research report about recycling

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Perceptions and realities of recycling vary widely from place to place

Most Americans have access to some sort of recycling program. However, the rules, practices and community norms around recycling vary considerably from place to place, contributing to dramatically different local recycling levels. People who live in places where social norms strongly encourage recycling are more likely to be aware of recycling rules, say they have more options for recycling, and see more of the waste they generate being recycled rather than landfilled, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

The survey, part of a study covering issues involving climate change, energy and the environment , found that about three-in-ten Americans (28%) say their local community’s social norms strongly encourage recycling and re-use. About a fifth (22%) say most people in their communities don’t really encourage recycling; the remaining half live in places where, they say, norms around recycling are somewhere in the middle.

The study comes as U.S. recycling rates, after rising for decades, have plateaued. The Environmental Protection Agency says that in 2013, the most recent year for which it has data, Americans recycled or composted 1.51 pounds of waste per day, a figure that’s changed little since 2006. On the other hand, Americans are doing better at creating less trash in the first place: Per-capita waste generation has fallen from 4.7 pounds per person per day in 2006 to 4.4 pounds in 2013, and total municipal solid waste generation fell by 3 million tons.

A recent study conducted for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition , an industry group, estimated that 94% of the U.S. population has some type of recycling program available to them: About 30% have curbside collection only, 43% have both curbside service and drop-off centers and 21% have drop-off programs only. (This generally aligns with findings from the EPA, which has estimated that in 2011, there were more than 9,800 curbside recycling programs throughout the U.S., covering more than 70% of the population.)

Curbside collection is more common in larger cities and towns: 93% of the communities in the SPC study with populations greater than 125,000 provided single-family curbside recycling, as opposed to 65% of communities with populations below 50,000. (The Pew Research Center survey, interestingly, found a similar pattern but with lower rates: About seven-in-ten people living in urban and suburban communities said they had curbside recycling, compared with just four-in-ten rural residents, or 40%.)

But just because recycling programs exist doesn’t mean everyone with access to them actually recycles. According to the EPA, only 34.3% of the 254.1 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in 2013 was recovered through recycling or composting; the overall recovery rate has actually slipped a bit since peaking at 34.7% in 2011. (“Municipal solid waste” is the term of art for what most of us think of as trash; it excludes construction and demolition debris, wastewater treatment sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes. “Recovery” includes recycling and composting, but not burning waste to produce energy.)

Other researchers using different methodologies have come up with higher waste-generation estimates and lower recovery rates. For example, a new report from the Environmental Research & Education Foundation  estimates U.S. municipal solid waste generation in 2013 at 347 million tons, with 27% of it being recycled or composted. Columbia University’s Earth Engineering Center , using a broader definition of municipal solid waste than the EPA, surveyed state and local waste management agencies and came up with an estimate of 389 million tons generated in 2011, with 29% recycled or composted.

Using data from the Columbia study, we calculated that California (53.4%), Maine (51.5%) and Washington state (50.1%) had the highest recovery rates for municipal solid waste in the nation in 2011; Oklahoma (3.7%), Alaska (4.5%) and Mississippi (4.8%) had the lowest.

Looking beyond these overall recovery rates, local recycling programs vary considerably in which materials they accept and the degree to which residents must separate different materials. The Pew Research Center survey found that 59% of the public believes that “most types of items” can be recycled in their community; another 26% characterize their options as “some,” and 13% say only a few types of items can be recycled where they live. And the people who live in places that strongly encourage recycling also are more likely to say that most types of items can be recycled there.

But the perception that communities recycle “most types of items” obscures the markedly different rates at which various types of waste actually are recycled or composted. According to our analysis of the EPA data, 99% of lead-acid batteries (the sort found in cars and trucks), 88.5% of corrugated cardboard boxes, and 67% of newspapers, directories and the like were recycled as of 2013. On the other hand, only 28.2% of high-density polyethylene containers (such as milk jugs) were recycled, as were 13.5% of plastic bags and wraps and only 6.2% of small appliances. Three-fifths (60.2%) of yard trimmings were composted, but just 5% of food waste was.

One category of solid waste that’s grown rapidly, in both quantity generated and amount recycled, is consumer electronics – TVs, computer equipment, phones, DVD players and the like. According to the EPA report , 40.4% of the 3.1 million tons of consumer electronics that entered the wastestream in 2013 were recycled, up from 30.6% in 2012.

About half (48%) of adults in the Pew Research Center survey say their community has services for recycling electronic devices, though about a third (34%) say they aren’t sure. People living in places that strongly encourage recycling in general are much more likely to say that electronics are recycled in their local areas most or some of the time, compared with people who live in communities that “do not really encourage” recycling (62% versus 15%).

A challenge for many community-based recycling programs, especially in recent years, is that they’re losing money. Recycling, at root, is a commodity business, and lower prices for wood pulp, aluminum, oil (out of which plastics are made) and other feedstock commodities are pushing many recyclers into the red . That, in turn, has forced localities to pay recycling companies to accept their collected bottles, cans and paper, when just a few years ago the recyclers paid them.

Advocates say there are other important considerations in favor of recycling – prime among them that making products with recycled materials rather than virgin stock uses less energy and thus creates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA estimates that the 87.2 million tons of materials recycled or composted in 2013 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of more than 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. However, critics point out that almost 80% of those greenhouse-gas benefits come from paper and paperboard recycling, and most of the remainer comes from recycling steel, aluminum and other metals.

Note: The topline for the Pew Research Center survey is available here (PDF) , and the methodology is here .

• Climate, Energy & Environment

Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at Pew Research Center .

How Republicans view climate change and energy issues

How americans view future harms from climate change in their community and around the u.s., americans continue to have doubts about climate scientists’ understanding of climate change, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report

• Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report
• Benefits of Recycling

The Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report aims to increase the understanding of the economic implications of material reuse and recycling. Recycling is a critical part of the U.S. economy – contributing to jobs, wages and government tax revenue. Recycling has been an important component of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decades-long efforts to implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its more recent efforts to pursue a Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) approach, which aims to reduce the environmental impacts of materials across their lifecycle. EPA’s SMM program provides data, information, guidelines, tools and technical assistance on resource conservation, recycling, resource recovery, waste reduction and landfilling issues.

Recycling also conserves resources and protects the environment. Environmental benefits include reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills and combustion facilities; conserving natural resources, such as timber, water and minerals; and preventing pollution by reducing the need to collect new raw materials. Economic and community benefits include increasing economic security by tapping a domestic source of materials, supporting American manufacturing and creating jobs in the recycling and manufacturing industries.

On this page:

Background on the REI Report

Key findings of the 2020 rei report.

• What is the significance of the 2020 REI Report?
• What is the significance of the report's title?
• How does the REI Report approach recycling?
• How does the report relate to Sustainable Materials Management (SMM)?
• What are the main outcomes and takeaways of the report?
• What was the methodology behind the 2020 REI Report and how does an input-output model work?
• Which methodological approach was used to provide the statistics and metrics?
• What are the data sources for this report?
• How does the 2020 REI Report differ from the 2016 REI Report?
• Does this report include "pre-use" or recycled materials that are reused within the manufacturing sector?

In 2001, to encourage the development of an economic market for recycling, EPA supported the creation of a national Recycling Economic Information (REI) Project and the related REI report, based upon the work of several states and regions. Compiled through a cooperative agreement with the National Recycling Coalition, the study confirmed what many have known for decades: there are significant economic benefits in recycling.

EPA updated the 2001 REI Study in 2016 with a new analytical framework for estimating the broader environmental and economic impacts associated with recycling. Based on 2007 input-output data maintained by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the 2016 Report developed a Waste Input-Output (WIO) model designed to capture the flow of material inputs and outputs, as well as the flow of goods and wastes. It also covered the economic activities of nine sectors: ferrous metals, nonferrous metals (aluminum), glass, paper, plastics, rubber, construction and demolition (C&D), electronics and organics (including food and yard trimmings). Finally, the 2016 study  incorporated the notion of material transformation into the definition of recycling, allowing the model to capture the process influence from refurbishing or remanufacturing of goods, providing a more realistic scope of the entire process.

The 2020 REI Report builds off its 2016 predecessor by presenting updated results for the nine material categories using the same WIO model, based on 2012 BEA data. The report estimates changes in recycling’s total economic impacts, including wages, employment and tax revenue generated to support recycling activities as an aggregate and for each material. In addition, it provides a comparison of the results between the updated model and the 2016 version.

The 2020 REI Report includes updated information about the number of recycling jobs, wages and tax revenue. The report shows that recycling and reuse of materials creates jobs, while also generating local and state tax revenues. In 2012, recycling and reuse activities in the United States accounted for:

• 681,000 jobs
• $37.8 billion in wages; and
• $5.5 billion in tax revenues

This equates to 1.17 jobs for every 1,000 tons of materials recycled. The ferrous metals industry provides the largest contribution to all three categories (job, wage, and tax revenue), followed by construction and demolition (C&D) and non-ferrous metals such as aluminum.

The 2020 REI Report uses an analytical framework and a Waste Input-Output methodology, which focused on the life cycle of materials. These were developed with the 2016 REI Study and updated with the most recent iteration of the report. This methodology will assist decision makers and researchers in more accurately estimating the economic benefits of recycling and create a foundation upon which additional studies can be built.

• Read the 2020 REI Report and Methodology

Frequent Questions

1. What is the significance of the 2020 REI Report?

Recycling conserves natural resources, strengthens our economy and creates jobs. Recycling is an essential part of Sustainable Materials Management (SMM), an approach that emphasizes the productive and sustainable use of materials across their entire life cycle, while minimizing their environmental impacts. The 2020 REI Report builds off an analytical framework that was developed with the 2016 REI Study, which focuses on SMM. The 2020 REI Report covers the economic activities of nine sectors: ferrous metals, nonferrous metals (aluminum), glass, paper, plastics, rubber, construction and demolition (C&D), electronics and organics (including food and yard trimmings).

2. What is the significance of the report's title?

The 2020 Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report builds on the work from the 2001 and 2016 REI studies. The report focuses on the economic impacts of recycling rather than the environmental benefits, as the environmental benefits have been researched in detail. Accurately estimating the impact that recycling has on jobs, wages and taxes is important because the results can influence policy decisions and provide a more robust picture of recycling by adding an economic layer on top of the more heavily researched environmental impacts of recycling.

3. How does the REI report approach recycling?

The REI report approaches recycling as the recovery of materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, metals, construction and demolition (C&D) material and organics from the waste stream (e.g., municipal solid waste), along with the transformation of materials, to make new products and reduce the amount of virgin raw materials needed to meet consumer demands. The 2020 REI Report identifies nine materials and investigates their direct and indirect impact on jobs, wages and taxes.

4. How does the report relate to Sustainable Materials Management (SMM)?

SMM refers to the use and reuse of materials in the most productive and sustainable way across their entire life cycle. On a broader scale, SMM examines social, environmental and economic factors, each playing a critical role, to get a more holistic view of the entire system. The benefits of maximizing this connection include conserving resources, reducing waste, slowing climate change and minimizing the environmental impacts of the materials we use. Since the third key element to SMM is economics, it was important to update the REI Report to provide an economic and systemic view of recycling.

5. What are the main outcomes and takeaways of the report?

The 2020 REI Report reiterates that recycling and recycled products play an important role in our economy and have significant positive impacts on jobs, wages and tax collections.

On a national average, there are 1.17 jobs, $65,230 wages and $9,420 tax revenues attributable, for every 1,000 (US) tons of recyclables collected and recycled.

6. What was the methodology behind the 2020 REI Report and how does an input-output model work?

EPA developed a waste input-output (WIO) model to provide an improved analytical framework for better understanding the contributions of recycling to the U.S. economy. Instead of examining the job codes within the context of an I-O model, the 2020 REI Report focuses on nine material categories and follows the flow of materials through the WIO model. By focusing on material categories, the model identifies direct impacts of recycling on jobs, wages and taxes and then upstream indirect impacts. The WIO model builds on the official U.S. input-output (I-O) tables maintained by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). These tables describe the economic transactions between industries in the U.S. and are used to formulate U.S. monetary and fiscal policy. Using the I-O tables as the starting point, the WIO model adds information about recyclable and recycled material flows in the U.S., and information about employment and local, state and federal tax revenue. Combining this information with the detailed statistics regarding economic transactions enables the estimation of the economic activity attributable to recycling.

For more specific information about the methodology (including examples) please see the methodology paper Chapter 3: Summary of the WIO Model Methodology

7. Which methodological approach was used to provide the statistics and metrics?

The "direct and indirect production of recycling" , also called the total impacts approach in the methodology document, was chosen to communicate the results of the study. The total impacts approach accounted for not only direct, but also upstream supply chain economic activity attributable to recycling processes. In addition to the total impacts approach, three other approaches were analyzed and are explained in detail in the methodology document .

8. What are the data sources for the report?

The key data sources for this report include industry outreach, existing reports (including government, industry and other publicly available reports) and life cycle inventory datasets. Below is a list of organizations and industry associations involved in the data sourcing for this report:

9. How does the 2020 REI Report differ from the 2016 REI Report?

The differences between the 2020 REI Report and the 2016 REI Report are primarily in the base years of data and recycling trends. Detailed benchmark input-output statistics from BEA, which serve as the source data for REI reports, come out roughly every five years; as such, the 2016 study used a base year of 2007, while the 2020 study uses a base year of 2012. Furthermore, there were changes to the REI modeling methods for estimating recycling process inputs, which can result in substantial changes in total impacts. In this case, the recycling process inputs data for plastics and C&D recycling are estimated from publicly available process-based life cycle assessment data sources, and thus may reflect a difference in scope compared to the 2007 model.

