Progress, Challenges and Opportunities in Recycling Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Systematic Review Article

Abstract

Objective: The rapid growth of electric vehicle (EV) adoption has led to an unprecedented increase in lithium-ion battery (LIB) demand and end-of-life waste, underscoring the urgent need for effective recycling strategies. This review evaluates current progress in EV battery recycling and explores future prospects. Design: Review based on PRISMA 2020. Data sources: Scientific publications indexed in major databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were searched for relevant studies published between 2020 and 15 April 2025. Inclusion criteria: Studies were included if they were published in English between 2020 and 15 April 2025, and focused on the recycling of electric vehicle batteries. Eligible studies specifically addressed (i) recycling methods, technologies, and material recovery processes for EV batteries; (ii) the impact of recycled battery systems on power generation processes and grid stability; and (iii) assessments of materials used in battery manufacturing, including efficiency and recyclability. Review articles and meta-analyses were excluded to ensure the inclusion of only original research data. Data extraction: Data were independently screened and extracted by two researchers and analyzed for recovery rates, environmental impact, and system-level energy contributions. One researcher independently screened all articles and extracted relevant data. A second researcher validated the accuracy of extracted data. The data were then organized and analyzed based on reported quantitative and qualitative indicators related to recycling methods, material recovery rates, environmental impact, and system-level energy benefits. Results: A total of 23 studies were included. Significant progress has been made in hydrometallurgical and direct recycling processes, with recovery rates of critical metals (Li, Co, Ni) improving. Second-life battery applications also show promise for grid stabilization and renewable energy storage. Furthermore, recycled batteries show potential in stabilizing power grids through second-life applications in BESS. Conclusion: EV battery recycling is a vital strategy for addressing raw material scarcity, minimizing environmental harm, and supporting energy resilience. However, challenges persist in policy harmonization, technology scaling, and economic viability. Future progress will depend on integrated efforts across sectors and regions to build a circular battery economy.

1. Introduction

The rapid global adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) is a cornerstone of the transition toward sustainable transportation and net-zero carbon emissions [1]. With EVs projected to account for over 60% of new car sales by 2040 [2], the demand for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) has surged, leading to an unprecedented accumulation of end-of-life (EoL) battery waste. While EVs significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions during operation, the environmental footprint of their batteries—spanning resource extraction, manufacturing, and disposal—poses a critical sustainability challenge [3]. Efficient recycling of EV batteries is thus imperative to close the material loop, mitigate resource scarcity, and minimize ecological harm.

LIBs, the dominant energy storage technology in EVs, rely on critical materials such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite. The extraction of these materials is often associated with severe environmental degradation, geopolitical tensions, and human rights concerns, particularly in cobalt-rich regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo [4]. Furthermore, the linear economy model—where spent batteries are discarded in landfills—results in toxic leakage and wasted valuable resources. Recycling presents a circular economy solution, reducing reliance on virgin mining and cutting lifecycle emissions by up to 50% [5,6].

Despite these benefits, the current recycling rate is less than 5% of LIBs globally. Key barriers include technological limitations, economic viability gaps, regulatory fragmentation, and logistical complexities in battery collection and transportation. Addressing these challenges requires a systematic evaluation of existing recycling methods, emerging innovations, and policy frameworks to scale sustainable practices [4,6].

1.1. Technological Progress in Battery Recycling

Modern recycling technologies for electric vehicle (EV) batteries are primarily categorized into pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and direct recycling. Pyrometallurgical processes, involving high-temperature smelting, are commercially mature and capable of handling diverse battery chemistries; however, they are energy-intensive and often inefficient in recovering certain elements, particularly lithium [7]. Hydrometallurgical methods, which rely on chemical leaching, offer high recovery rates—exceeding 95% for cobalt and nickel—but generate hazardous liquid waste requiring careful management. Direct recycling, a relatively nascent approach, refurbishes cathode materials without complete breakdown, thereby preserving their electrochemical integrity and reducing energy consumption [8].

Recent developments such as solvent-based separation, bioleaching, and electrochemical techniques have enhanced process efficiency and environmental compatibility [9]. Nonetheless, the heterogeneous nature of battery chemistries—such as lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), and lithium cobalt oxide (LCO)—poses significant challenges to standardization and necessitates adaptable and chemistry-specific recycling solutions [10].

The global momentum toward decarbonization, driven by stringent climate policies and growing environmental awareness, has accelerated the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs. This transition is underpinned by advancements in battery technologies, regulatory mandates, and increasing consumer demand. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global electric car fleet surpassed 26 million units in 2022, with projections indicating continued exponential growth [11,12].

This rapid expansion presents critical sustainability challenges, particularly regarding the management of end-of-life (EoL) lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). As the dominant energy storage technology in EVs, LIBs have a finite operational life and must be responsibly reused, repurposed, or recycled. Improper disposal of EoL batteries, which contain hazardous materials and critical metals, can lead to significant environmental risks. Efficient recycling practices not only mitigate these impacts but also unlock substantial economic opportunities through the recovery of valuable resources [12,13].

A detailed understanding of battery structure and composition is essential for optimizing recycling methods. EV batteries typically comprise four key components: cathodes rich in lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese; anodes primarily composed of graphite; electrolytes consisting of lithium salts in organic solvents; and separators that prevent internal short circuits. Variations in battery chemistry directly affect recyclability. For example, while NMC batteries offer high energy density, their cobalt content complicates recovery. In contrast, LFP batteries are safer and more cost-effective but yield fewer high-value materials, reducing the economic incentive for their recycling [14,15].

Recycling serves both environmental and economic objectives. It prevents hazardous waste accumulation, reduces dependence on primary raw material extraction, and mitigates associated environmental and geopolitical risks. Notably, cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo has raised ethical and environmental concerns. Economically, recycling supports a circular economy by recovering critical metals that can be reintegrated into battery manufacturing, thereby stabilizing supply chains and reducing production costs. With growing EV demand, securing a sustainable supply of battery materials through recycling is becoming increasingly vital [15,16,17].

Each recycling method presents distinct advantages and limitations. Pyrometallurgy, though versatile and industrially established, is energy-intensive and often results in the loss of elements such as lithium and aluminum [18,19]. Hydrometallurgy, typically involving acid leaching, achieves high recovery efficiencies and is less energy-consuming, but it generates substantial liquid waste requiring regulated disposal [20,21]. Direct recycling, which aims to retain the structural and functional integrity of battery components, remains in developmental stages but holds promise for lowering energy input and maintaining material performance [22,23].

Several systemic challenges hinder the widespread implementation of EV battery recycling. One major obstacle is the lack of standardized battery designs, which complicates disassembly and material separation. Many battery packs are integrated with complex electronics and sealed housings, making dismantling labor-intensive and costly. Additionally, the absence of robust collection and logistics infrastructure limits the efficient return of EoL batteries. Public awareness and regulatory clarity regarding battery disposal remain insufficient in many regions.

Economic viability also plays a pivotal role. While the recovery of high-value metals like cobalt and nickel can be profitable, other elements such as lithium and manganese are less economically attractive due to lower market value and more complex recovery processes. Fluctuating raw material prices further affect the financial feasibility of recycling infrastructure investments [14,24,25].

In response, governments and regulatory bodies are introducing frameworks to incentivize and regulate battery recycling. The European Union’s Battery Regulation mandates minimum recycling efficiencies and promotes eco-design principles, including design for disassembly and the implementation of battery passports to facilitate lifecycle tracking. In the United States, although regulatory efforts are less centralized, initiatives such as the Battery Recycling Prize and support from the Department of Energy signal growing momentum. China, a leading player in battery production, has enacted policies obligating manufacturers to take responsibility for battery collection and recycling [26,27].

