceptable level. It needs to be reassessed after the necessary revisions.
Author Response
First of all and again thank you for your comments.
I hope the revised version is now more in line with your expectations.
The number of papers reviewed from the last three years is very limited, making it difficult to demonstrate the novelty of the study.
I have added a new subsection (1.2) to sumarize and categorize the literature
- The abstract does not highlight significant results and lacks key numerical findings.
This paper focusses on a method to find preferable production sequences. The quantification of disassembly time reduction was not within the scope of this research, but will be in the future
- The authors need to include a dedicated contribution section.
Line 487-491
- The novelty and contribution to the literature are not clearly defined.
This is included in the new subsection 1.2
- The introduction does not provide any literature review.
I have added a new subsection (1.2) to sumarize and categorize the literature
- It is recommended that the authors create a conclusion section.
I have expanded the discussion, and have created a conclusion section.
Thanks again for the helpful comments
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors responded to all my comments. I have no further comments. The paper is acceptable.