10. Does this report include "pre-use" or recycling materials that are reused within the manufacturing sector?

No. “Pre-use” or recycled materials that are reused within the manufacturing sector were not included primarily due to a lack of data.

• Built Environment
• Electric Arc Furnace Slag
• Industrial Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
• Recycled-Content Products
• Recycling Economic Information Report
• Resources, Waste, and Climate Change
• SMM Prioritization Tools
• Additional SMM Tools
• Past SMM Webinars

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Reduce, reuse, redirect outrage: How plastic makers used recycling as a fig leaf

Michael Copley

A registered scavenger, who mainly collects plastic waste to sell, walking in a landfill in Indonesia. Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A registered scavenger, who mainly collects plastic waste to sell, walking in a landfill in Indonesia.

The plastics industry has worked for decades to convince people and policymakers that recycling would keep waste out of landfills and the environment. Consumers sort their trash so plastic packaging can be repurposed, and local governments use taxpayer money to gather and process the material. Yet from the early days of recycling, plastic makers, including oil and gas companies, knew that it wasn't a viable solution to deal with increasing amounts of waste, according to documents uncovered by the Center for Climate Integrity .

Around the time the plastics industry launched its recycling campaign, the head of a trade group called the Vinyl Institute acknowledged at a 1989 conference that "recycling cannot go on indefinitely, and does not solve the solid waste problem."

One of the biggest challenges is that making new plastic is relatively cheap. But recycling generally costs as much as or more than the material is worth, a director of environmental solutions at B.F. Goodrich explained at another industry meeting in 1992 . The "basic issue," he said, "is economics."

Investigations

How big oil misled the public into believing plastic would be recycled.

But the industry appears to have championed recycling mainly for its public relations value, rather than as a tool for avoiding environmental damage, the documents suggest. "We are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results," a vice president at Exxon Chemical said during a meeting in 1994 with staff for the American Plastics Council, a trade group.

Ross Eisenberg, president of an industry group called America's Plastic Makers, said in a statement that the report from the Center for Climate Integrity "cites outdated, decades-old technologies, and works against our goals to be more sustainable by mischaracterizing the industry and the state of today's recycling technologies. This undermines the essential benefits of plastics and the important work underway to improve the way plastics are used and reused to meet society's needs."

America's Plastic Makers has set a goal for all plastic packaging in the U.S. to be "reused, recycled, recovered by 2040," Eisenberg said.

The Center for Climate Integrity compiled the documents in a report titled " The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big Oil and the plastics industry deceived the public for decades and caused the plastic waste crisis ." It builds on earlier investigations, including by NPR , that have shown the plastics industry promoted recycling even though its officials have long known that the activity would probably never be effective on a large scale.

The world is awash in plastic. Oil producers want a say in how it's cleaned up

Former industry officials have said the goal was to avoid regulations and ensure that demand for plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, kept growing. Despite years of recycling campaigns, less than 10% of plastic waste gets recycled globally , and the amount of plastic waste that's dumped in the environment continues to soar .

The idea that recycling can solve the problem of plastic waste "has always been a fraud, and it's always been a way for the industry to sell more plastic," says Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which says it is working to hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in fueling climate change.

A pile of plastic waste and other garbage next to children playing on a bridge in the Philippines. George Calvelo/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A pile of plastic waste and other garbage next to children playing on a bridge in the Philippines.

The U.N. is leading negotiations for a global plastics treaty

The Center for Climate Integrity published its report two months before the next round of United Nations talks is held in Canada for a legally binding global agreement on plastic waste. Negotiators from around 150 countries are expected to attend, as well as public health advocates, human rights activists, environmentalists and the oil and gas industry.

There's recently been growing concern among those who want deep cuts in plastic waste that plastic producers — corporations as well as countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia — could weaken a global treaty by prioritizing recycling and other forms of waste management, rather than substantial cuts in new plastic production.

Global talks to cut plastic waste stall as industry and environmental groups clash

For fossil fuel producers, the petrochemical sector, which includes plastics, is crucial to business. As technologies like electric vehicles grow more popular, demand for products such as gasoline and diesel fuel is expected to decline . But oil and gas demand for petrochemicals is projected to continue rising for years . That's why the fossil fuel industry has a big stake in the outcome of the U.N. talks. If countries agree to reduce plastic manufacturing, it could hurt the industry's future profits.

Some experts say that creates a conflict of interest. Reducing how much new plastic gets made in the first place is a "prerequisite" to getting pollution under control, Carsten Wachholz, who works at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and co-leads the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, said late last year. But "if your businesses depend on extracting more oil and gas, and plastics is the fastest growing market for fossil fuels, it's hard to imagine that you would be a credible voice to say we need to limit plastic production," he said.

Global shift to clean energy means fossil fuel demand will peak soon, IEA says

After the last round of negotiations ended in Kenya in November 2023, environmental groups complained that oil and gas producers blocked a final decision on how to advance the deliberations.

An industry advocacy group called American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers has said that restricting fossil fuel production and plastic manufacturing are not good solutions. Instead, it said the goals of the treaty can be achieved "if waste is recyclable, properly managed and kept out of the environment."

An ExxonMobil spokesperson said in a statement in November 2023 that the company is "launching real solutions to address plastic waste and improve recycling rates." The company has previously said the problem of plastic waste can be solved without cutting how much plastic society uses.

Exxon is among a group of companies that have been investing in what the industry calls "advanced recycling" plants. The facilities are designed to turn plastic waste, including material that can't be processed through traditional mechanical recycling, into liquids and gasses that can then be used to make new plastics and other chemical products.

"Advanced recycling is a real, proven solution that can help address plastic waste and improve recycling rates," Exxon said in a statement to NPR.

However, critics say the technology is ineffective and harmful to the environment and human health.

The economics of plastic recycling "haven't changed at all. Not at all. And if virgin [plastic] was always cheaper and of higher quality, that's still the case today," says Wiles of the Center for Climate Integrity.

He says the plastics industry continues to mislead the public and needs to be held responsible for it.

"And from there, you can begin to have a conversation about how we're going to solve the problem," Wiles says. "But without accountability, you just can't get to solutions."

• climate change
• oil and gas
• microplastics

Advertisement

A review of waste paper recycling networks focusing on quantitative methods and sustainability

• Published: 13 October 2020
• Volume 23 , pages 55–76, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Cristiane Maria Defalque   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6984-5405 1 , 2 ,
• Fernando Augusto Silva Marins 1 ,
• Aneirson Francisco da Silva 1 &
• Elen Yanina Aguirre Rodríguez 1  

1257 Accesses

6 Citations

Explore all metrics

A discussion is currently under way in the literature on the sustainable benefits of recycling material, particularly paper, which has high global consumption and polluting capacity. Optimized planning of waste paper recycling networks stimulates sustainable processing efficiency, motivating the investigation of quantitative methods to guide decision-making. The objective of this article is to review papers that present quantitative models for planning waste paper recycling networks considering optimization of the echelons of this process, to analyze the evolution of research, find research opportunities and contribute to future research. The article presents an analysis of five categories of the selected studies: I—evolution of publications; II—echelons considered in different waste paper recycling systems; III—the sustainability pillars considered in the objectives of the formulated model; IV—formulations and techniques used; and V—uncertainty analysis. The proposal for waste paper recycling networks involves summary of the echelons considered in selected articles, to help future analysis. Research suggestions involving sustainability objectives, especially considering social issues, using different solution techniques and considering uncertainty were identified. This study, by reviewing the articles and identifying possibilities for future research, contributes to the development of research using quantitative methods for the efficient management of waste paper recycling networks or similar arrangements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: prepared by the authors. The data were obtained from Scopus— www.scopus.com and Web of Science— www.webofknowledge.com . The maps were built using VOSviewer [ 63 ]

Source: prepared by the authors

Source: prepared by the authors. Selected articles (Table 3 ) available in databases and other references described in “ Research method ”

Source: prepared by the author. Selected articles (Table 3 ) available in databases and other references described in “ Research method ”. Number of citations obtained from Scopus— www.scopus.com and Web of Science— www.webofknowledge.com

Source: prepared by the authors, based on echelons considered in the analyzed articles (Table 3 )

Source: prepared by the authors, based on echelons and operations verified in the analyzed articles (Table 3 )

Source: prepared by the authors, based on analyses of the selected articles (Table 3 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste prevention for sustainable resource and waste management.

Waste management and green technology: future trends in circular economy leading towards environmental sustainability

Measuring the recycling potential of industrial waste for long-term sustainability

European Parliament and Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Off J Eur Union L 312:3–30 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=RO . Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Brasil (2010) Lei nº 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos; altera a Lei nº 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998; e dá outras providências (in Portuguese). In: Brasília, DF. Presidência da República. . https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm . Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Brasil (2010) Decreto nº 7.404, de 23 de dezembro de 2010. Regulamenta a Lei nº 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010, que institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos, cria o Comitê Interministerial da Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos e o Comitê Orientador para a Implantação dos Sistemas de Logística Reversa, e dá outras providências (in Portuguese). In: Brasília, DF. Presidência da República planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007–2010/2010/Decreto/D7404.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Govindan K, Soleimani H, Kannan D (2015) Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur J Oper Res 240:603–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.012

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Ervasti I, Miranda R, Kauranen I (2016) A global, comprehensive review of literature related to paper recycling: A pressing need for a uniform system of terms and definitions. Waste Manag 48:64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.11.020

Article   Google Scholar  

Kara SS, Onut S (2010) A two-stage stochastic and robust programming approach to strategic planning of a reverse supply network: The case of paper recycling. Expert Syst Appl 37:6129–6137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.116

Rajeev A, Pati RK, Padhi SS, Govindan K (2017) Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J Clean Prod 162:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, Oxford, United Kingdom

Google Scholar  

IPIECA/API (2005) Oil and Gas Industry Guidance on Voluntary Sustainability Reporting. Using Environmental , Health & Safety , Social and Economic Performance Indicators. In: London, United Kingdom and Washington. DC, USA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and American Petroleum Institute. https://www.ingenieroambiental.com/4030/reporting_guide.pdf . Accessed 6 Oct 2017

Alumur SA, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-Gama F, Verter V (2012) Multi-period reverse logistics network design. Eur J Oper Res 220:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.045

Melo MT, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-Gama F (2009) Facility location and supply chain management – A review. Eur J Oper Res 196:401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007

Soleimani H, Govindan K, Saghafi H, Jafari H (2017) Fuzzy multi-objective sustainable and green closed-loop supply chain network design. Comput Ind Eng 109:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.038

Yu H, Solvang WD (2016) A general reverse logistics network design model for product reuse and recycling with environmental considerations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87:2693–2711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8612-6

Chen Y-W, Wang L-C, Wang A, Chen T-L (2017) A particle swarm approach for optimizing a multi-stage closed loop supply chain for the solar cell industry. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 43:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.10.006

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers; knowledge Papers No. 15.World Bank, Washington 281:44 p. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13058

Villanueva A, Wenzel H (2007) Paper waste – Recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Manag 27:S29–S46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.019

Schmidt JH, Holm P, Merrild A, Christensen P (2007) Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy – A Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Manag 27:1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.004

Pati RK, Vrat P (2010) Economic paper blending optimization model with competing materials. Manag Environ Qual An Int J 21:602–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831011067917

Sahamie R, Stindt D, Nuss C (2013) Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable Operations - An Application to Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Bus Strateg Environ 22:245–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1771

Berglund C, Söderholm P, Nilsson M (2002) A note on inter-country differences in waste paper recovery and utilization. Resour Conserv Recycl 34:175–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00101-X

Ervasti I, Miranda R, Kauranen I (2016) Paper recycling framework, the “Wheel of Fiber”. J Environ Manage 174:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.004

Miranda R, Concepcion Monte M, Blanco A (2011) Impact of increased collection rates and the use of commingled collection systems on the quality of recovered paper. Part 1: Increased collection rates. Waste Manag 31:2208–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.006

Cormier D, Magnan M (1997) Investors’ assessment of implicit environmental liabilities: An empirical investigation. J Account Public Policy 16:215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00002-1

ABNT (2009) NBR ISO 14040: Gestão ambiental - Avaliação do ciclo de vida - Princípios e estrutura (in Portuguese). In: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas 1–22

Hart A, Clift R, Riddlestone S, Buntin J (2005) Use of Life Cycle Assessment to Develop Industrial Ecologies—A Case Study: Graphics Paper. Process Saf Environ Prot 83:359–363. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.04391

Sevigné-Itoiz E, Gasol CM, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2015) Methodology of supporting decision-making of waste management with material flow analysis (MFA) and consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA): case study of waste paper recycling. J Clean Prod 105:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.026

Berglund C, Söderholm P (2003) Complementing Empirical Evidence on Global Recycling and Trade of Waste Paper. World Dev 31:743–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00007-X

Van Beukering PJH, Bouman MN (2001) Empirical Evidence on Recycling and Trade of Paper and Lead in Developed and Developing Countries. World Dev 29:1717–1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00065-1

Nielsen L (2011) Classifications of Countries Based on Their Level of Development : How it is Done and How it Could be Done. Washington, DC, United States https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1131.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Salema MIG, Barbosa-Povoa AP, Novais AQ (2007) An optimization model for the design of a capacitated multi-product reverse logistics network with uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 179:1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.032

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Roghanian E, Pazhoheshfar P (2014) An optimization model for reverse logistics network under stochastic environment by using genetic algorithm. J Manuf Syst 33:348–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.02.007