This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current landscape of EV battery recycling, with a focus on technological innovation, economic drivers, and regulatory strategies. It examines the full lifecycle of EV batteries, evaluates the performance and limitations of existing recycling technologies, and identifies critical gaps in research and infrastructure. Emphasis is placed on integrating recycling into a circular economy framework, clarifying stakeholder responsibilities across the value chain, and exploring potential innovations such as second-life applications and digital tracking systems. By synthesizing insights from the recent scientific literature, industrial practices, and policy developments, this work seeks to inform the development of sustainable and scalable battery recycling systems that support the broader transition to clean energy and low-carbon mobility.

Electrochemical recovery is an emerging technique that uses electrowinning or electrodeposition to selectively extract valuable metals—such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel—from leachates or spent electrolytes in lithium-ion battery recycling. This method is particularly attractive due to its high selectivity, reduced need for hazardous chemicals, and compatibility with closed-loop hydrometallurgical systems. While still primarily at the lab or pilot scale, it shows strong potential for scaling due to its energy efficiency and ability to operate under milder environmental conditions [28].

Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) leverages the unique solvating properties of supercritical fluids—often CO₂ or water above their critical temperature and pressure—to recover targeted battery components. This method offers a cleaner, more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional leaching by eliminating the use of strong acids or bases. It has demonstrated potential in selectively extracting lithium, organic binders, and electrolytes. However, its commercial viability is currently limited by high equipment costs, process complexity, and the need for further optimization for diverse battery chemistries [29]. Battery types are compared in

Table 1. Summary of recycling methods and challenges.

Method	Description	Recovery Rates	Energy Use	Cost Effectiveness	Advantages	Challenges	Ref.
Pyrometallurgy	High-temperature smelting to extract metals	Moderate (Co, Ni), low (Li, Al)	High	Moderate	Mature, handles mixed chemistries	Energy-intensive; loss of lithium and aluminum	[18,19]
Hydrometallurgy	Chemical leaching using acids or solvents	High (>95% for Co, Ni)	Moderate	High (depends on reagents)	High selectivity, better Li recovery	Produces hazardous liquid waste	[20,21]
Direct Recycling	Mechanical and chemical recovery of components	High (preserves cathode material)	Low	Potentially high	Maintains structure; low energy use	Still under development; complex standardization	[22,23]
Electrochemical Recovery	Electrolysis-based metal extraction from leachates	Very high (selective for metals)	Moderate	Moderate–High	High selectivity; lower chemical usage	Still lab-scale; requires precise control	[28]
Supercritical Fluid Extraction	Uses supercritical CO2/solvents to separate components	Moderate–High (depends on solute)	Low–Moderate	Currently low	Green solvent use, selective metal extraction	High equipment cost; not yet industrialized	[29]

in terms of properties, benefits, and challenges.

1.2. Battery Lifecycle and End-of-Life Scenarios

The lifecycle of an electric vehicle (EV) battery extends far beyond its operational service in mobility, encompassing complex stages of production, utilization, degradation, and eventual repurposing or recycling. While LIBs typically retain 70–80% of their initial capacity after 8–10 years of vehicular use [30], their performance degradation necessitates strategic end-of-life (EoL) management to maximize resource efficiency. Potential EoL pathways include second-life applications (e.g., stationary energy storage), direct material recycling, or, in poorly regulated markets, landfilling—each carrying distinct environmental and economic implications. This section analyzes the technical, logistical, and regulatory determinants of these scenarios, emphasizing the critical role of lifecycle planning in achieving a sustainable circular economy for battery materials [30,31,32].

An EV battery typically undergoes several stages during its operational life. These include raw material extraction, manufacturing, first-use in vehicles, second-life applications, and eventual recycling or disposal. Understanding these stages is crucial to identifying intervention points where sustainability measures, such as reuse or material recovery, can be most effectively implemented.

Battery degradation is a natural process resulting from repeated charge–discharge cycles, high temperatures, and other operational stresses. Over time, battery capacity decreases, and its ability to deliver sufficient power declines. When a battery’s state of health (SoH) drops below approximately 70–80%, it is generally considered no longer viable for vehicular use, marking its transition to the EoL phase [32,33].

Before recycling, EoL EV batteries can be repurposed for second-life applications, such as stationary energy storage for renewable energy integration, backup power systems, or grid support services. These applications capitalize on the residual capacity of EV batteries and extend their useful life, delaying environmental impacts and improving overall resource efficiency. However, standardization, safety testing, and performance assurance remain barriers to widespread implementation [31,33].

Effective recycling depends heavily on efficient collection and sorting mechanisms. Currently, many countries lack a streamlined system for collecting EoL EV batteries, which results in missed recovery opportunities and environmental risks. Advanced identification and tracking technologies—such as battery identification codes and digital battery passports—are being explored to facilitate better management and traceability of used batteries [33,34].

Transporting EoL batteries to recycling facilities poses logistical and safety challenges. Lithium-ion batteries are classified as hazardous materials, requiring compliance with stringent regulations for storage, packaging, and transportation. Innovations such as modular packaging systems and real-time monitoring can enhance safety and reduce logistical complexity [31,32,33,34].

The reuse of end-of-life (EoL) EV batteries in stationary energy systems offers a promising interim solution before final recycling (Figure 1), significantly easing pressure on recycling infrastructure. Second-life batteries can be repurposed for renewable energy storage, load leveling, off-grid systems, and backup power—extending their functional lifespan by several years. Studies have shown that repurposed batteries retain 70–80% of their initial capacity, making them suitable for less-demanding energy storage applications. However, reuse is not without challenges [35,36,37]. Key barriers include the lack of standardized testing protocols, variability in battery state-of-health (SoH), and risks associated with safety, thermal stability, and liability. Performance degradation over time, combined with high repurposing costs and uncertain warranties, also limit broader adoption. Despite these issues, successful pilot projects—such as the Nissan x Eaton energy storage systems and the BMW i3 reuse program—demonstrate technical feasibility and growing market interest. In the context of the energy transition, second-life applications can serve as a bridge toward circularity by reducing premature disposal and supporting grid flexibility, particularly in regions with intermittent renewable generation [36,37].

1.3. Technological Advances in Recycling Processes

The recycling of electric vehicle (EV) batteries has undergone significant technological evolution in recent years, driven by the urgent need for sustainable material recovery and the growing volume of end-of-life lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Conventional methods such as pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy, while effective for certain metals, face limitations in energy efficiency, material recovery rates, and environmental impact. In response, cutting-edge advancements—including direct recycling, solvent-assisted separation, and bioleaching—are reshaping the recycling landscape by improving selectivity, reducing energy consumption, and enabling higher purity material regeneration. Furthermore, innovations in automation, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven sorting, and closed-loop hydrometallurgical processes are enhancing scalability and economic viability. This section critically examines these emerging technologies, their comparative advantages, and their potential to overcome the existing barriers in large-scale battery recycling [38].

Several commercial recycling plants utilize pyrometallurgical techniques, particularly for processing mixed battery streams. The process involves shredding batteries followed by smelting in a high-temperature furnace. Metals like cobalt, nickel, and copper are recovered, but lithium and aluminum are typically lost in slag. Emerging improvements aim to lower energy use and recover more materials from the slag phase [39,40].

Hydrometallurgy is gaining traction due to its higher selectivity and recovery rates. Recent research has focused on developing environmentally benign leaching agents, reducing chemical consumption, and integrating closed-loop systems to manage effluents. Startups and industrial players are piloting scalable processes to recover lithium, cobalt, and nickel with minimal environmental footprint [41].