Sheriff KMM, Subramanian N, Rahman S, Jayaram J (2017) Integrated optimization model and methodology for plastics recycling: Indian empirical evidence. J Clean Prod 153:707–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.137

Alwaeli M (2011) An Economic Analysis of Joined Costs and Beneficial Effects of Waste Recycling. Environ Prot Eng 37:92–103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287455009_An_economic_analysis_of_joined_costs_and_beneficial_effects_of_waste_recycling

Feitó-Cespón M, Sarache W, Piedra-Jimenez F, Cespón-Castro R (2017) Redesign of a sustainable reverse supply chain under uncertainty: A case study. J Clean Prod 151:206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.057

Zhalechian M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Rahimi Y (2017) A self-adaptive evolutionary algorithm for a fuzzy multi-objective hub location problem: an integration of responsiveness and social responsibility. Eng Appl Artif Intell 62:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.03.006

Govindan K, Paam P, Abtahi A-R (2016) A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sustainable reverse logistics network design. Ecol Indic 67:753–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.017

Farrokhi-Asl H, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Asgarian B, Sangari E (2017) Metaheuristics for a bi-objective location-routing-problem in waste collection management. J Ind Prod Eng 34:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1253619

Hahler S, Fleischmann M (2017) Strategic grading in the product acquisition process of a reverse supply chain. Prod Oper Manag 26:1498–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12699

John ST, Sridharan R, Kumar PNR (2017) Multi-period reverse logistics network design with emission cost. Int J Logist Manag 28:127–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2015-0143

Demirel N, Özceylan E, Paksoy T, Gökçen H (2014) A genetic algorithm approach for optimising a closed-loop supply chain network with crisp and fuzzy objectives. Int J Prod Res 52:3637–3664. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.879616

Hosseinzadeh M, Roghanian E (2012) An Optimization Model for Reverse Logistics Network under Stochastic Environment Using Genetic Algorithm. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci 3:249–264

Moghaddam KS (2015) Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation in reverse logistics systems under supply and demand uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 42:6237–6254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.010

Nadizadeh A, Kafash B (2017) Fuzzy capacitated location-routing problem with simultaneous pickup and delivery demands. Transp Lett. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2016.1270798

Gooran AN, Rafiei H, Rabani M (2018) Modeling risk and uncertainty in designing reverse logistics problem. Decis Sci Lett 1:13–24. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2017.5.001

Babazadeh R, Jolai F, Razmi J (2015) Developing scenario-based robust optimisation approaches for the reverse logistics network design problem under uncertain environments. Int J Serv Oper Manag 20:418. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2015.068526

Pishvaee MS, Rabbani M, Torabi SA (2011) A robust optimization approach to closed-loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Appl Math Model 35:637–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.07.013

Agrawal S, Singh RK, Murtaza Q (2015) A literature review and perspectives in reverse logistics. Resour Conserv Recycl 97:76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.009

Akçalı E, Çetinkaya S, Üster H (2009) Network design for reverse and closed-loop supply chains: An annotated bibliography of models and solution approaches. Networks 53:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.20267

Barbosa-Póvoa AP, da Silva C, Carvalho A (2018) Opportunities and challenges in sustainable supply chain: An operations research perspective. Eur J Oper Res 268:399–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.036

Dekker R, Bloemhof J, Mallidis I (2012) Operations Research for green logistics - An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. Eur J Oper Res 219:671–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.010

Fleischmann M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Dekker R et al (1997) Quantitative models for reverse logistics: A review. Eur J Oper Res 103:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00230-0

Govindan K, Soleimani H (2017) A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a Journal of Cleaner Production focus. J Clean Prod 142:371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.126

Govindan K, Fattahi M, Keyvanshokooh E (2017) Supply chain network design under uncertainty: A comprehensive review and future research directions. Eur J Oper Res 263:108–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.009

Ilgin MA, Gupta SM (2010) Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. J Environ Manage 91:563–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.037

Jaehn F, Juopperi R (2019) A Description of Supply Chain Planning Problems in the Paper Industry with Literature Review. Asia-Pacific J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595919500040

Lyeme HA, Mushi A, Nkansah-Gyekye Y (2017) Review of multi-objective optimization models for solid waste management systems with environmental considerations. J Math Comput Sci 7:150–174. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312525358_REVIEW_OF_MULTI-OBJECTIVE_OPTIMIZATION_MODELS_FOR_SOLID_WASTE_MANAGEMENT_SYSTEMS_WITH_ENVIRONMENTAL_CONSIDERATIONS

Singh A, Trivedi A (2016) Sustainable green supply chain management: trends and current practices. Compet Rev 26:265–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-05-2015-0034

Stindt D, Sahamie R (2014) Review of research on closed loop supply chain management in the process industry. Flex Serv Manuf J 26:268–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-012-9137-4

Tang CS, Zhou S (2012) Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations. Eur J Oper Res 223:585–594. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.030

Van Engeland J, Beliën J, De Boeck L, De Jaeger S (2020) Literature review: Strategic network optimization models in waste reverse supply chains. Omega 91:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.12.001

Rutkowski J, Rutkowski E (2017) Recycling in Brasil: Paper and Plastic Supply Chain. Resources 6:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030043

Fleischmann M, Beullens P, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Wassenhove LN (2001) The Impact of Product Recovery on Logistics Network Design. Prod OperManag 10:156–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00076.x

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Wassenhove LN, Gabel HL, Weaver PM (1996) An environmental life cycle optimization model for the European pulp and paper industry. Omega 24:615–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00026-6

Frota Neto JQ, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Nunen JAEE, Van Heck E (2008) Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks. Int J Prod Econ 111:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.014

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Economic analysis of paper recycling vis-à-vis wood as raw material. Int J Prod Econ 103:489–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.08.006

Zhou X, Zhou Y (2015) Designing a multi-echelon reverse logistics operation and network: A case study of office paper in Beijing. Resouces Conserv Recycl 100:58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.04.009

Byström S, Lönnstedt L (1997) Paper recycling: environmental and economic impact. Resour Conserv Recycl 21:109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(97)00031-1

Safaei AS, Roozbeh A, Paydar MM (2017) A robust optimization model for the design of a cardboard closed-loop supply chain. J Clean Prod 166:1154–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.085

Glassey CR, Gupta VK (1974) A Linear Programming Analysis of Paper Recycling. Manage Sci 21:392–408. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.21.4.392

Kleineidam U, Lambert AJD, Blansjaar J et al (2000) Optimising product recycling chains by control theory. Int J Prod Econ 66:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(99)00120-6

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2008) A MILP Model for design of paper recycling network. Int J Ecol Dev 9:69–86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296422_A_MILP_Model_for_design_of_paper_recycling_network

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2009) Decision-Making Model For Economical Wastepaper Collection. Product A Q J Natl Product Counc 49:265–271. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296517_Decision_Support_Model_for_Economic_Waste_Paper_Collection

Suyabatmaz AÇ, Altekin FT, Şahin G (2014) Hybrid simulation-analytical modeling approaches for the reverse logistics network design of a third-party logistics provider. Comput Ind Eng 70:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.01.004

Li M, Wang X, Zhang X, Li X (2018) Optimization design of multi-echelon recycling networks for third-party reverse logistics provider in the context of binary path selection. Acad J Manuf Eng 16:97–105. https://auif.utcluj.ro/images/PDF_AJME_2018_16_1/L13.pdf

Takamatsu T, Shioya S, Tsujimoto Y (1982) Optimal inter-regional distribution of waste paper and board in the waste paper recycling system. Resour Conserv 8:95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3097(82)90035-9

Wang C-H, Even JC, Adams SK (1995) A mixed-integer linear model for optimal processing and transport of secondary materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 15:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(95)00024-D

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2007) Three-win strategy with optimisation approach for recycled paper manufacturer. Int J Environ Waste Manag 1:269. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2007.013636

Bogh MB, Mikkelsen H, Wohlk S (2014) Collection of recyclables from cubes - A case study. Socioecon Plann Sci 48:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2014.02.001

Entezaminia A, Heidari M, Rahmani D (2017) Robust aggregate production planning in a green supply chain under uncertainty considering reverse logistics: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90:1507–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9459-6

Georgiadis P (2013) An integrated system dynamics model for strategic capacity planning in closed-loop recycling networks: A dynamic analysis for the paper industry. Simul Model Pract Theory 32:116–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2012.11.009

Kara SS, Onut S (2010) A stochastic optimization approach for paper recycling reverse logistics network design under uncertainty. Int J Environ Sci Technol 7:717–730. https://link.springer.com/article/ https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326181#citeas

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2004) Cost optimisation model in recycled waste reverse logistics system. Int J Bus Perform Manag 6:245. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2004.005631

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Integrated chain analysis of recycled vis-à-vis wood pulp paper industry: An Indian manufacturer viewpoint. Int J Value Chain Manag 1:44–63. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVCM.2006.009023

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2008) A goal programming model for paper recycling system. Omega 36:405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.04.014

Rahmani-Ahranjani A, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Seifbarghy M, Najafi E (2017) Managing Environmentally Conscious in Designing Closed-loop Supply Chain for the Paper Industry. Int J Eng 30:1038–1047. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2017.30.07a.13

Rahmani-Ahranjani A, Seifbarghy M, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Najafi E (2018) Closed-loop supply chain network design for the paper industry: A multi-objective stochastic robust approach. Sci Iran 25:2881–2903. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4464

Rinsatitnon N, Dijaroen W, Limpiwun T, et al (2018) Reverse logistics implementation in the construction industry: Paper waste focus. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 40:798–805. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2018.113

Schweiger K, Sahamie R (2013) A hybrid Tabu Search approach for the design of a paper recycling network. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 50:98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.10.006

Sharma N, Balan S, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Analysis of bullwhip effect in reverse supply chain. J Adv Manag Res 3:18–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/97279810680001243

Tseng S-H, Wee HM, Song PS, Jeng S (2019) Optimal green supply-chain model design considering full truckload. Kybernetes 48:2150–2174. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2018-0415

Rahman MO, Hussain A, Basri H (2014) A critical review on waste paper sorting techniques. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:551–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0222-3

UNCTADStat (2018) Development status groups and composition. In: United Nations Conf. Trade Dev. - UNCTADStat. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/Classifications/DimCountries_DevelopmentStatus_Hierarchy.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2019

World Bank (2017) Data Bank World Bank.org Population 2017. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/POP.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

T&A (2017) A Indústria de Papel e Celulose na Índia (in Portuguese). In: T&A Consult. https://investexportbrasil.dpr.gov.br/arquivos/PesquisasMercado/PMRIndiaSetorPapeleiro2017.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2014) The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies. Soc Sci Res Netw. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2540085

Council for the Environment Infrastructure (2013) DUTCH LOGISTICS 2040: DESIGNED TO LAST. www.rli.nl . Accessed 3 Nov 2018

Bing X, Bloemhof JM, Ramos TRP et al (2016) Research challenges in municipal solid waste logistics management. Waste Manag 48:584–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.025

Sharma VK, van Beukering P, Nag B (1997) Environmental and economic policy analysis of waste paper trade and recycling in India. Resour Conserv Recycl 21:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(97)00025-6

Alwaeli M (2015) An Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Poland. The Current Situation. Problems and Challenges Environ Prot Eng 41:181–193. https://doi.org/10.5277/epe150414

Alwaeli M (2009) Editorial. Waste Manag 29:3054–3055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.004

Levlin J-E, Read B, Grossmann H, et al (2010) COST Action E48 – The Future of Paper Recycling in Europe: Opportunities and Limitations. The Paper Industry Technical Association (PITA), Bury, Greater Manchester, England https://www.cost.eu/publications/the-future-of-paper-recycling-in-europe-opportunities-and-limitations . Accessed 31 Jul 2020

Feng H, Tomonari S (2013) Cause analysis of low collection rate of Chinese waste paper. pp 685–695. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/173/24503 . Accessed 31 Jul 2020

Wu X (2013) Optimization of waste paper’s enzymatic deinking processes based on neural network and particle swarm optimization. Proc - 2013 Int Conf Mechatron Sci Electr Eng Comput MEC 2013:44–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/MEC.2013.6885048

Vashisth S, Bennington CPJ, Grace JR, Kerekes RJ (2011) Column Flotation Deinking: State-of-the-art and opportunities. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:1154–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.013

Leu HG, Lin SH (1998) Cost-benefit analysis of resource material recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 23:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00020-2

Fleischmann M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Beullens P, Dekker R (2004) Reverse Logistics Network Design. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 83–87. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24803-3

Cheung WM, Pachisia V (2015) Facilitating waste paper recycling and repurposing via cost modelling of machine failure, labour availability and waste quantity. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.011

Ahluwalia PK, Nema AK (2011) Capacity planning for electronic waste management facilities under uncertainty: multi-objective multi-time-step model development. Waste Manag Res 29:694–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10382592

Van Beukering PJH, Schoon E, Mani A (1996) The Informal Sector and Waste Paper Recovery in Bombay. Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/8124IIED.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, WassenhoveVLN (2004) Quantitative Models for Reverse Logistics Decision Making. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, p 34. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24803-3

Xu Z, Elomri A, Pokharel S et al (2017) Global reverse supply chain design for solid waste recycling under uncertainties and carbon emission constraint. Waste Manag 64:358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.02.024

Fleischmann M, Krikke HR, Dekker R, Flapper SDP (2000) A characterisation of logistics networks for product recovery. Omega 28:653–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00022-0

Alem D (2011) Programação estocástica e otimização robusta no planejamento da produção de empresas moveleiras (in Portuguese). https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/55/55134/tde-29112011-162103/publico/alem.pdf . Accessed 27 Dec 2019

Alem D, Morabito R (2015) Planejamento da produção sob incerteza: programação estocástica versus otimização robusta (in Portuguese). Gestão & Produção 22:539–551. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1211-14

da Silva AF, Marins FAS (2014) Revisão da literatura sobre modelos de Programação por Metas determinística e sob incerteza (in Portuguese). Production 25:92–112. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132014005000003

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq—302730/2018; CNPq—303350/2018-0), the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP—2018/06858-0; FAPESP—2018/14433-0) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Production Department, Engineering College-São Paulo State University, Avenida Ariberto Pereira da Cunha, 333, Portal das Colinas, Guaratinguetá, SP, 12516-410, Brazil

Cristiane Maria Defalque, Fernando Augusto Silva Marins, Aneirson Francisco da Silva & Elen Yanina Aguirre Rodríguez

Agulhas Negras Military Academy (Academia Militar das Agulhas Negras-AMAN), Rodovia Presidente Dutra, km 306, s/nº, Resende, RJ, 27534-970, Brazil

Cristiane Maria Defalque

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristiane Maria Defalque .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Defalque, C.M., Marins, F.A.S., da Silva, A.F. et al. A review of waste paper recycling networks focusing on quantitative methods and sustainability. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23 , 55–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01124-0

Download citation

Received : 29 April 2020

Accepted : 25 September 2020

Published : 13 October 2020

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01124-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Waste paper recycling
• Network planning
• Sustainability
• Quantitative modeling
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Materials (Basel)

Recent Advancements in Plastic Packaging Recycling: A Mini-Review

Valentina beghetto.