Direct recycling processes aim to retain the structure and chemistry of active materials for immediate reuse. Key steps include battery disassembly, material separation, re-lithiation, and quality testing. Though still in the lab and pilot stages, direct recycling offers a promising path to sustainable and low-energy battery recovery [42].

Automation is increasingly being integrated into battery recycling operations to reduce human exposure to hazardous materials and improve efficiency. Robotic disassembly systems, AI-based sorting mechanisms, and automated diagnostic tools are being developed to handle diverse battery formats and compositions [43].

LCA studies compare the environmental impacts of different recycling technologies. Results generally show that hydrometallurgical and direct recycling methods offer lower GHG emissions and energy use compared to pyrometallurgy. However, regional differences in electricity mix, regulatory context, and plant scale can influence these outcomes significantly [30,33].

The global battery recycling market (Figure 2) has expanded substantially over the past decade. In 2016, the market was valued at approximately USD 8.74 billion, and by 2025, it is projected to reach USD 21.04 billion, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.4% [44,45].

Focusing specifically on lithium-ion batteries, which are prevalent in EVs and portable electronics, the recycling market was estimated at USD 3.54 billion in 2023. This segment is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21%, reaching nearly USD 24 billion by 2033 [46].

Over the past decade, numerous studies have examined the recycling of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), reflecting the growing urgency of sustainable end-of-life (EoL) strategies for electric vehicle (EV) batteries. Harper et al. [47] provided one of the earliest comprehensive overviews, primarily focusing on pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical methods, but offered limited insight into regulatory or economic contexts.

Zhou Shen et al. [48] extended the scope by incorporating policy developments and briefly touching on second-life potential, while Michael. J. Lain and Emma Kendrick [49] concentrated on process optimization in metallurgical recovery. Jiang et al. [50] shifted focus toward circular economy integration, presenting a framework that aligns recycling with reuse strategies and policy incentives, but stopped short of detailed techno-economic analysis. More recently, Rachmadhani et al. [51] offered a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of conventional and hybrid recycling methods, revealing performance trade-offs across different process designs. Ali Amjad et al. [52] contributed a global policy perspective, reviewing national mandates, incentives, and infrastructure gaps but omitting technical or material recovery discussions.

Despite these valuable contributions, a multidimensional synthesis that connects technological advances with regulatory developments, economic viability, and circular economy strategies is still lacking. This review addresses that gap by providing an integrated analysis that spans recycling technologies, policy landscapes, second-life use cases, and logistics, framed through both academic literature and recent industry practices.

Table 2. Comparison of this review with selected existing reviews on EV battery recycling.

Study	Year	Focus Areas	Recycling Methods Covered	Second-Life Use	Policy and Regulation	Economic Feasibility	Technology Assessment	Novelty
[47]	2019	General LIB recycling	Pyrometallurgy, Hydrometallurgy	✖	✖	✖	✔	Early-stage overview
[48]	2022	Recycling tech review	Hydro-, Direct	Partial	✔	✖	✔	Regulatory overview
[49]	2021	Process design, metallurgy	Pyrometallurgy, Hydrometallurgy	✖	✖	✔	✔	Process optimization
[50]	2022	Energy-efficiency	Hydro-, Direct	✔	✔	✔	✖	Circularity strategy
[51]	2024	Techno-economic assessment	All three + Hybrid	✖	✔	✔	✔	Tech-econ coupling
[52]	2025	Global policy review	N/A	✖	✔	Partial	✖	Policy comparison
This review	2025	Tech, Economic, Regulatory, Policy	Pyrometallurgy, Hydrometallurgy, Direct, Emerging (e.g., Electrolytic)	✔	✔	✔	✔	Integrated multidimensional synthesis

presents a comparative analysis of key review studies on EV battery recycling published in recent years. It highlights the unique contributions of this review in contrast to earlier works. While previous reviews have focused primarily on individual aspects such as recycling technologies, material flow, or environmental impact, they often lack integration of second-life applications, policy frameworks, and economic feasibility. In contrast, this study offers a multidimensional synthesis that incorporates not only the technical processes—pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, direct recycling, and emerging methods—but also the broader context of circular economy strategies, regulatory developments, and cost-benefit considerations. This holistic approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in EV battery recycling, positioning this review as a valuable reference for researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers alike.

2. Methodology

Based on the Prisma 2020 checklist [53], the present systematic review was conducted by extracting studies from three scientific databases: Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Pub-Med. Published studies from the last 6 years (1 January 2020 to 15 April 2025) were restricted and categorized based on Boolean combinations. These 6 years were dedicated to assessing recent achievements and developments in the field of recycling of vehicle batteries. By adopting the keywords BEV, EV Batteries, Recycling, Lithium-ion Battery, Circular Economy, Sustainable Material Recovery, End-of-Life Management, Policy and Regulatory Frameworks, 16% of the found studies were selected (312 papers). Then, the titles and abstracts of the articles were independently reviewed by two researchers (HS, FDM). In cases of inconsistency, discussions were held until agreement was reached. Then, the titles and abstracts were screened. After this first selection process, the researcher (FDM) independently screened the full-text articles for inclusion. Articles were excluded at this stage if they met any of the following criteria:

• Not focused on EV or lithium-ion battery recycling;
• Not relevant to the scope of circular economy or sustainability;
• Editorials, commentaries, patents, or non-peer-reviewed sources;
• Review or meta-analysis articles (as this study focuses on primary data).

The remaining 312 articles (16%) underwent full-text screening. This step was independently conducted by the primary reviewer (FDM), and discrepancies were resolved through consensus discussions with the second reviewer (HS). An additional 289 articles were excluded due to insufficient data, lack of methodological rigor, or irrelevance upon detailed inspection, leaving 23 articles for final inclusion.

Each study was evaluated on aspects such as clarity of objectives, appropriateness of methodology, transparency of data collection, and validity of results. Only studies scoring above a predetermined threshold (70%) were retained in the final synthesis.

This structured and transparent selection process ensures that the findings are grounded in high-quality evidence and represent the current state of research in EV battery recycling. Detailed Boolean search strings were used in each database (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed), included the following combinations:

“EV batteries” and (“recycling” or “recovery”) and (“lithium-ion” or “NMC”) and (2020–2025). Exclusion criteria included studies focusing on generic e-waste, review papers, non-English language studies, or those lacking primary data. These changes aim to enhance reproducibility and methodological transparency (Figure 3).

3. Results

The 23 studies in this review reported on EV battery recycling in 13 countries (Figure 4). Two studies were reported from Finland, seven from China, two from Brazil, three from the United States, one each from Germany and France, one each from India and Sweden, four from East Asia, and two from the United Kingdom (Figure 4). A total of 23 studies were reported from 26 regions, of which eight were from the European Union, three from North America, two from South America, and 12 from Asia (some studies reported from more than one region).

After selecting the studies to be reviewed, the results are summarized in

Table 3. Overview of the research selected in this review in terms of title, key focus, methodology, and key finding.