1 Department of Molecular Sciences and Nanosystems, University Ca’Foscari of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172 Mestre, Italy; [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (C.B.); ti.evinu.duts@900078 (M.A.-A.); [email protected] (M.F.)

2 Crossing S.r.l., Viale della Repubblica 193/b, 31100 Treviso, Italy

Roberto Sole

Chiara buranello, marco al-abkal, manuela facchin, associated data.

Not applicable.

Today, the scientific community is facing crucial challenges in delivering a healthier world for future generations. Among these, the quest for circular and sustainable approaches for plastic recycling is one of the most demanding for several reasons. Indeed, the massive use of plastic materials over the last century has generated large amounts of long-lasting waste, which, for much time, has not been object of adequate recovery and disposal politics. Most of this waste is generated by packaging materials. Nevertheless, in the last decade, a new trend imposed by environmental concerns brought this topic under the magnifying glass, as testified by the increasing number of related publications. Several methods have been proposed for the recycling of polymeric plastic materials based on chemical or mechanical methods. A panorama of the most promising studies related to the recycling of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polystyrene (PS) is given within this review.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the health of our planet has become a problem of crucial importance, with plastic recovery and disposal being of primary relevance [ 1 ].

Since the introduction of Bakelite in 1907 by Leo H. Baekeland, the first fully synthetic polymer, the plastic industry has evolved to revolutionize the way we live [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Polymers and plastic products own their well-known ubiquity and massive use to their excellent chemical–physical properties, which guarantee light weight, low price, and endurance [ 6 ]. Thanks to their great versatility, plastics are among the most used materials and find applications in many industrial sectors such as packaging, automotive vehicles, construction, and electronic devices [ 1 , 7 , 8 ]. Worldwide, over 360 Mt of fossil-based polymers are produced yearly, with an annual growth rate of 8.4%, two times higher than world global gross growth rate of production over the same period [ 5 ] ( Figure 1 a). The European plastic converter demand in 2018 reached 51.2 Mt, mainly to produce polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polystyrene (PS) ( Figure 1 b). These are mainly employed for packaging (39.9%), construction (19.8%), automotive vehicles (9.9%), and electronic devices (6.2%) [ 9 ] ( Figure 1 c).

( a ) World polymer production in metric tons; ( b ) distribution of main polymers produced; ( c ) 2018 European plastic converter demand and use.

A gradual switch to biobased plastics has been witnessed by the increasing use at an industrial level of alternative raw materials [ 10 , 11 ] such as polylactic acid (PLA) [ 12 ], polybutyl succinate (PBS) [ 13 , 14 ], polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) [ 15 , 16 , 17 ], and polyethylene furanoate (PEF) [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], together with different composite materials produced from starch [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], CMC [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ], wood [ 31 , 32 ], lignin [ 33 , 34 ], and many different agro-industrial wastes [ 35 , 36 , 37 ].

Nevertheless, 99% of plastics produced today are fossil-based polymers, and they will continue to play an important role in many manufacturing compartments for a long time. In fact, according to the 2020 European Bioplastics report, the EU total production capacity of biopolymers is expected to reach 2.45 Mt by 2024 ( Figure 2 ), which is far lower than the plastic market needs [ 38 ].

Projection of world global production capacity of bioplastics by 2024.

The large gap between market demand and biobased plastics available today clearly shows the complexity of the problem and that all alternatives to approach the problem of plastic use and recycling must be pursued to reduce the environmental impact of polymers and plastic waste. In a recent article by Mendes and coworkers, the benefits of the use of bioplastics for the packaging industry were analyzed with the intent of delivering a guide for the design of more sustainable packaging to food packaging designers and producers [ 39 ]. The authors concluded that, from a climate point, the use of biobased plastics contributes to the generation of more sustainable food packaging compared to fossil-based ones; however, on the other hand, the relevance of some environmental problems originating from biobased plastics, such as eutrophication, use of water and pesticides, and effects on biodiversity, significantly reduces their environmental benefits.

Additionally, fossil-based plastics are generally scantly biodegradable and accumulate in the environment, posing serious waste management problems. Over the last 65 years, approximately 8300 Mt of fossil-based polymers were produced, 4900 Mt of which were landfilled, incinerated, or dispersed in the environment [ 5 , 40 ]. Thus, oceans, animals, and humans are inevitably exposed to different sources of contamination from plastic waste [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Climate changes, environmental modifications, and health pandemics are becoming more and more frequent, showing that humanity will have to rethink its unsustainable growth [ 47 , 48 ] by adopting a circular economy approach to resource consumption through eco-design, recovery, and recycling of polymeric materials with an integrated approach [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Circular economy is pushing toward a radical change in production and waste management to reduce water, waste, and energy consumption and to achieve zero-waste manufacturing cycles [ 10 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. In this frame, European countries have developed different waste management systems and recycling techniques [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. Nevertheless, a great part of post-consumer managed plastic is currently sent to incineration or landfill, while mismanaged waste is either discarded into the environment or is inadequately disposed of, potentially ending up in the ocean [ 46 ]. From 2006 to 2018, the amount of recycled post-consumer plastic waste doubled, reaching 32.5% (29.1 Mt), while 42.6% was used for energy production and 24.9% was landfilled [ 9 ] ( Figure 3 ).

Reuse of recovered post-consumer plastic waste.

In 2018, 5 Mt of plastic waste was recycled in Europe, 80% of which re-entered the EU as secondary materials, while the remaining 20% was exported outside the EU. The main industrial uses of recycled plastics in the EU are building and construction (46%), packaging (24%), agricultural applications (13%), and others (17%) [ 9 ].

Plastics may be subdivided into three categories: plastics in use, managed post-consumer plastic waste, and mismanaged plastic waste [ 65 , 66 ]. Managed plastic waste is generally disposed of by recycling, although a substantial gap exists between the quantity of plastic produced each year and the quantity of plastic thrown away since, depending on the type of product, there will be different storage and use times. Packaging products end their lifecycle generally in less than 1 year, while materials used for the construction and transport industry may last much longer. This means that the amount of waste produced each year is less than the amount of plastic in use. In 2015, 407 Mt of primary plastic entered the use phase, while only 307 Mt exited the use phase, with a consequent increase of 100 Mt of plastic in use [ 5 ].

According to the literature, it was estimated that, in 2010, between 4.8 and 12.7 Mt of plastics were leached into the ocean, predicting that, with inadequate waste management strategies, these numbers will increase by an order of magnitude by 2025 [ 46 , 67 ]. On this note, in January 2018, the European Commission issued the “European strategy for plastics in a circular economy” [ 68 ], including the ambitious target to make all plastics in EU recyclable by 2030. Soon after, in March 2018, China banned imports of plastic, generating a decrease in plastic waste export from EU of 39%, thereby overloading the EU waste management system and incinerators [ 65 , 69 ].

To reduce the amount of plastic waste disposed in landfills or incinerated, there are two main strategies: the use of biodegradable biobased plastics (as mentioned above) [ 38 , 70 ] and recycling [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. It should be reaffirmed that not all biobased polymers are biodegradable, while some fossil-based ones are, as clearly reported in Figure 4 .

Examples of biobased and fossil-based polymers subdivided into biodegradable and not biodegradable.

Moreover, the recovery and recycling of biobased polymers is a relatively new issue and is still the object of studies compared to fossil-based polymers [ 39 , 75 ]; thus, different strategies will need to be put in place to implement the environmental sustainability of polymer manufacturing and recycling. According to the recent Circular Economy Package EU legislation and a paper by Briassoulis and coworkers, mechanical recycling is the best alternative for the valorization of both post-consumer fossil-based and biobased polymer waste, followed by chemical recycling [ 75 , 76 ].

The topic of sustainable manufacturing of plastics and packaging is so important that, from a research on Google Scholar using as key words “sustainable plastics”, “recycled plastic”, and “plastic recycling techniques”, a total of almost 95,000 papers were published between 2019 and 2021. This mini-review intends to give an outlook on different mechanical and chemical recycling techniques, giving a general panorama of the state of the art and recent innovative solutions by focusing mainly on papers published in the last 12 months relevant to plastic packaging. The scope of the work is to give a general overview of most recent technologies for the recycling of post-consumer packaging waste (PP, LDPE, HDPE, PET, and PS) to be used as secondary materials for the manufacturing of different materials. Since it is possible that the EU will implement plastic recycling up to 100% by 2050, avoiding the use of virgin naphtha for its production, the use of plastic waste as a source of energy seems bound to assume a minor importance in the future, while recycling of polymers to produce high-value products will be of strategic importance. For this reason, techniques to produce energy from plastic waste will not be discussed in this mini-review. The authors believe that a good understanding of the possible alternatives to plastic recycling and valorization, together with the difficulties encountered in sorting and reprocessing of post-consumer plastic waste, should help the industry, as well as end users, to adopt more responsible behavior and, consequently, promote the introduction of environmentally sustainable solutions.

2. Overview of Plastic Recycling Techniques

The word recycling refers to a set of modifications and transformations (mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, or heating) required to recover feedstock from a previously processed polymer which can be reused by the industry [ 73 , 77 , 78 ]. Plastic recycling methods available today are classified in primary to quaternary processes [ 79 , 80 ] ( Scheme 1 ).

Specifically, primary processes allow recovering and recycling pre-consumer or pure polymers which can be reused for the same scope. Secondary processes start from recovered post-consumer polymeric waste, which is sorted, trimmed, and re-extruded, giving a product with reduced physical–mechanical characteristics compared to the starting polymer, which in most cases cannot be reused for the same scope. Primary and secondary recycling represents physical processes that can be repeated several times. Tertiary processes adopt chemical recycling starting from polymers which may no longer undergo mechanical recycling, while quaternary ones are used for energy production. Polymers and plastics sent to landfill (end-of-life plastics) lose their value and become waste.

Different techniques adopted for plastic waste separation, processing, and possible reuse as secondary materials depend on the type of waste recovered. A first important distinction should be made between thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Thermoplastics are usually processed by extrusion, as these polymers melt when heated and harden when cooled. A great advantage of thermoplastics is that the extrusion process can be repeated many times. The most used thermoplastics are PP, PET, LDPE, HDPE, PVC, and PS. Adversely, thermosets may not be reprocessed by extrusion since, when heated, an irreversible chemical reaction takes place. Main thermoset plastics are polyurethanes (PUR), resins (epoxy, phenol-formaldehyde, and polyester), and vulcanized rubber, widely used by the automotive and electronic industry. The most abundant polymers in post-consumer waste are polyolefins (PP, LDPE, HDPE, PET, and PS) used for packaging [ 58 , 81 , 82 ], with a consumption of over 23 Mt only in the EU in 2020.

3. Primary and Secondary Recycling

Mechanical recycling is the main and most widely used technology for plastic recycling, consisting of several steps, including collection, screening, automatic or manual sorting, washing, shredding, extrusion, and granulation [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ] ( Scheme 2 ). Mechanical recycling is classified as primary or secondary according to the type of starting material being processed. Primary recycling gives the highest-quality recycled polymers and starts from closed-loop recycled products such as PET bottles or byproducts collected by manufacturing industries as pre-consumer well-separated material.

Secondary processes instead recover post-consumer plastics and, therefore, generate lower-quality polymers. It must nevertheless be considered that, from an economic standpoint, these processes have a reduced complexity and overall limited costs, generating significant income and reduced CO 2 production. According to the Ellen MacArthur foundation report, plastic production and incineration of plastic waste are estimated to produce over 400 Mt of CO 2 yearly [ 87 , 88 ]. Thus, recycled plastics can reduce fossil-fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions. According to estimates by Rahimi and coworkers [ 89 ], the adoption of plastic waste recycling worldwide would allow saving about 3.5 million barrels of oil each year.

Mechanical recycling generally includes four main steps: (i) screening and sorting; (ii) shredding; (iii) washing and drying; (iv) melting and reprocessing ( Scheme 2 ).

Screening and sorting of plastic waste is a fundamental step for the recyclability of the different plastics and the quality of the final polymer. This step is challenging, considering that the separation of mixed plastic waste often involves the combined use of different technologies [ 90 , 91 ].

To achieve an adequate separation of a specific polymer within a flow stream containing many different components (plastics, as well as metals, paper, organic residues, and dirt), characteristics of the final product must be accurately considered such as purity and destination. This will allow defining the best separation strategy to achieve high selection. Important properties commonly employed for plastic separation are magnetic or electric properties, particle size, density, and color. Relying on these properties, many different separation techniques have been developed such as dry or wet gravity separation, electronic or magnetic density separation, flotation, and sensor-based sorting together with auxiliary segregation techniques such as magnetic or eddy-current separation. These segregation methods are briefly described, mainly focusing on recently implemented technologies for PE, PP, PET, and PS recovery.

Gravity separation is a consolidated methodology that may be carried out in a dry environment (dry process) or in the presence of water (wet process) [ 63 , 92 ] ( Figure 5 a). Dry segregation techniques employ air classifiers or ballistic separators in which air is used as the medium to separate lighter materials from heavier ones. They can be positioned at the beginning of the process or at the end, to segregate end-of-life plastics from main plastic streams ( Figure 5 b). Wet gravity separation includes sink and float, jigging, and hydrocyclone techniques.

( a ) Different methodologies of gravity separation; ( b ) dry segregation; ( c ) sink and float separation; ( d ) hydrocycloning; ( e ) eddy current separator.

With sink and float separation, polymers are separated into two different streams depending on whether they have a higher or lower density than water. Materials such as PET, PVC, and PS will sink, while others such as PE, PP, and expanded polystyrene will float ( Figure 5 c). This type of separation guarantees an effective first separation, but it is not adequate to produce high-quality secondary materials and needs to be combined with other separation techniques [ 93 , 94 , 95 ].

Zhang and coworkers developed a pretreatment of PET via preliminary NaOH and ethanol hydrolysis to promote plastic flotation. Optimal conditions allowed the quantitative recovery of highly pure PET fractions [ 96 ].

Heidarpour and coworkers reported the influence of microwave irradiation in the presence of chemical additives such as PEG-400, methylcellulose, or tannic acid on the float–sink behavior of polyoxymethylene, polycarbonate, and polyvinyl alcohol. According to this study, microwave irradiation reduced the contact angle values of tested plastic surface in the presence of chemical additives (depressant) by implementing their sink–float separation capacity, thereby increasing their hydrophilicity [ 97 ]. The authors mention the possibility of using this technology for whichever plastic material.

Jigging is one of the oldest gravity separation techniques and is similar to dry gravity methods where, in most cases, water is used instead of air [ 90 , 94 ]. A water stream is pushed up and down by pistons, and plastics are separated mainly depending on their morphological and physical characteristics.

Hydrocycloning is based on centrifugal and centripetal forces together with the fluid resistance of different materials processed ( Figure 5 d). New trends in hydrocycloning separation focus especially on the recovery of precious metals from electronic device waste [ 98 , 99 ], and it seems to be a very valuable tool for more sustainable separation of plastic waste from metals.

The eddy current separator is made of a high-speed magnetic rotor which generates an electric current, the so-called eddy current, used to remove nonferrous metals (aluminum and copper) from waste plastic, glass, and paper, among others ( Figure 5 e) [ 100 ]. These separators are generally located at the beginning of the recycling process.

With a separator and drum screen, plastics are fed into a large rotating drum where materials are separated by size, thanks to holes in the drum, so that only smaller particles pass through and are separated from larger ones.

Different gravity segregation methods were analyzed by Nie and coworkers for the sustainable recovery and recycling of high-value metals from waste printed circuit board (WPCBs) [ 101 ]. This study analyzed the dynamics and statics of gravity concentration methods. The settling velocity of three kind of particles was studied, demonstrating that the stratification by density is spontaneous and can achieve the lowest potential energy. The concentration of differently sized metal particles could be effectively enriched, and the metal purity increased from 56.5% to 68.2% for decreasing particle size, albeit with a modest decrease in yield (from 86.41% to 83.04%). No recent papers were found for the use of innovative solutions for the recovery of PE, PP, PET, or PS by jigging, hydrocycloning, eddy current separation, and drum and different gravity segregation techniques, but they were reported to give a general overview of different separation technologies available.

Optical sensors are used for the characterization of plastic stream in a continuous manner where air jets allow for separation. Optical sensors may be subdivided in molecular spectroscopies and atomic spectroscopies [ 102 ], the prevalently used Raman spectroscopy (RS) [ 103 ], Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) [ 96 ], near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) [ 104 ], and terahertz spectroscopy (THz) [ 105 ], and elemental spectroscopies such as laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) [ 106 ] and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRFS) [ 102 ].

Bobulski and coworkers implemented new portable devices for computer image recognition in combination with artificial intelligence for waste recognition and easy municipal waste separation. The devices were used both at home and in waste sorting plants, and they could be a very useful tool for an efficient and economically sustainable separation of plastic waste stream [ 107 ].

Most companies use a combination of different separation techniques to obtain sufficiently pure polymers from post-consumer plastic waste. The purity of the finished product depends on an adequate compromise between costs and benefits, and this leads to purities ≤95% which require further separation and purification steps. Sorting technologies reported above are generally inadequate for the separation of complex materials such as multilayered packaging or fiber-reinforced composites; therefore, these materials are generally incinerated for energy recovery or landfilled as end-of-life plastics.

Innovative recycling methods such as selective polymer dissolution were demonstrated to be efficient in extracting different polymers and fibers from multilayered films and composite materials [ 108 ]. In fact, Knappich and coworkers reported the efficient recovery and recyclability of epoxy and polyurethane resins from carbon fiber-reinforced plastics with different proprietary CreaSolv ® formulations at a laboratory scale.

Multi-material plastic waste separation technologies are also being developed to enable a proper sorting of composites, which will generate new value streams to recover and recycle plastics which are today incinerated or landfilled [ 109 ]. Many approaches have been tested, for example, for the separation of polyester from cotton fibers to recycle textile waste. Solvent-based technologies are an interesting solution, with the possibility of selecting specific solvents which may solubilize either cotton or polyesters [ 110 ]. A crucial aspect for industrial success and applicability is the nature of the solvent in terms of volatility, flammability, toxicity, and recyclability [ 111 ].

Once the mechanical separation is complete, the materials are shredded by passing them through a system of rotating blades. The obtained flakes are then sorted by size with a grid, washed and dried, made ready for reprocessing by extrusion or agglomeration, and sold.

Agglomeration is generally used to reprocess plastic films which are cut in small pieces, heated by friction and water-cooled. The agglomerates are usually combined into plastic flakes and pelletized by extrusion. Agglomeration is highly energy-consuming and, therefore, less widespread [ 90 ].

Extrusion remains the most widely used method for processing both virgin and recycled plastic. Plastic flakes are fed into the extruder and pushed by a screw into a heated cylinder, thus melting the plastic. At the end of the extruder, a pelletizer cools and cuts the final polymer into pellets.

Both shredding and extrusion may lead to partial degradation of the polymer due to chain scission and thermo-oxidative reactions, reducing the polymer chain length and, consequently, its mechanical properties [ 112 , 113 ]. Moreover, impurities deriving from other packaging components further contribute to the diminished physical–mechanical characteristics of reprocessed plastics [ 104 ].

A detailed study was published by Eriksen and coworkers on the thermal degradation, processability, and mechanical properties of re-extruded PET, PE, and PP from post-consumer waste. PET is well suited for closed-loop recycling to meet bottle and food-grade PET quality, although moisture control is a key requirement when reprocessing PET into products. For this polymer, degradation, which generally occurs during recycling by extrusion, may be avoided by careful decontamination. The quality of reprocessed PE samples from non-food bottles strongly depends on the presence of impurities from other polymers and from lids and labels. PE reprocessing by extrusion suggested that closed-loop recycling may be achieved with selected PE bags with low levels of polymer cross-contamination. Adversely, PP reprocessed by extrusion showed low mechanical properties with large variations in impact strength, reducing possible applications of reprocessed PP. Thus, the heterogeneity of PP waste, even if food packaging is managed separately, as well as polymer degradation during recycling, represents crucial limitations for PP waste recycling [ 114 ].

A possible remedy to downgrading due to extrusion was reported for the first time by Wang and coworkers. The authors reported a process to modify polyolefins from post-consumer plastic waste via a one-step radical grafting and cross-linking process, producing covalent adaptable networks or CANs [ 112 ]. This procedure relies on the functionalization of polyolefins with polar reagents, which modify the properties of the starting material, thus imparting new characteristics such as wettability, printability, and compatibility with other polymers. Upcycling of LDPE from plastic bags was achieved by free-radical reaction in a twin-screw extruder in the presence of maleic anhydride and butanediol. PE-CANs showed higher solvent resistance, tensile strength, and modulus compared to virgin PE due to the presence of cross-linking bonds generated during the extrusion process. Upcycling of post-consumer plastic waste by reactive extrusion is an interesting area of research which will surely receive much attention in the future; however, characteristics of CAN polymers must be acquired to define new possible manufacturing applications [ 115 ].

4. Chemical Depolymerization

In addition to mechanical methods, recycling can be performed via chemical depolymerization [ 111 , 116 ].

Chemical recycling has great potential in the circular economy of plastics; it can close the loop by producing starting monomers from the polymers that may be reprocessed to produce high-value-added chemicals [ 70 ]. It is estimated that, by 2050, almost 60% of plastic production can be based on recycled products [ 117 ]. Millions of euros are being invested to enhance chemical recycling and other cutting-edge technological solutions with the aim of producing 1.2 Mt of recycled plastic in EU by 2025 and 3.4 Mt by 2030 [ 9 ].

Chemical recycling methods are classified according to reaction conditions into solvolysis (hydrolysis, methanolysis, and glycolysis), catalytic depolymerization, and enzymatic depolymerization [ 83 , 84 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 ]. Only main innovative solutions devised in the last year for plastic packaging chemical recycling are analyzed below i.e., PE, PP, PET, and PS.

4.1. Solvolysis

Solvolysis involves the breaking of the hydrolyzable bonds of a polymer in the presence of an alcohol or water. It is rather frequent that, to improve reaction conditions, product selectivity, and yield, catalysts are used to promote solvolysis reactions [ 83 , 84 , 119 , 128 ].

4.1.1. Hydrolysis

Hydrolysis reactions perform better from an environmental point of view but require higher energy consumption compared to other solvolysis methods [ 129 ]. They may be carried out in neutral, acidic, or alkaline conditions.

Neutral hydrolysis of PET has long been known and is generally processed in the molten phase, at temperatures above 245 °C with a water/PET ( w / w ) ratio above 5.1/1. A further improvement in the rate of the reaction may be achieved via the addition of catalytic amounts of alkali metal acetates, organophosphorus compounds, or zeolites [ 128 ]. Recently, Colnik and coworkers reported hydrolytic recycling of colorless and colored PET bottles in sub- and supercritical water with temperatures between 250 and 400 °C, in 1 to 30 min. Highest yields in terephthalic acid (TPA) were achieved at 300 °C in 30 min with purities near to 100% [ 130 ] ( Scheme 3 ).

Interestingly, according to the work by Stanica-Ezeanu and coworkers, sea salt is an efficient neutral catalyst promoting PET degradation; by means of a mathematical model, it was estimated that, in tropical regions, only 72 years are necessary for spontaneous complete degradation of PET to occur [ 131 ].

Acid hydrolysis of PET proceeds by polymer dissolution in concentrated acids (H 2 SO 4 , H 3 PO 4 , and HNO 3 ) and heating, leading to chain fragmentation at high temperature.

These processes have not been, to the best of our knowledge, the object of recent studies, probably due to their low environmental sustainability; therefore, they are not further discussed in this review.

Alkali-promoted glycolysis of PET has been widely reported using both inorganic and organic bases [ 132 ]. Due to the high quantities of alkali required and consequent environmental impact of the process, in this case, no innovative solutions were found in recent publications.

4.1.2. Methanolysis

Methanol is widely used and is effective for the solvolysis of various polymers such as PET, polyamides, and polycarbonates. The majority of post-consumer recovered PET is currently reprocessed by mechanical recycling; however, this process leads to molar mass reduction and a consequent reduction in the physical–mechanical properties of the polymer, which is generally used to produce carpets (72%) [ 70 ], along with a small percentage of PET for bottle production [ 129 ]. Moreover, the commercial appeal of mechanical recycled PET depends on the price of oil; thus, when oil is available at prices below $65 per barrel, mechanically recycled PET is no longer competitive [ 70 ]. Chemical depolymerization to produce high-quality monomers and oligomers may be a solution to this problem.

The primary scope of PET chemical recycling is to regenerate TPA, dimethyl terephthalate (DMT), bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET), and ethylene glycol (EG) [ 133 ] or other chemical substances [ 134 , 135 ] ( Scheme 3 ).

Methanolysis of PET is generally a degradation process performed at high temperatures (180–280 °C) and pressures (2–4 MPa), and the major products are DMT and EG [ 70 , 129 ], with high capital and operating costs. Recently, Pham and coworkers [ 124 ] developed a low-energy catalyzed methanolysis to convert PET into DMT at room temperature in the presence of K 2 CO 3 as a catalyst. Despite the overall reaction time of 24 h, PET resins were completely decomposed into monomers with high selectivity in DMT with 93.1% yield at 25 °C. 2-Hydroxyethyl methyl terephthalate (HEMT) and monomethyl terephthalate (MMT) were the major byproducts collected after the reaction ( Scheme 4 ).