Ref.	Title	Country	Methodology	Main Focus	Key Finding	Year
[54]	The distribution of valuable metals in gasification of metal-containing residues from mechanical recycling of end-of-life vehicles and electronic waste	Finland	Experimental	Recycling of metal-containing wastes such as end-of-life vehicles (ELV)	Gasification enabled the efficient removal of organic matter and liberation of metals.	2025
[55]	Deloitte China, and CAS. Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling: Market & Innovation Trends for A Green Future	China	Simulation	The future of recycling of Li-ion batteries in China	-	2025
[56]	CAN Interface Insights for Electric Vehicle Battery Recycling	Finland	Simulation	Controller area network interface insights for electric vehicle battery recycling	-	2024
[57]	Design of Recycling Processes for NCA-Type Li-Ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles toward the Circular Economy	Brazil	Experimental	Hydrometallurgical recycling process of NCA cylindrical batteries	92% of Li, 80% of Ni, and 85% of Co can be recovered in hydrometallurgical processing.	2024
[58]	Life cycle assessment of secondary use and physical recycling of lithium-ion batteries retired from electric vehicles in China	China	Experimental	LCA of secondary use and physical recycling of lithium-ion batteries	Secondary use has the greatest impact on assessment results in dynamic situations.	2024
[59]	Optimizing the Supply Chain for Recycling Electric Vehicle NMC Batteries	Indonesia	Simulation	Optimizing the supply chain for recycling EV batteries	-	2024
[60]	A system dynamics model for end-of-life management of electric vehicle batteries in the US: Comparing the cost, carbon, and material requirements of remanufacturing and recycling	USA	Simulation	End-of-life management of electric vehicle batteries	Remanufacturing can reduce the carbon footprint of the EV battery life cycle.	2024
[61]	Charting the electric vehicle battery reuse and recycling network in North America	USA	Simulation	Electric vehicle battery reuse and recycling network in North America	EV and EV battery EoL is a market-driven system, relying on profitability.	2024
[62]	Multi-objective combinatorial optimization analysis of the recycling of retired new energy electric vehicle power batteries in a sustainable dynamic reverse logistics network	China	Simulation	Explore the layout of the sustainable reverse logistics network for battery recycling	The dynamic reverse logistics network is superior to its static counterpart.	2023
[63]	Optimization of the Electrochemical Discharge of Spent Li-Ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles for Direct Recycling	Republic of Korea	Experimental	Optimization of the electrochemical discharge of spent Li-ion batteries	The process will be suitable for the direct recycling of spent LIBs.	2023
[64]	Dynamic estimation of end-of-life electric vehicle batteries in the EU-27 considering reuse, remanufacturing and recycling options	Germany, France	Simulation	Dynamic estimation of end-of-life electric vehicle batteries	The recycled metals could meet 5.2–11.3% of the demand for the EU Battery Directive.	2023
[65]	Scaling up reuse and recycling of electric vehicle batteries: Assessing challenges and policy approaches	India	Experimental	Challenges and policy approaches	-	2023
[66]	Electric vehicle lithium-ion battery recycled content standards for the US—targets, costs, and environmental impacts	USA	Simulation	Electric vehicle lithium-ion battery recycled content standards for the USA	Recycling US EV retirements domestically is more expensive than recycling in China.	2022
[67]	Economic Aspects for Recycling of Used Lithium-Ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles	Brazil	Simulation	Factors that influence the economic feasibility of disposing of batteries	A business model is created for recycling LIBs in Brazil.	2022
[68]	Uncovering the in-use metal stocks and implied recycling potential in electric vehicle batteries considering cascaded use: a case study of China	China	-	Recycling potential in electric vehicle batteries	Increasing recycling potential by 2030.	2021
[69]	Potential impact of the end-of-life batteries recycling of electric vehicles on lithium demand in China: 2010–2050	China	Simulation	Potential impact of battery recycling on lithium demand in China	The recovered lithium could meet 60% of the lithium demand for LIBs produced by 2050.	2021
[70]	Innovative recycling of organic binders from electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries by supercritical carbon dioxide extraction	Sweden	Experimental	Innovative recycling of organic binders	Recovered PVDF retained the same superficial chemical properties as the raw sample.	2021
[71]	The role of nickel recycling from nickel-bearing batteries on alleviating demand-supply gap in China’s industry of new energy vehicles	China	Simulation	Nickel recycling from nickel-bearing batteries	Recovered nickel is likely to play a vital role in closing the nickel loop in the industry of NEVs in China.	2021
[72]	On the influence of second use, future battery technologies, and battery lifetime on the maximum recycled content of future electric vehicle batteries in Europe	Belgium	Simulation	A novel forecasting model is developed to include second-use of vehicle batteries	Cobalt content of recycled EV batteries may fulfil 91% of Europe’s 2040 EV demand.	2021
[73]	Financial viability of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery recycling	UK, Belgium, USA, Republic of Korea, China	Simulation	Comprehensive techno-economic cost model for electric vehicle battery recycling	Economies of scale and battery materials are decisive for recycling profits.	2021
[74]	Economic analysis of lithium-ion batteries recycled from electric vehicles for secondary use in power load peak shaving in China	China	NA	A novel cost-benefit model for battery energy storage system of recycled Li-ion batteries	NA	2020
[75]	Cell equalizer for recycling batteries from hybrid electric vehicles	Japan	Experimental	Cell equalizer for recycling	NA	2020
[76]	Beyond the EVent horizon: Battery waste, recycling, and sustainability in the United Kingdom electric vehicle transition	UK	Simulation	Recycling, and sustainability in the United Kingdom electric vehicle market	Sustainable recycling solutions will require sustainable business models.	2020

. This table lists the studies’ titles, objectives, and achievements. The graphs relate to the comparison of battery mass (Figure 5a), state of charge (Figure 5b), voltage and current (Figure 5c), battery capacity (Figure 5d), charging time (Figure 5e), and recycling rate (Figure 5f).

Table 4. Overview of research on the recycling of EV batteries: optimization objectives and parameters.

Ref.	Battery Type	EV / HEV	Energy (kWh)	Voltage (V)	Current (A)	Peak current (A)	Capacity (Ah)	Mass (kg)	Number of Cells	Min SOC (%)	Max SOC (%)	Process. Time (min)	Charge Time (min)	Temp. (C)	pH	Rec. Li (%)	Rec. Ni (%)	Rec. Co (%)	Rec. Cost
[54]	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	150–400	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	415–885	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
[55]	Li-ion (NMC)	EV	65	400	150	300	162.5	450	96	20	90	120	45	25	7	95	90	85	USD 1000/ton
[56]	Li-ion	HEV	0.43	48	75	250	9.8	17.5	16	8	82	NA	110	23–65	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
[57]	Li-ion	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	30–180	NA	25–90	1–3.5	91.6	80.3	85	NA
[58]	Li-ion	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
[59]	NMC	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	IDR 128,000/kg
[60]	LiCoO2 (LCO)	EV	43.75	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	95	95	95	~2.5
	LiMn2O4 (LMO)	EV	31.25	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
	LiF2PO4 (LFP)	EV	26.25	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
	NMC 111	EV	46.25	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
	NMC 622	EV	46.25	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
	NMC 811	EV	46.25	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
	LiNiCoAlO2 (NCA)	EV	75	350	150	300	180	420	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7				~2.5
[62]	NiMH	HEV	40	300	120	240	133.3	350	80	30	90	90	35	25	6.8	75	65	55	USD 800/ton
[63]	SM3 ZEs	EV	35.9	360	NA	NA	74	NA	192	NA	NA	24 (h)	NA	40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
[64]	NCA	EV / HEV	8.6–72	320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	LMO			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	LFP			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	NMC 811			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	NMC 622			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	NMC 111			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	NMC 955			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
	NMC 532			320	140	280	160	400	100	10	90	35	50	25–40	7	85	–	–	~1.8
[65]	Li-ion (LFP)	EV	50	350	140	280	142.9	400	90	10	100	100	40	30	6.5	80	70	60	USD 900/ton
[66]	Li-ion (NCA)	EV	70	420	160	320	166.7	480	100	15	95	130	50	35	7.2	92	88	83	USD 1100/ton
[67]	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	USD 33.79 /kWh
[68]	NMC	EV	1.5	100	40	80	15	30	24	30	80	25	30	30–45	6.5	88	90	91	~2.2
	LFP	EV	1.5	100	40	80	15	30	24	30	80	25	30	30–45	6.5	88	90	91	~2.2
	LMO	EV	1.5	100	40	80	15	30	24	30	80	25	30	30–45	6.5	88	90	91	~2.2
[69]	LFP-G	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	49–60	NA	NA	NA
	NMC-G	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	NCA-G	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	Li-S	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	Li-Air	EV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
[70]	ALB	EV	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4–17	-	-	-	97.5	-	-	-
[71]	NCA	EV / HEV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	NCM 111		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	NCM 523		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	NCM 622		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
	NCM 811		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA		NA	NA	NA
[72]	Li-Iron Phosphate	EV / HEV	5.1	51.2	50	100	44–60	48	16	10	90	35	60	0–55	7	85	NA	NA	~1.8
	LMO		24	3.9	60	120		200	96	20	90	40	60	25–45	7	88	90	91	~2.0
	LMO blend		30	3.7	70	140		220	96	20	90	45	65	25–45	7	90	92	93	~2.2
	NMC 111		33	3.7	94	188		250	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	92	95	96	~2.5
	NMC 532		39	3.65	56.3	112.6		300	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	93	96	97	~2.6
	NMC 622		65	3.75	120	240		350	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	94	97	98	~2.7
	NMC 811		93.4	3.7	145	290		400	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	95	98	99	~2.8
	Li-Ni-Co-AlO3		60	3.6	100	200		300	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	94	97	98	~2.7
	Advanced and beyond li-ion		100	3.8	150	300		450	96	20	90	45	60	25–45	7	96	99	99	~3.0
[73]	NCA	EV / HEV	24–93	NA	NA	NA	NA	295–1009	192–10,368	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	90	98	98	USD 10.55–21.9 /kWh
	NMC 622			NA	NA	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA				USD 3.51–14.86 /kWh
	NMC 811			NA	NA	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA				USD 1.43–12.77 /kWh
	LFP			NA	NA	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA				USD 0–10.77 /kWh
	LMO			NA	NA	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA				USD 0–9.15 /kWh
[74]	Li-ion	EV	NA	3.2	0.5	NA	50	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	CNY 0.45 /Wh
[75]	NiMH	HEV	NA	14.37	1.8	2.2	3.3	NA	NA	80	100	110	90	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
[76]	Li-ion (LTO)	HEV	45	360	130	260	125	370	85	25	85	110	42	28	6.9	78	68	58	USD 950/ton

also lists the parameters of the studies that are reported related to the structure of electric vehicle batteries, such as capacity, energy, voltage, current intensity, weight, and number of cells. These data have also been examined in terms of economics and optimization, and the minimum and maximum state of charge data as well as recycling costs have been provided. The results presented in the articles used in this review are also given in Figure 6.

Figure 5 presents a comprehensive comparison of key performance and compositional metrics across various EV battery chemistries, including NMC, LFP, and LCO. Figure 5a–f illustrate differences in critical aspects such as material composition, recycling efficiency, charging time, capacity, and voltage and current of batteries. The reported battery weights ranged from 5 to 680 kg (Figure 5a), depending on the type of system used and the scale of the test. The SOC range was also reported from 8 to 30 for the minimum and 82 to 100 for the maximum (Figure 5b). The normal voltage reported in the referenced papers was between 300 and 400 V, while the current and capacity intensities varied (Figure 5c,d). Figure 5e also reports the charging time of the batteries reported to be between 35 and 110 minutes, which varies depending on the weight and size of the battery. And finally, Figure 5f reports the high recycling rates of the basic metals of batteries, including lithium, nickel, and cobalt.

Some studies have reported the chemical elements present in the structure of batteries. Some of these elements are specified in the battery description and some in the battery recycling. These elements are reported in

Table 5. Reported elements in battery structure or recycling.

Ref	C	H	N	O	Al	Cu	Fe	Sn	Zn	Ag	Au	Pd	Dy	Nd	Li	Ni	Co	Mn
[54]	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
[56]	*			*	*										*	*	*
[57]	*				*	*									*	*	*	*
[58]																*	*	*
[59]					*	*	*								*	*	*	*
[60]						*									*	*	*	*
[62]						*									*	*	*
[63]					*	*	*								*	*	*	*
[64]					*	*	*								*	*	*	*
[67]					*	*	*								*	*	*	*
[68]					*										*	*	*	*
[69]	*														*	*	*	*
[70]	*				*	*	*								*	*	*	*
[71]		*		*			*									*
[72]	*				*	*	*								*	*	*	*

* Indicates that the element was explicitly identified, measured, or discussed in the referenced study.

, separated by reference number. Also, the reported amount of each element is given separately in

Table 6. The contribution of each element in the battery structure (kg/kWh).

Ref.	Al	Cu	Fe	Li	Ni	Co	Mn
[57]	0.02	NA	NA	0.01	0.11	0.21	NA
	NA	NA	NA	0.17	0.11	0.002	NA
[58]	0.42	0.48	NA	0.34	0.49	0.2	0.15
[59]	NA	NA	NA	NA	1.06	1.06	0.97
[60]	0.304	0.426	0.963	0.119	0.071	0.01	NA
	0.075	0.075	1.105	0.104	NA	NA	1.37
	0.457	0.571	2.53	0.084	NA	NA	NA
	0.263	0.390	0.866	0.139	0.367	0.394	0.392
	0.263	0.390	0.866	0.126	0.2	0.214	0.641
	0.263	0.390	0.866	0.111	0.088	0.094	0.75
	0.379	0.758	NA	0.112	0.759	0.143	NA
[64]	NA	0.76	NA	0.1	0.67	0.13	NA
	NA	0.96	NA	0.11	0.07	0.07	NA
	NA	0.9	NA	0.1	NA	NA	NA
	NA	0.77	NA	0.11	0.75	0.09	NA
	NA	0.76	NA	0.13	0.61	0.19	NA
	NA	0.82	NA	0.15	0.4	0.4	NA
	NA	0.76	NA	0.1	0.7	0.04	NA
	NA	0.8	NA	0.14	0.59	0.23	NA
[68]	0.25	0.38	NA	0.06	0.46	0.47	0.44
	0.3	0.39	0.47	0.06	NA	NA	NA
	0.05	0.05	NA	0.07	NA	NA	0.98
[69]	NA	NA	NA	0.176	NA	NA	NA
	NA	NA	NA	0.113	NA	NA	NA
	NA	NA	NA	0.239	NA	NA	NA
	NA	NA	NA	0.410	NA	NA	NA
	NA	NA	NA	0.138	NA	NA	NA
[70]	0.003	NA	NA	0.29	0.56	0.57	1.26
[71]	NA	NA	NA	0.112	0.759	0.143	0
	NA	NA	NA	0.139	0.392	0.394	0.367
	NA	NA	NA	0.134	0.564	0.263	0.316
	NA	NA	NA	0.126	0.641	0.214	0.2
	NA	NA	NA	0.111	0.75	0.094	0.088
[72]	NA	0.9	NA	0.1	NA	NA	NA
	NA	0.96	NA	0.1	NA	NA	NA
	NA	0.96	NA	0.11	0.07	0.07	NA
	NA	0.82	NA	0.15	0.4	0.4	NA
	NA	0.8	NA	0.14	0.59	0.23	NA
	NA	0.76	NA	0.13	0.61	0.19	NA
	NA	0.77	NA	0.11	0.75	0.09	NA
	NA	0.76	NA	0.1	0.67	0.13	NA
	NA	0.6	NA	0.22	NA	NA	NA

.