Myren and coworkers described a new method for methanolysis of post-consumer PET waste in the presence of NaOH carried out in a microwave or electrochemical reactors. Under mild reaction conditions (85 °C, 40 min) overall yields in TPA of 65% were achieved under microwave irradiation [ 136 ].

Barnard and coworkers published a review in 2021 evaluating advantages and disadvantages of chemical recycling of PET based on the energy economy coefficient and environmental energy impact. Different technologies evaluated comprised neutral, acidic, or alkaline hydrolysis, enzymatic hydrolysis, solvolysis, glycolysis, and aminolysis. From the comparison of data collected, alcoholysis was the most energetically expensive process; moreover, the low boiling point of alcohols generally requires high-pressure reactors. On the contrary, methanolysis carried out in the presence of a nanodispersion of ZnO was found to be the least energetically expensive process for PET degradation, giving high-quality DMT [ 129 , 137 ].

Additionally, Zhang and coworkers proposed a novel, simple and economic hydrophilic modification of PET by surface alcoholysis in the presence of ethanol and a sodium hydroxide water solution, which influenced the wettability of PET and promoted sink–float separation from hydrophobic PS, PVC, and PMMA [ 96 ].

Another very interesting example of the methanolysis of PET was achieved in the presence of an organocatalyst prepared from very simple reagents such as tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide and dimethyl carbonate, [NMe 4 ] + [OCO 2 Me] − , achieving good yields of DMT (≤75%) in mild reaction conditions (100 °C and 4 wt.% organocatalyst) [ 138 ]. Nevertheless, long reaction times (16 h), solvents, and product purification were necessary. Alternatively, imidazolium metal-based ionic liquids (ILs) can achieve a comparable or even better performance than [NMe 4 ] + [OCO 2 Me] − [ 139 ]. Main ILs reported in the literature are depicted in Figure 6 .

Main ILs reported in literature.

4.1.3. Glycolysis

Glycolysis was also verified to be a promising alternative with moderate energy and environmental impact [ 129 ]. Glycolysis produces the BHET monomer, which is a good starting material for PET upcycling. As reported by Lalhmangaihzuala and coworkers, glycolysis of post-consumer PET waste may be efficiently promoted by heterogenous catalysts prepared from orange peel ash. Total depolymerization of PET was detected within 90 min, producing BHET in 79% yield. The catalysts were recovered up to five times without significant deactivation. This study opens the way to a highly environmentally sustainable approach to post-consumer plastic waste recycling [ 127 ].

Organocatalyst-assisted glycolysis is considered a new frontier for a green approach to plastic recycling in comparison to conventional organometallic complexes [ 138 , 140 ]. Wang and coworkers [ 141 ] reported a very promising study on the glycolysis of PET using 1,3-dimethylimidazolium-2-carboxylate as an organocatalyst, achieving complete depolymerization in less than 1 h at 180 °C, with up to 60% yield in BHET recovered by precipitation from the reaction mixture upon cooling.

Alternatively, Fuentes and coworkers reported the glycolysis of PET bottles to BHET in the presence of catalytic amounts of different metal oxides (ZnO, CoO) obtained for the recycling of spent alkaline and lithium-ion batteries. Reactions were carried out in EG at approximately 200 °C for 2 h; in the best conditions, yields of the BHET reached 80% [ 126 ].

Functionalization of silica-coated, magnetic Fe 3 O 4 nanoparticles, with an iron-containing ionic liquid, was recently employed for the glycolysis of PET to BHET. The advantage of these catalysts is in their high recyclability and ease of recovery due to their magnetic properties, and no traces of metals were found in the final products [ 142 ].

4.1.4. Aminolysis

While aminolysis presents the best energy and environmental parameters, the use of ammonium-based ionic liquids makes the production process more expensive [ 129 , 143 , 144 ]. The high temperatures involved in aminolysis are compensated for by very low depolymerization times due to increased reaction speed. Adversely, depolymerization by aminolysis of PET produces terephthalamides which have limited industrial applications. Different amines such as monoethanolamine (MEA) have been used for the aminolysis of PET with and without catalysts such as metal salts, quaternary ammonium compounds, and ionic liquids [ 145 ] ( Scheme 5 ).

Catalyst-free, microwave-assisted aminolysis of PET proved to be an efficient method for the recovery of different terephthalamides starting from allylamine, ethanolamine, furfurylamine, or hexylamine with high selectively and yields. Terephthalamides were employed to produce good quality films [ 123 ]. Furthermore, aminolytic upcycling of PET post-consumer waste was achieved in the presence of different amino-alcohols in the presence of various organocatalysts to give diol terephthalamides, which were employed to produce poly(ester-amides) [ 146 ].

4.2. Catalytic Depolymerization

Plastic depolymerization may be carried out in the presence of different catalysts such as strong mineral acids, bases, organocatalysts, enzymes, and metal catalysts in homogeneous or heterogeneous phase [ 147 ].

4.2.1. Enzymatic Catalysis

To date, the enzymatic activity of various microbial and fungal species has been tested for the degradation of various polymers [ 148 , 149 ]. As with chemical degradation, the major difficulty in the enzyme degradation of polymers such as PE and PP derives from their high hydrophobicity, stability, and inertness, and their reactivity may be implemented by UV or thermal oxidation pretreatments [ 150 ]. While PE and PP enzymatic degradation is still a very challenging topic, numerous hydrolytic enzymes have been identified and are efficient for PET degradation [ 151 ]. PET hydrolases represent one of the most recent breakthroughs in the depolymerization of post-consumer PET, allowing the recovery of terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol at industrial relevant scale [ 120 ]. Interestingly, Sadler and coworkers developed an innovative enzyme-catalyzed post-consumer PET hydrolysis with engineered Escherichia coli to produce vanillin [ 134 ].

These new technologies once more highlight the importance of the development of specifically devised new microorganisms and enzymes for plastic depolymerization. In this connection, Santacruz Juarez and coworkers reported the use of molecular docking simulation to predict affinity, strength, and binding energy between two molecules to analyze the activity of laccase (Lac), manganese peroxidase (MnP), lignin peroxidase (LiP), and unspecific peroxygenase (UnP), thereby helping in the development of new enzymes [ 152 ]. Data achieved showed that synergic enzymatic combination, as it normally happens in nature, boosts the catalytic efficiency by promoting sequential degradation processes. The use of microorganisms and enzymes has been widely studied with the intent to find an environmentally sustainable solution to microplastic and nanoplastic contamination. Taghavi reviewed the state of the art of plastic packaging biodegradation by living microorganisms reporting mechanisms of action, advantages, limitations, and technology readiness levels (TRL). The focus of this very important research area is a reduction in plastic pollution in the environment more so than its recovery and reuse; thus, it is not further analyzed in this paper [ 148 ].

4.2.2. Hydrogenolysis

Hydrogenolysis is widely employed for the depolymerization of PET in the presence of hydrogen and homogeneous Milstein-type Ru–PNN complexes which are highly reactive toward the C=O double bonds of PET to give 4-benzenedimethanol (BDM) in 99% yield at 160 °C in 48 h ( Table 1 , entry 1), while they are ineffective in the presence of PP and PE [ 147 , 153 , 154 , 155 ]. More complex phosphine ligands have also been tested, but the economic viability on an industrial scale seems to be rather limited [ 147 ] ( Table 1 , entries 2–3).

Phosphine ligands of Milstein-type Ru–PNN complexes.

1 Selectivity to BDM. 2 Selectivity to BTX.

Two very important studies have been published on the efficient conversion of post-consumer PET to benzene, toluene, and xylenes by reportedly “unlocking hidden hydrogen in the ethylene glycol part” with Ru/Nb 2 O 5 catalyst [ 156 , 157 ]. The hydrogen is formed in situ during the reaction from ethylene glycol, and it appears that, in the presence of Ru/Nb 2 O 5 , two different pathways (decarboxylation and hydrogenolysis) compete to determine the selectivity toward alkyl-aromatic compounds ( Table 1 , entries 4–5) [ 156 ].

Solventless hydrolysis of PET bottles to TPA and ethylene has been selectively achieved by a carbon-supported single-site molybdenum-dioxo catalyst under 260 °C and 1 atmosphere of H 2 with 87% yield. The catalyst exhibits high stability and can be recycled many times without loss of activity [ 158 ].

Hydrogenolysis of PET to liquid alkanes has been carried out under mild reaction conditions using ruthenium nanoparticles supported on carbon (Ru/C). Under optimal reaction conditions (200 °C, 20 bar H 2 , 16 h), PE was converted into liquid n -alkanes with 45% yield [ 159 ]. Another SnPt/γ-Al 2 O 3 and Re 2 O 7 /γ-Al 2 O 3 heterogeneous catalyst was used to produce linear alkanes from HDPE. This type of catalyst promotes a tandem reaction via which poorly reactive aliphatic substrates are first activated through dehydrogenation and then functionalized or cleaved by a highly active olefin catalyst [ 160 ].

These technologies are particularly attractive from an industrial point of view as heterogeneous catalysts are generally easier to use and economically more sustainable than homogeneous ones.

4.2.3. Hydrosilylation

Hydrosilylation carried out in the presence of different silanes (tetramethyldisiloxane and polymethylhydrosiloxane) and borane or Ir catalysts has also been tested in the past for the depolymerization of PET, PS, and PVC [ 161 ]. Probably because of the high cost of reagents and Ir catalysts, combined with low yields in monomers recovered, no similar studies were published in the last 12 months. An interesting alternative was proposed by Fernandes and coworkers in 2020 for the depolymerization of PET by silanes and an air-stable, cost-effective dioxomolybdenum complex, MoO 2 Cl 2 (H 2 O) 2 . Although reaction conditions are rather harsh (160 °C, 4 days), very good yields in p -xylene were achieved for the reductive depolymerization of PET (65% yield) in the presence of 5 wt.% MoO 2 Cl 2 (H 2 O) 2 and six equivalents of phenylsilane. In another study, Fernandes described the first example of reductive hydrosilylation of PET and other plastic waste using an economically and environmentally sustainable Zn catalyst, Zn(OAc) 2 ·2H 2 O, to produce high-value-added compounds such as 1,2-propanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, tetrahydrofuran, and p -xylene. In the same reaction conditions, in the presence of Mo oxides, yields in p -xylene were equivalent while higher yields in EG were obtained (43%) [ 162 ]. Much work surely needs to be done to implement these technologies to industrial maturity, but the use of highly available, environmentally friendly catalysts is a great advantage and should be further pursued.

5. Thermal Recycling

Thermal recycling mainly comprises pyrolysis, hydrocracking, and gasification ( Scheme 6 ) [ 163 ]. Since there are no recent advancements for gasification, only pyrolysis and hydrocracking are reported. An outline of the main innovative solutions recently published is reported below.

5.1. Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis, or thermal cracking, is a process that occurs at high temperatures (500 °C) and in the absence of oxygen. Different kinds of catalysts can be used to improve the efficiency of the pyrolysis process since they target a specific reaction and reduce the process temperature and time [ 164 ]. Unlike other thermochemical conversion methods, pyrolysis leads to liquid or wax mixtures rich in hydrocarbons, an ideal raw material for a refinery [ 165 ]. Thermal pyrolysis is typically used for the recycling of those polymers for which depolymerization is harsh and that are not currently mechanically recyclable (PE/PP/PS mixtures, multilayer packaging, and reinforced fibers). Thanks to the high temperatures, it guarantees molecular bond breaking in the polymer chains to give, depending on the nature of the polymer, depolymerization or random fragmentation [ 122 , 166 ]. Alternatively, catalytic pyrolysis can be performed on the same polymers at lower temperatures by carbocation formation and subsequent isomerization [ 161 ]. Both thermal and catalytic pyrolysis approaches are not selective, but advantages rely on high conversions, thermal stability of the products and, in some cases, high-value enriched oil production. Pyrolysis, therefore, is an interesting recycling approach for a safe circular economy [ 161 , 166 ].

Pyrolysis must be preceded by pretreatment of the plastic waste, to ensure that it is not contaminated by non-plastic materials such as metal and wood. This step is necessary to ensure the economic feasibility of the plastic-to-fuel (PTF) plant, and it can usually be achieved by sorting, crushing, or sieving depending on the origin of the waste. Since pretreatment techniques are consolidated methodologies, no innovative methods were reported in the last year.

Another important aspect derives from different sources of plastic processed which may be different in shape and size, requiring to be uniformly sized as grains before feeding into the pyrolysis process. This step adds an extra cost to the process.

Depending on the type of reactor, the pre-sizing step can be skipped or modified. For example, rotary kilns can accommodate differently sized and shaped plastics; hence, the pre-sizing step can be avoided. Fluidized bed reactors, instead, need to have uniform thermodynamics in the reactor; therefore, plastic waste should be evenly sized. To cope with this challenge, several feeding devices have been tested [ 166 ].

Currently, the study of catalytic pyrolysis is very active, and a wide range of synthetic catalysts have been employed to enhance the overall pyrolysis process and to improve the quality of produced liquid oil.

Most PE pyrolysis approaches are promoted by heterogeneous acid catalysts (e.g., zeolites, alumina, and silica) and are usually unselective, resulting in a broad distribution of gas (C3 and C4 hydrocarbons), liquid (cycloparaffins, oligomers, and aromatics), and solid products (char, coke). This behavior is due to the radical mechanism of the C–C bond scission, leading to a complex mixture of olefinic and cross-linked compound [ 122 , 166 ].