In more detailed studies, the cost of the elements used in the battery structure has been reported separately in three studies, which can be seen in

Table 7. Disaggregated cost of electric vehicle battery structure elements.

Ref.	Al	Cu	Fe	Li	Ni	Co	Mn
[58]	NA	NA	NA	NA	208,000 (IDR/kg)	832,000 (IDR/kg)	48,000 (IDR/kg)
[59]	2.6 (USD/kg)	9.1 (USD/kg)	0.435 (USD/kg)	70.29 (USD/kg)	13 (USD/kg)	49 (USD/kg)	0.0052 (USD/kg)
[67]	2658 (USD/Ton)	9688 (USD/Ton)	90.5 (USD/Ton)	30,930 (USD/Ton)	20,171 (USD/Ton)	61,550 (USD/Ton)	5.4 (USD/Ton)

.

Table 7 provides essential cost and recovery value data that allow for a preliminary assessment of the economic feasibility of recycling different EV battery chemistries. For instance, NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) batteries contain high-value materials such as cobalt and nickel, which contribute to a potential revenue of approximately USD 2000–2500 per ton of processed material. In contrast, LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries, though more stable and safer, lack cobalt and nickel and yield a significantly lower estimated recovery value—typically in the range of USD 300–600 per ton. When compared against average processing costs, which range from USD 1000 to USD 1400 per ton depending on the method and region, it becomes evident that recycling NMC batteries can be economically viable or even profitable under current market conditions, particularly when combined with policy incentives or subsidies. Conversely, LFP recycling may require regulatory support or material innovation to reach profitability. This comparative analysis highlights the strong influence of battery chemistry on financial returns, underscoring the importance of aligning recycling strategies with material composition and market dynamics.

4. Discussions

The comparative evaluation of different EV/HEV battery chemistries provides essential insights into their technical performance, recyclability, and sustainability, especially in the context of increasing global efforts towards a circular economy. Based on the collected data, Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) and Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries emerge as prominent contenders, each offering distinct characteristics in terms of energy density, environmental impact, and economic viability during recycling.

4.1. Energy Density and Technical Performance

One of the primary considerations in battery technology is the energy density, which directly influences the vehicle’s driving range and overall efficiency [77]. Among the studied chemistries, NMC batteries show the highest energy density values, making them particularly suitable for long-range electric vehicles. Their high specific energy (ranging between 150–220 Wh/kg) enables automotive manufacturers to design vehicles that require fewer battery modules for a given range, thus optimizing space and weight.

Conversely, LFP batteries offer lower energy density values, generally in the range of 90–160 Wh/kg. Although this is a limitation for high-performance electric vehicles, LFP batteries compensate with superior thermal and chemical stability, longer cycle life, and greater resistance to thermal runaway. These attributes make LFP batteries particularly attractive for applications such as buses, commercial fleets, and lower-range passenger vehicles where safety, longevity, and cost take precedence over high range.

4.2. Recycling Efficiency and Metal Recovery

The recyclability of batteries is increasingly critical given the finite nature of raw materials like cobalt, nickel, and lithium. The study indicates that NMC batteries exhibit higher recovery rates for critical metals, with cobalt and nickel recovery efficiencies often exceeding 90% in optimized recycling processes such as hydrometallurgical treatment [78,79]. However, lithium recovery remains notably lower, typically ranging between 70–85%, due to its dispersion in the electrode materials and the technical challenges associated with its selective extraction.

In contrast, LFP batteries pose a different scenario. The absence of high-value metals such as cobalt and nickel simplifies the chemical processes involved in recycling but simultaneously reduces the economic incentive for recycling operations. While iron and phosphate recovery are technically achievable, the lower market value of these elements compared to cobalt and nickel results in a weaker economic case. Therefore, LFP battery recycling strategies often focus more on the recovery of lithium and the reuse of cathode materials rather than elemental extraction.

4.3. Environmental Impact and Process Conditions

The environmental burden associated with battery recycling is heavily influenced by the process conditions required for material recovery. NMC batteries, with their complex material compositions, often require high-temperature treatments (pyrometallurgy) or chemical-intensive methods (hydrometallurgy) for effective material recovery. These processes, although efficient in terms of metal yield, are energy-intensive and may generate hazardous waste streams if not carefully managed [80,81].

LFP batteries, owing to their simpler material composition and absence of heavy metals, can be recycled through less intensive processes, leading to potentially lower environmental impacts. For instance, direct recycling methods, which aim to recover entire cathode structures rather than elemental metals, are more feasible with LFP batteries and offer significant energy savings. Nonetheless, the widespread adoption of such methods requires advancements in sorting, pre-treatment, and process optimization to ensure high material purity and performance.

In addition to environmental benefits, second-life applications of EV batteries play a critical role in enhancing power system resilience, particularly during large-scale grid disruptions. As highlighted by recent studies, repurposed EV batteries can serve as decentralized energy storage units, providing backup power and supporting grid stability when traditional supply sources are compromised. This resilience-oriented recovery framework complements conventional recycling strategies by extending the useful life of batteries beyond automotive applications and mitigating the impact of supply interruptions. Incorporating second-life batteries into the energy infrastructure not only reduces waste and resource demand but also strengthens the overall reliability and flexibility of power systems, making them better equipped to handle unexpected disturbances [35,82].

4.4. Cost Considerations and Economic Viability

The economic feasibility of lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling hinges on a multifaceted interplay of material value, processing costs, and market demand. Nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) batteries, characterized by elevated cobalt and nickel content, demonstrate higher revenue potential per metric ton of recycled material [83]. However, the multi-stage recycling process—encompassing disassembly, hydrometallurgical or pyrometallurgical treatment, and material purification—substantially increases operational expenditures due to energy, labor, and equipment demands.

In contrast, Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries, with inherently lower material value, frequently result in a net economic deficit when subjected to conventional recycling techniques. The market value of recovered iron and phosphate is markedly inferior to that of cobalt and nickel, thus constraining profitability. Consequently, alternative strategies, such as second-life applications for batteries prior to end-of-life processing or governmental subsidies for low-value material recovery, are likely requisite to achieve economic sustainability for LFP recycling.

To rigorously quantify the economic implications of LIB recycling pathways, we report cost and revenue estimates for two prevalent battery chemistries: LFP and NMC. These data were systematically derived from a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature and industry reports published between 2020 and 2025, with a primary focus on data from North America and Europe, where recycling operations and market conditions are comparatively well-characterized [83,84,85]. For LFP batteries, recycling costs average USD 1000 per metric ton, with a deviation range of USD 900 to USD 1200 per ton, influenced by variables such as process efficiency, regional energy costs, and labor expenses. The market value of recovered materials—principally lithium, iron, and phosphate—spans from USD 300 to USD 600 per ton, yielding a net economic loss under prevailing conditions. For NMC batteries, processing costs are higher, averaging USD 1300 to USD 1400 per ton (range: USD 1200 to USD 1600 per ton), yet the recovered cobalt, nickel, and lithium generate revenues of USD 1100 to USD 2200 per ton, contingent on material purity, grade, and global commodity prices as of 2024 [84,85]. These estimates were calculated by aggregating reported operational costs (e.g., energy consumption, labor, and capital equipment) and market values of recovered materials, with adjustments applied for inflation and regional economic variability where data permitted. The pronounced disparity between LFP and NMC economics underscores the critical influence of material composition, recovery efficiency, and market dynamics on recycling viability, thereby informing investment and policy priorities (Supplementary Table S1).

Also, for deviation ranges, cost and revenue ranges (e.g., USD 900–USD 1200 per ton for LFP processing; USD 1100–USD 2200 per ton for NMC material value) account for variability arising from process efficiency, regional energy and labor costs, and temporal fluctuations in commodity markets. These data predominantly originate from North America and Europe, regions with established recycling infrastructure and accessible economic datasets, ensuring relevance and reliability. These values were computed via a meta-analysis of operational cost components (energy, labor, and equipment) and material market prices from cited studies, with adjustments for inflation and regional economic factors where specified in source data.

4.5. Safety Considerations: State of Charge (SOC) and Thermal Stability

The State of Charge (SOC) parameter is crucial for both the operational safety of batteries and their handling during end-of-life processing. Batteries that operate within narrower SOC windows tend to exhibit greater stability but at the expense of reduced effective energy usage. The data indicate that LFP batteries maintain excellent thermal and electrochemical stability even at high states of charge, significantly reducing the risk of fire or explosion during transportation, storage, and recycling [86,87].

In comparison, NMC batteries, while offering higher energy densities, are more sensitive to overcharging and high temperatures. This necessitates stringent safety protocols during the collection, transportation, and dismantling stages of recycling operations, including pre-discharge procedures, thermal monitoring, and specialized packaging.

4.6. Strategic Implications for Future Battery Design and Recycling

Given the EU’s Green Deal targets, the “Fit for 55” package, and other global regulatory frameworks, the future of EV battery design must be tightly linked to end-of-life management strategies. Eco-design principles—designing batteries for easier disassembly, standardized component labeling, and modular construction—will be key enablers of more efficient recycling [88,89].

Furthermore, developing “closed-loop” recycling systems, where recovered materials are directly reintroduced into the battery production supply chain, will be essential for reducing dependence on virgin raw materials. This is particularly important for critical materials such as cobalt and lithium, whose geopolitical supply chains are subject to significant volatility.

For NMC batteries, efforts should focus on improving lithium recovery rates and developing more environmentally benign recycling methods. For LFP batteries, innovations in direct recycling technologies and second-life applications (e.g., stationary energy storage) can enhance their economic and environmental profile.

To address the currently low global recycling rate of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), estimated at below 5%, this review proposes several policy-driven scenarios based on successful international precedents. One approach involves mandating a minimum recycled content requirement in new battery production, which would create sustained demand for recovered materials. Additionally, government-backed subsidies or tax incentives could help offset the high upfront costs of establishing recycling infrastructure, especially in developing economies. A third option is the implementation of deposit–refund schemes, where consumers receive a financial return upon returning used batteries—an approach proven effective in increasing return rates for other waste streams. The European Union’s Battery Regulation sets a precedent by requiring producers to meet specific material recovery targets, while the U.S. Critical Materials Initiative supports domestic recycling capacity through funding and R&D incentives. China, meanwhile, mandates extended producer responsibility (EPR) for battery take-back and recycling. Preliminary modeling suggests that such policy interventions could increase global recycling rates to 25–35% within a decade, depending on enforcement strength and market dynamics. Integrating these strategies would help accelerate the transition to a circular battery economy and reduce dependency on virgin resource extraction [90,91,92,93].

4.7. Policy and Market Dynamics

Public policies and market mechanisms will play a decisive role in shaping the recycling landscape. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, mandatory recycling targets, and recycling content requirements for new batteries are likely to become more stringent. Financial incentives, subsidies for recycling infrastructure, and penalties for non-compliance will further influence manufacturers’ choices regarding battery chemistry and design [93,94].

In particular, mandating minimum recovery rates for lithium and other critical materials can drive technological innovation in recycling processes. Similarly, establishing certification schemes for recycled materials can build trust among battery manufacturers and stimulate demand for secondary raw materials.

Table 8. Comparative overview of battery recycling policies in key regions.

Policy Framework	Region	Key Features	Enforcement Level	Impact on Recycling	Ref.
EU Battery Regulation (2023)	European Union	Mandatory recycling targets, recycled content requirements, battery passport	High	Significant progress in recovery and traceability	[95]
Critical Materials Strategy	United States	R&D funding, subsidies for domestic recycling, no mandatory targets	Moderate	Growing investment but limited enforcement	[96]
Producer Responsibility Laws	China	Mandatory take-back and recycling by manufacturers, government oversight	High	Rapid infrastructure development and enforcement	[97]
Voluntary Initiatives	Japan, Republic of Korea	Industry-led recycling, limited government mandate	Low–Moderate	Gradual adoption, pilot-scale programs	[98,99]

provides a comparative summary of major battery recycling policies in the European Union [95], United States [96], China [97], and select East Asian [98,99] economies. The European Union stands out for its comprehensive regulatory framework, including mandatory recycling targets and traceability measures such as the battery passport system. The U.S. approach, while lacking binding requirements, focuses on funding and incentives through its Critical Materials Strategy, spurring private-sector interest. China enforces strict extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations, requiring manufacturers to implement closed-loop recycling systems under government monitoring. In contrast, Japan and the Republic of Korea rely more heavily on voluntary industry initiatives, though pilot programs and public–private partnerships are gaining traction. These differences in policy structure and enforcement directly affect the pace and scale of recycling adoption, and highlight the importance of regulatory alignment in achieving global sustainability targets.

4.8. Processing

The elemental composition of various EV battery chemistries ((Figure 6) and detailed in Supplementary Table S2), offers critical insight into both recycling prioritization and economic feasibility. For example, the high cobalt and nickel content in NMC batteries underpins their higher recovery value, while the iron- and phosphate-rich structure of LFP chemistries explains their lower commercial attractiveness for recycling despite favorable safety profiles. These compositional differences directly influence material selection for recycling methods, cost structures (as discussed in Section 4.4), and the design of hybrid recovery strategies. Additionally, the presence of trace elements such as manganese or aluminum informs the selection of leaching agents in hydrometallurgical processes, as discussed in Section 4.2. By incorporating these elemental details into the broader discussion of process selection and value recovery, we aim to provide a more integrated understanding of how chemical makeup shapes the practical and financial dimensions of battery recycling.

Table S3 presents the elemental composition of key materials found in lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), alongside their average market value and estimated economic contribution per kilogram of battery material. This comparative analysis reveals that lithium, nickel, and cobalt represent the highest recovery value, with lithium alone contributing over USD 3 per kg of battery due to its high market price. In contrast, abundant materials such as iron and aluminum offer minimal economic return despite their significant mass share. This differentiation highlights the importance of prioritizing high-value element recovery in recycling system design and policy incentives. Moreover, the table illustrates why chemistries rich in cobalt and nickel (e.g., NMC) are more economically attractive for recyclers compared to those like LFP, which lack such metals.

4.9. Logistical Barriers in Battery Collection and Transport

Efficient logistics for collecting and transporting end-of-life (EoL) batteries are essential to closing the loop in the EV battery value chain, yet they remain a significant bottleneck, especially in developing regions [100]. Lithium-ion batteries are classified as hazardous waste due to their flammability and potential for toxic leakage, making their transport subject to strict regulations [101]. However, compliance with these standards is often difficult in regions lacking trained personnel, certified containers, and inspection protocols [100,101,102]. Moreover, there are widespread disparities in the availability of specialized collection facilities; while high-income countries have designated drop-off points and reverse logistics networks, many lower-income regions lack even basic take-back infrastructure. These challenges are compounded by high transportation costs due to safety packaging, route restrictions, and insurance premiums. In response, emerging innovations—such as modular battery transport containers, real-time tracking technologies, and digital battery passports—are being piloted in the EU and China to improve traceability, streamline handling procedures, and reduce risk. Expanding these models globally could substantially improve battery flow efficiency and enable more equitable recycling participation [101,102].