A very recent novel study on this topic was carried out by Miandad and coworkers, in which the effect on yield and product quality of Saudi natural zeolite was investigated [ 164 ]. Saudi natural zeolite catalyst was improved via novel thermal activation (TA-NZ) at 550 °C and acid activation (AA-NZ) with HNO 3 . Pyrolysis feedstock was composed of single or mixed PS, PE, PP, and PET, in the presence of both modified natural zeolite (NZ) catalysts. The authors reported that PS produced the highest yield in liquid oil, i.e., 70% and 60% using the TA-NZ and AA-NZ catalysts, respectively, compared to PP (40% and 54%) and PE (40% and 42%).

In addition to zeolite, the research on catalytic pyrolysis has focused on other catalytic systems, always considering that the catalytic activity of the catalyst is derived from its Lewis acid sites. Most homogeneous catalysts for polyolefin degradation have been classical Lewis acids such as AlCl 3 . On the basis of these considerations, Su and coworkers [ 167 ] worked on AlCl 3 –NaCl eutectic salt as a catalyst, allowing a reduction in reaction temperature, an increase in reaction rate, a reduction in heavy oil components, and the inhibition of polyolefin formation.

Pyrolysis is most often adopted to convert plastic waste to fuels. An example of differentiation is the production of high-value-added carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [ 168 ] using a metallic Ni catalyst supported on different oxides and generated in situ. Selectivity, yield, and structural properties were tuned according to the degree of metal–support interaction in different catalysts.

5.2. Hydrocracking

Hydrocracking is a catalytic refining process for the selective recovery of useful chemical fractions in the range of heavy diesel to light naphtha. Hydrocracking requires a bifunctional catalyst with an acidic function, enhancing the cracking activity, typically provided by a high-surface-area support, such as a zeolite [ 169 ].

Recent studies have focused on the conversion of both post-consumer and laboratory polymers in mild conditions, using a metal–zeolite catalytic system.

Jumah and coworkers [ 170 ] treated low- and high-density polyethylene (LDPE, HDPE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS) to produce liquid petrol gas (C3–C4) and naphtha. They reported the effect of both the catalyst morphology (beta zeolite impregnated with 1% Pt) and the feed stream variation, by reacting different polymers individually and post-consumer polymer mixtures.

Another recent work described the transformation of PE, PP, and PS into methane (>97% purity) at 300–350 °C using near-stoichiometric amounts of H 2 in the presence of a Ru-modified zeolite as a catalyst [ 171 ].

6. Conclusions

Ideally, the route to achieve a sustainable society is to replace synthetic plastics. A plastic-free world, however, is presently utopistic, and great effort must be applied in the pursuit of a drastic change in end-of-life plastic waste treatment and management.

In this review, we presented a highlight of the very latest technologies being developed to enhance the recycling efficiency of polymers and to generate high-value products from plastic waste.

Mechanical recycling and chemical upcycling appear to be the most promising strategies, since incineration and landfill are more pollutant and, for the latter, plastic waste completely loses its value.

Although, in the last few years, researchers have focused on chemical treatments, mechanical recycling is still the more mature and better performing technique. The lack of adequate infrastructures and technologies is limiting the industrialization of chemical upcycling, as well as the replacement of current materials with more sustainable polymers.

Future solutions will mainly focus on the development of biodegradable materials, completely recyclable polymers, and depolymerization/repolymerization pathways that allow to maximize the plastic life cycle.

Waste is a very serious problem and is intimately related to environmental and social–economic impacts. The problem of waste must be considered holistically from governments, industries, and stakeholders to preserve human health and guarantee the world survival. A deep change in mentalities at all levels is necessary to approach the impact of humanity and the industry on the environment; therefore, a high level of information is required to achieve awareness and promote sustainable processes and products. Too much information is available today; thus, that the scientific community must help give clear and well-justified indications regarding the best technologies to be adopted in the future. The authors hope that this mini-review will contribute to this consciousness and positively impact future choices.

Overview of plastic recycling techniques.

General scheme of primary and secondary recycling processes.

PET chemical recycling routes and product desired.

Low-energy catalyzed methanolysis of PET.

PET aminolysis via monoethanolamine (MEA).

General scheme of thermal recycling processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.B.; writing—original draft preparation, V.B., M.F., R.S., C.B. and M.A.-A.; writing—review and editing, V.B., M.F., R.S., C.B. and M.A.-A.; supervision, V.B. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by POR FESR Veneto 2014–2020 Asse 1. Azione 1.1.4 (project title: Advanced waste recovery systems–ID 10057503).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

How Do We Capture the 79% of Recyclables We Lose to Landfills?

Read our State of Recycling Report to understand the solutions.

The Recycling Partnership's

State of Recycling: Present and Future of Residential Recycling in the U.S.

This report is based on multi-year field measurement studies conducted across the U.S. and The Partnership’s National Database. It uses an updated methodology for determining recycling rates that tracks materials throughout the system.

Data from the report shows where the gaps are greatest, and where policy, investment, and action will have the largest impact.

View State-by-State Maps

Residential Recycling Rates

Material Loss

Access & Participation Levels

Targeted Investment Strategies

We Need to Address All Five Requirements of an Effective Residential Recycling System

Only 21% of recyclable material is captured and all materials are under-recycled. 76% of recyclables are lost at the household level, underscoring the importance of providing all households with recycling services and engaging people with good communication about how to recycle locally.

Projected Impact of EPR in the Four States Where it Has Been Adopted

EPR drives improvement at every step of the recycling system.

Explore how data-driven, local solutions are key to overhauling the US system.

• Recycling Programs + Processors
• Community Recycling Best Practices
• Single-Family Recycling
• Multifamily Recycling
• Contamination Toolkits
• U.S. Residential MRF Map
• MRF Contracts Guide
• Community Recycling Program Tool
• Recycling Behavior
• Behavior Center
• Recycling Confidence Index
• Knowledge Report
• Design for Circularity
• Circular Packaging Assessment
• Dynamic Labels
• Plastic Packaging Strategy Tool
• Circular Packaging 101
• Recycling Policy Accelerator
• Increasing Recycling Rates with EPR
• State EPR Toolkit
• Policy Implementation
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) 101
• Material Advancement
• Film and Flexibles Recycling Coalition
• PET Recycling Coalition
• Polypropylene Recycling Coalition
• What Can I Recycle?
• The State of Recycling Report
• Careers at The Recycling Partnership
• Board of Directors
• Funding Partners
• Core Values
• Access Data about Recycling
• Read the Latest Reports
• Apply for a Grant
• Understand Recycling Behavior
• Access Policy Resources
• Design for Recyclability
• Educate My Community
• Join as a Funding Partner
• Contact a Staff Member
• Explore Material Coalitions
• Find Out What I Can Recycle

Login or create an account.

Remember Me

Lost Password

Create your free account.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 06 November 2019

Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles

• Gavin Harper 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Roberto Sommerville 1 , 2 , 4 ,
• Emma Kendrick 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Laura Driscoll 1 , 2 , 5 ,
• Peter Slater 1 , 2 , 5 ,
• Rustam Stolkin 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 ,
• Allan Walton 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Paul Christensen 1 , 7 ,
• Oliver Heidrich 1 , 7 , 8 ,
• Simon Lambert 1 , 7 ,
• Andrew Abbott 1 , 9 ,
• Karl Ryder 1 , 9 ,
• Linda Gaines 10 &
• Paul Anderson 1 , 2 , 5  

Nature volume  575 ,  pages 75–86 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

335k Accesses

1731 Citations

1007 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Carbon and energy
• Energy and society

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 21 January 2020

This article has been updated

Rapid growth in the market for electric vehicles is imperative, to meet global targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to improve air quality in urban centres and to meet the needs of consumers, with whom electric vehicles are increasingly popular. However, growing numbers of electric vehicles present a serious waste-management challenge for recyclers at end-of-life. Nevertheless, spent batteries may also present an opportunity as manufacturers require access to strategic elements and critical materials for key components in electric-vehicle manufacture: recycled lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles could provide a valuable secondary source of materials. Here we outline and evaluate the current range of approaches to electric-vehicle lithium-ion battery recycling and re-use, and highlight areas for future progress.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Future material demand for automotive lithium-based batteries

Recycling of sodium-ion batteries

Sustainable regeneration of spent cathodes for lithium-ion and post-lithium-ion batteries

The electric-vehicle revolution, driven by the imperatives to decarbonize personal transportation in order to meet global targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in urban centres, is set to change the automotive industry radically. In 2017, sales of electric vehicles exceeded one million cars per year worldwide for the first time 1 . Making conservative assumptions of an average battery pack weight of 250 kg and volume of half a cubic metre, the resultant pack wastes would comprise around 250,000 tonnes and half a million cubic metres of unprocessed pack waste, when these vehicles reach the end of their lives. Although re-use and current recycling processes can divert some of these wastes from landfill, the cumulative burden of electric-vehicle waste is substantial given the growth trajectory of the electric-vehicle market. This waste presents a number of serious challenges of scale; in terms of storing batteries before repurposing or final disposal, in the manual testing and dismantling processes required for either, and in the chemical separation processes that recycling entails.

Given that the environmental footprint of manufacturing electric vehicles is heavily affected by the extraction of raw materials and production of lithium ion batteries, the resulting waste streams will inevitably place different demands on end-of-life dismantling and recycling systems. In the waste management hierarchy, re-use is considered preferable to recycling (Fig. 1 ). Because considerable value is embedded in manufactured lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), it has been suggested that their use should be cascaded through a hierarchy of applications to optimize material use and life-cycle impacts 2 . Markets for energy storage are under development as energy regulators in various locations transition to cleaner energy sources. Energy storage is particularly sought-after in areas where weak grids require reinforcement, where high penetration of renewables requires supply to be balanced with demand, where there is an opportunity for trading energy with the grid and in off-grid applications. Second-use battery projects have started to develop in locations where there is regulatory and market alignment. However, large concentrations of waste—be it for refurbishment, re-manufacture, dismantling or final disposal—can create substantial challenges. A fire in stockpiled tyres in Powys, Wales, for example, smouldered for fifteen years from 1989 to 2004. Since the electrode materials in LIBs are far more reactive than tyre rubber 3 , without a proactive and economically sound waste-management strategy for LIBs there are potentially greater dangers associated with stockpiling of end-of-life LIBs. Already the number of fires being reported in metal-recovery facilities is increasing 4 , owing to the illicit or accidental concealment of (consumer) LIBs in the guise of, for example, lead–acid batteries. Among examples of recent major fires are those that took place in metal-recovery facilities in Shoreway, San Carlos, USA, in September 2016 5 , Guernsey in August 2018 and Tacoma, Washington, USA, in September 2018.

The waste management hierarchy is a concept that was developed from the Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31975L0442 ) on waste by the Dutch politician Ad Lansink, in 1979, who presented to the Dutch parliament a simple schematic representation that has been termed ‘Lansink’s Ladder’, ranking waste management options from the most to least environmentally desirable options. Here, that hierarchy is expanded to consider the range of battery recycling technologies. ‘Prevention’ means that LIBs are designed to use less-critical materials (high economic importance, but at risk of short supply) and that electric vehicles should be lighter and have smaller batteries. ‘Re-use’ means that electric-vehicle batteries should have a second use. ‘Recycling’ means that batteries should be recycled, recovering as much material as possible and preserving any structural value and quality (for example, preventing contamination). ‘Recovery’ means using some battery materials as energy for processes such as fuel for pyrometallurgy. Finally, ‘disposal’ means that no value is recovered and the waste goes to landfill.

Waste may also represent a valuable resource. Elements and materials contained in electric-vehicle batteries are not available in many nations and access to resources is crucial in ensuring a stable supply chain. In the future, electric vehicles may prove to be a valuable secondary resource for critical materials, and it has been argued that high-cobalt-content batteries should be recycled immediately to bolster cobalt supplies 6 . If tens of millions of electric vehicles are to be produced annually, careful husbandry of the resources consumed by electric-vehicle battery manufacturing will surely be essential to ensure the sustainability of the automotive industry of the future, as will a material- and energy-efficient 3R system (reduce, re-use, recycle). Here we give an overview of the current state of the art and identify some of the important issues relating to the end-of-life management of electric-vehicle LIBs.

Social and environmental impacts of LIBs

If we consider the two main modes of primary production, it takes 250 tons of the mineral ore spodumene 7 , 8 when mined, or 750 tons of mineral-rich brine 7 , 8 to produce one ton of lithium. The processing of large amounts of raw materials can result in considerable environmental impacts 9 . Production from brine, for example, entails drilling a hole in the salt flat, and pumping of the mineral-rich solution to the surface. However, this mining activity depletes water tables. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, a major centre of lithium production, 65% of the region’s water is consumed by mining activities 9 . This affects farmers in the region who must then import water from other regions. The demands on water from the processing of lithium produced in this way are substantial, with a ton of lithium requiring 1,900 tons of water to extract, which is consumed by evaporation 9 .

By contrast, secondary production would require only 28 tons of used LIBs 7 , 8 , 10 (around 256 used electric-vehicle LiBs 8 ). The net impact of LIB production can be greatly reduced if more materials can be recovered from end-of-life LIBs, in as close to usable form as possible 11 . However, in the rapid-growth phase of the electric-vehicle market, recycling alone cannot come close to replenishing mineral supplies 12 . LIBs are anticipated to last 15–20 years 12 based on calendar aging (the aging due to time since manufacture) predictions—three times longer than lead–acid batteries 12 . Initial concerns regarding resource constraints for LIB production scale-up focused on lithium 13 ; however, in the near term, reserves of lithium are unlikely to present a constraint 14 , 15 .