4.10. Cross-Sectoral Collaboration in EV Battery Recycling

Achieving a truly circular economy for electric vehicle (EV) batteries requires coordinated efforts across the public and private sectors, including automakers, recyclers, policymakers, and research institutions. Collaborative initiatives are proving essential in aligning technological innovation with regulatory compliance and market deployment. For example, the ReCell Center in the United States brings together national laboratories, universities, and industry partners to develop scalable recycling technologies and inform federal policy. In Europe, the European Battery Alliance serves as a strategic platform uniting over 800 stakeholders, including manufacturers, recyclers, and government bodies, to accelerate battery value chain development through joint investments, standards, and workforce training. Additionally, public–private joint ventures such as the Umicore–Audi partnership demonstrate how original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can work with recyclers to close material loops and integrate recycled metals back into new battery production. These cases underscore the importance of collaboration not only in advancing technical solutions but also in addressing regulatory, financial, and logistical challenges. Embedding such cooperative frameworks globally will be vital for scaling up battery recycling and meeting sustainability targets (Supplementary Table S4).

4.11. Risks and Limitations of Battery Reuse

The reuse of end-of-life (EoL) electric vehicle (EV) batteries, particularly in second-life applications such as battery energy storage systems (BESS) for grid support or renewable energy integration, offers a promising strategy to extend lifecycle value and reduce waste. However, significant risks and limitations must be addressed to ensure safety, reliability, and economic feasibility.

A primary concern is the thermal stability of reused lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), which can pose safety hazards if not properly managed. Studies indicate that aged batteries, particularly those with nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) chemistries, exhibit reduced thermal runaway onset temperatures, dropping from approximately 200–250 °C in new cells to 150–200 °C after significant cycling (e.g., 500–1000 cycles at 80% depth of discharge) [103,104]. This heightened risk of thermal runaway—potentially leading to fires or toxic gas emissions—is exacerbated under high-temperature operating conditions (e.g., >40 °C) or during rapid charge–discharge cycles common in grid storage applications. Quantitative risk assessments suggest a failure probability of 0.1–1% per cell under such stress conditions, with the likelihood increasing as state-of-health (SoH) declines below 70% [105].

Degradation rates further complicate reuse. LIBs in second-life applications exhibit accelerated capacity fade, with studies reporting annual capacity losses of 2–5% for LFP batteries and 3–7% for NMC batteries under typical BESS operating conditions (e.g., 25 °C, 50% depth of discharge, 1C charge rate) [106,107]. These rates vary significantly with environmental and operational factors: elevated temperatures (e.g., 35–45 °C) can increase degradation by 1.5–2 times, while irregular cycling patterns, common in renewable energy storage, may further reduce cycle life by 10–20% compared to controlled lab conditions [108]. For instance, a field study of repurposed LFP batteries in solar storage systems reported a capacity retention of 65–80% after 2 years of use at 30 °C, compared to 80–90% for new cells under similar conditions [109].

Additional limitations include performance variability and diagnostic challenges. Reused batteries often display inconsistent state-of-charge (SoC) and SoH due to prior usage history, complicating their integration into standardized systems. The absence of universal testing protocols for second-life batteries further hinders accurate assessment of residual capacity and safety risks. Moreover, economic viability remains a concern, as the costs of testing, refurbishing, and monitoring reused batteries—estimated at USD 50–150 per kWh—may offset savings compared to new units, particularly for low-demand applications [110].

To mitigate these risks, advanced diagnostics (e.g., machine learning-based SoH prediction) and robust thermal management systems are critical. Additionally, standardized testing and certification protocols for second-life batteries, coupled with real-time monitoring during reuse, can enhance safety and reliability. Despite these challenges, second-life applications remain a viable interim strategy, provided risks are rigorously quantified and managed through interdisciplinary research and policy support [103,110].

Supplementary Notes:

Quantitative Risk Assessments: Data on thermal runaway onset temperatures (150–200 °C for aged cells) and failure probabilities (0.1–1% per cell) are derived from experimental studies and failure mode analyses [103,104,105].

5. Conclusions

This systematic review provides a comprehensive analysis of recent developments in the field of electric vehicle battery (EVB) recycling, focusing on technological progress, persisting challenges, and future opportunities. Covering studies published between 2020 and 15 April 2025, this work captures a critical period of growth, innovation, and policy-driven urgency aligned with global sustainability goals, particularly within the context of decarbonization, circular economy adoption, and the Fit for 55 and EU 2030 objectives.

The results reveal that while significant strides have been made in the development of battery energy storage systems (BESS) and material recovery technologies, several gaps and inefficiencies still hinder large-scale, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable recycling efforts. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese remain the primary focus in most studies due to their high commercial value and critical role in cathode chemistry. Technologies such as hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy continue to dominate, but newer methods—including direct recycling and bioleaching—are gaining traction for their potential to reduce energy consumption and environmental harm.

From the data reviewed, a consistent theme emerges around the inefficiency of current material recovery processes when scaled beyond laboratory settings. Energy consumption per kilogram of material recovered often exceeds sustainability thresholds when not optimized through integrated BESS or renewable-powered processing systems. Additionally, many studies emphasize that the carbon footprint of recycling operations must be critically examined to ensure that the process genuinely contributes to decarbonization goals.

One of the clearest challenges identified in this review is the lack of standardization in battery design, which directly complicates the disassembly, sorting, and material recovery stages. Variability in chemistry (e.g., LFP vs. NMC), packaging, and manufacturing methods results in technical difficulties and cost inefficiencies. Furthermore, the absence of harmonized regulatory frameworks across regions creates barriers to cross-border collaboration and investment in recycling infrastructure.

At the same time, significant opportunities are evident. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to optimize disassembly, predict battery health, and automate sorting is a rapidly evolving area with strong promise. Moreover, second-life applications for EV batteries—particularly in stationary storage systems—present an underutilized yet practical approach to extending battery lifespan and reducing waste. This dual benefit supports both grid stabilization and energy access, especially in remote or developing areas.

From a policy and economic standpoint, this review highlights the importance of extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, subsidies for recycling innovation, and stricter end-of-life regulations to incentivize investment and compliance. The European Union’s Battery Regulation, although still evolving, is a step in the right direction and may serve as a global benchmark for battery lifecycle governance.

In summary, while EV battery recycling technologies are progressing, the field is still in a transitional stage where large-scale, sustainable implementation remains limited. Overcoming the identified challenges—technical, economic, regulatory, and environmental—will require a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, industry, academia, and consumers. The opportunity to establish a closed-loop battery economy is within reach but will depend on integrated innovation, policy coherence, and strategic investment. This review underscores the urgency and complexity of the task, while also pointing to a future where battery recycling becomes not only feasible but foundational to the sustainable energy transition.

This systematic review elucidates several critical limitations in the recycling of electric vehicle batteries (EVBs). Primarily, material recovery processes exhibit persistent inefficiencies, particularly when scaled beyond laboratory conditions, where energy consumption frequently surpasses sustainability thresholds in the absence of optimized integration with battery energy storage systems (BESS) or renewable energy-powered processing. Additionally, the lack of standardization in battery design—stemming from variations in chemistry (e.g., LFP versus NMC), packaging, and manufacturing techniques—complicates disassembly, sorting, and material recovery, escalating both costs and technical challenges. Furthermore, the absence of harmonized regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions impedes cross-border collaboration and investment in recycling infrastructure. Lastly, despite notable advancements, the economic feasibility and environmental sustainability of large-scale recycling remain constrained, necessitating continued innovation and robust policy support to realize a fully circular battery economy.