Of greater immediate concern are cobalt reserves 16 , which are geographically concentrated (mainly in the politically unstable Democratic Republic of the Congo). These have experienced wild short-term price fluctuations and raise multifarious social, ethical and environmental concerns around their extraction, including artisanal mines employing child labour 17 . In addition to the environmental imperative for recycling, there are clearly serious ethical concerns with the materials supply chain, and these social burdens are borne by some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Given the global nature of the industry, this will require international coordination to support a concerted push towards recycling LIBs and a circular economy in materials 18 .

Battery assessment and disassembly

The waste-management hierarchy considers re-use to be preferable to recycling (Fig. 1 ). As considerable value is embedded in manufactured LIBs, it has been suggested that their use should be cascaded through a hierarchy of applications to optimize material use and life-cycle impacts 2 . Energy stored over energy invested (ESOI)—the ratio between the energy that must be invested into manufacturing the battery and the electrical energy that it will store over its useful life—is a metric used to compare the efficacy of different energy-storage technologies. Clearly, ESOI figures will improve if end-of-life electric-vehicle batteries can be used in second-use applications for which the battery performance is less critical.

Profitable second-use applications also provide a potential value stream that can offset the eventual cost of recycling, and already a healthy market is developing in used electric-vehicle batteries for energy storage in certain localities, with demand potentially outstripping supply. For the moment the economics of the decision whether to recycle or re-use are set firmly in favour of re-use. The main factors are (1) the refurbishment cost of putting the battery into a second-use application and (2) any credit that would accrue as the result of recycling the battery instead; if the second-use price were to fall below the sum of the refurbishment cost and the recycling credit, then recycling would be the economically favoured option 19 . In time, it is anticipated 19 that the supply of used electric-vehicle batteries will far exceed the quantity that the second-use market can absorb. It must be remembered, therefore, that—if disposal to landfill is to be avoided—recycling must be the ultimate fate of all LIBs, even if they first have a second use.

Given that stockpiling of waste batteries is potentially unsafe and environmentally undesirable, if direct re-use of an LIB module is not possible, it must be repaired or recycled. End-of-life LIB recycling could provide important economic benefits, avoiding the need for new mineral extraction 20 and providing resilience against vulnerable links 21 and supply risks 22 in the LIB supply chain. For most remanufacture and recycling processes, battery packs must be disassembled to module level at least. However, the hazards associated with battery disassembly are also numerous 23 , 24 . Disassembly of battery packs from automotive applications requires high-voltage training and insulated tools to prevent electrocution of operators or short-circuiting of the pack. Short-circuiting results in rapid discharge, which may lead to heating and thermal runaway. Thermal runaway may result in the generation of particularly noxious byproducts, including HF gas 25 , which along with other product gases may become trapped and ultimately result in cells exploding 23 . The cells also present a chemical hazard owing to the flammable electrolyte, toxic and carcinogenic electrolyte additives, and the potentially toxic or carcinogenic electrode materials.

Diagnostics of battery pack, modules and cells

‘State of health’ is the degree to which a battery meets its initial design specifications. Over time as the battery degrades, its performance varies from its initial condition. The units are percentage points, with 100% indicating a state of health that is identical to that of a new battery meeting its design specification. (Some new batteries may leave the factory deviating from design specifications, and having less than 100% state of health.) The ‘state of charge’ is the degree to which a battery is charged or discharged. Again, the units are percentage points, with 0% indicating empty and 100% indicating full).

Battery repurposing—the re-use of packs, modules and cells in other applications such as charging stations and stationary energy storage—requires accurate assessment of both the state of health, to categorize whether batteries are best suited for re-use (and if so, for which applications), remanufacture or recycling, and the state of charge, for safety reasons in some recycling processes. For high-throughput triage and gateway testing of batteries at scale, the optimal approach involves in situ techniques for monitoring cells in service to enable advance warning of possible cell replacement, and module or pack reconditioning, rather than complete repurposing at a low level of state of health owing to a few failing cells.

Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy can give information on the state of health of cells, modules and, potentially, full packs 26 , and also an indication of aging mechanisms such as lithium plating. Such measurements have the potential to inform a decision matrix for re-use or disassembly and processing and, importantly, to identify potential hazards that would have further consequences for downstream processing. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy has been researched for gateway testing in primary production, for example, in a large battery production plant in the UK 27 , 28 . A number of electric-vehicle manufacturers plan to use similar technologies to manage and maintain electric-vehicle battery packs through the identification and replacement of failing modules in the field. Substantial advantages in cost, safety and throughput time are anticipated if this process can be mostly or fully automated 27 , 29 . In future, more advanced diagnostic functionality will be embedded in battery management systems, providing data that can be interrogated at end-of-life.

Challenges of pack and module disassembly

Different vehicle manufacturers have adopted different approaches for powering their vehicles, and electric vehicles on the market possess a wide variety of different physical configurations, cell types and cell chemistries. This presents a challenge for battery recycling. Figure 2 details three different types of battery cell design, and their respective packs from electric vehicles in the marketplace from model year 2014. It can be seen that the three vehicles possess very different physical configurations, requiring different approaches for disassembly, particularly regarding automation. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that at the different scales of disassembly, the format and relative size of the different components differ, presenting challenges for automation. The differing form factors and capacities may also restrict applications for re-use. And finally, Fig. 2 illustrates that manufacturers employ varying cell chemistries (see Fig. 3 ), which will necessitate different approaches to materials reclamation and strongly affect the overall economics of recycling. Whereas the prismatic and pouch cells have planar electrodes, the cylindrical cells are tightly coiled, presenting additional challenges to separating the electrodes for direct recycling processes.

The three designs examined are from model year 2014; this is based on the availability of information from vehicle teardowns, and also because older vehicles are more likely to be closer to end-of-life than today’s new cars. The breakdowns include material content in a cell, layout and content of the module and pack and the proportion of critical elements (high economic importance, but at risk of short supply) and strategic materials (either high economic importance or risk of short supply) used. The Nissan pouch cells from Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) exhibit a mixed cathode chemistry with substantial manganese content and relatively low levels of cobalt. The Tesla cylindrical 18650 cells from Panasonic and the BMW prismatic cells from Samsung SDI both contain high cobalt levels. Each cell has particular recycling challenges. Cylindrical cells are often bonded into a module using epoxy resin (difficult to remove or recycle); fuses at each end may be blown, making cell discharge challenging; and the cell geometry can be difficult to dismantle for direct recycling. Prismatic cells require ‘can opening’ (requiring special tools) to remove the contents. These large cells are under considerably more pressure than are the pouch or cylindrical cells, and can therefore be hazardous to open if the contents have degassed. The high manganese content of the Nissan pouch cells makes pyrometallurgical recycling less cost-effective, because manganese is cheap, but these cells are the least problematic to open and physically separate for direct recycling.

The term LIB covers a range of different battery chemistries, each with different performance attributes. The basic concept of a LIB is that lithium can intercalate into and out of an open structure, which consists of either ‘layers’ or ‘tunnels’. Generally the anode is graphite but the cathode material may have different chemistries and structures, which result in different performance attributes and there are trade-offs and compromises with each technology. The cathode chemistries of LIBs have a large impact on the performance of LIBs, and these chemistries have evolved and improved. Fig. 3 presents a summary of the different LiB cathode chemistries.

For repurposing and second-use applications, automotive battery packs are currently dismantled by hand for either the second use of the modules or for recycling. The weights and high voltages of traction batteries mean that qualified employees and specialized tools are required for such dismantling 25 . This is a challenge for an industry in transition with a shortage of skills. An Institute of the Motor Industry survey found only 1,000 trained technicians in the UK capable of servicing electric vehicles 30 , with another 1,000 in training. Given there are 170,000 motor technicians in the UK, this represents less than 2% of the workforce. There is concern that untrained mechanics may risk their lives repairing electric vehicles 31 , and these concerns logically extend to those handling vehicles at the end-of-life. Additionally, it has been suggested 32 that manual dismantling, in countries with high labour costs, is uneconomic with respect to revenues from extracted materials or components. Vehicle design has to strike compromises between crash safety, centre of gravity and space optimization, which must be balanced against serviceability 25 . These conflicting design objectives often result in designs that are not optimized for recyclability, and that can be time-consuming to disassemble manually 25 .

Automating battery disassembly

Robotic battery disassembly could eliminate the risk of harm to human workers, and increased automation would reduce cost, potentially making recycling economically viable. This is being piloted in a number of current research projects 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 . Importantly, automation could also improve the mechanical separation of materials and components, enhancing the purity of segregated materials and making downstream separation and recycling processes more efficient. The automation of the dismantling of automotive batteries, however, presents major challenges. This is because robotics and automation in the manufacturing sector rely on highly structured environments, in which robots make pre-programmed repetitive actions with respect to exactly known objects in fixed positions. In contrast, the development of robotic systems that can generalize to a variety of objects, and handle uncertainty, remains a major challenge at the frontier of artificial intelligence research. It is important to consider the complexity of vehicle battery disassembly from this perspective.

At present there is no standardization 37 of design for battery packs, modules or cells within the automotive sector, and it is unlikely that this will happen in the near future. Other battery-reliant products, such as mobile phones, have seen an exponential proliferation of different sizes, shapes and types of battery over the past two decades. At present, much of the factory assembly of these batteries is done by human workers and remains unautomated. Their disassembly and waste-handling typically involve even less structured environments, with much greater uncertainties, than a manufacturing assembly line.

Nevertheless, some progress has been made towards automated sorting of consumer batteries. The Optisort system 38 , 39 uses computer vision algorithms to recognize the labels on batteries, and then pneumatic actuators to segregate batteries into different bins according to their type of chemistry. However, Optisort is currently limited to AA and AAA batteries, and a large amount of pre-sorting by hand is needed to separate these from mixed batches of waste batteries, prior to entering the Optisort machine.

The Society for Automotive Engineers and the Battery Association of Japan have both recommended labelling standards for electric-vehicle batteries. Recent algorithms from computer vision research have some capability to recognize objects and materials on the basis of features such as size, shape, colour and texture. However, it could be advantageous for recycling if manufacturers were to (some manufacturers already do) include labels, QR Codes, RfID tags or other machine-readable features on key battery components and sub-structures. Where these provide a reference to an external data source, its utility in aiding the recycling process will depend on the accessibility and format of that data. If proprietary and private, such data are of limited use, but there may be initiatives to move towards standardization and open data formats. A number of companies are considering blockchain technologies to provide whole-life-cycle tracking of battery materials, including information and transparency on provenance, ethical supply chains, battery health and previous use 40 . China has signalled its intention to track battery materials.

Automated disassembly of electrical goods has also been implemented to some extent in other sectors. For example, Apple has implemented an automated disassembly line for the iPhone 6 41 that can handle 1.2 million phones per year. This line has 22 stations linked on a conveyor system and can take the iPhone apart in 11 seconds. However, this system can only deal with an iPhone 6 model. Intact phones, of this exact model, must be positioned at the start of the disassembly line, which then uses pre-programmed motions of 29 robots in 21 different cells to dismantle the phone into 8 discrete parts. The LIB is removed by heating the glue which holds the battery in place. Owing to the potential fire hazard, this must take place inside a thermal event protection system, while monitoring the battery using a thermal imaging system.

Unfortunately, 1.2 million phones per year is a drop in the ocean and the Apple disassembly line has been created using conventional industrial automation methods, making it inflexible and incapable of keeping up adaptively with new models and varieties of phones. But building a flexible and adaptable robot disassembly line need not be prohibitively expensive. The challenge is to create control algorithms and software that can make cheap hardware (robot arms cost only several thousands to several tens of thousands of dollars and costs have been steadily decreasing, can work all the time, and have very long service lifetimes) behave flexibly and intelligently to handle hugely complex disassembly problems. If those artificial intelligence challenges can be solved, then the capital investment required to respond to new and changing models could be kept remarkably low (mainly software updates would be needed). Making robots behave intelligently will rely heavily on sensors to enable advanced robotic perception, especially computer vision using three-dimensional RGB-D imaging devices, combined with bespoke sensors from materials and battery experts. The robots will also require tactile and force-sensing capabilities to handle the complex dynamics problems of forceful interactions between the robots and the materials being disassembled.

Owing to the complexity of automotive battery packs, the possibility of collaborative human–robot co-working using a new generation of force-sensitive ‘co-bot’ robot arms 33 , 42 has been suggested. Unlike conventional industrial robots, these co-bots can safely share a workspace with humans, and Wegener 33 suggests that the robot could be taught tasks such as unscrewing bolts, while the human handles cognitively more complex tasks. However, this approach does not protect the human worker from battery hazards and even the task of locating a bolt, moving a tool to engage with it, unscrewing and removing it represents a cutting-edge research challenge in robotics and machine vision. Using current industrial robotics methods, the problem only becomes attemptable (but still difficult) provided that the position of the bolt head is always exactly fixed, in a known pose relative to the robot, with very high precision.

State-of-the-art robotics, computer vision and artificial-intelligence capabilities for handling diverse waste materials do exist, and these systems have demonstrated sufficient robustness and reliability to gain acceptance by the UK nuclear industry, for example, in the deployment of artificial-intelligence-controlled, machine-vision-guided robotic manipulation for cutting of contaminated waste material in radioactive environments 43 . These technologies are now being adapted to the demanding problem of robotic battery disassembly. At different scales of disassembly—pack removal, pack disassembly, module removal and cell separation—different challenges and barriers to automation exist. Some of these are set out in Fig. 4 . Computer-vision algorithms are being developed that can identify diverse waste materials and objects 44 , reliably track objects in complex, cluttered scenes 45 , and dynamically guide the actions of robot arms 46 . Dismantling requires forceful interaction between robots and objects, engendering complex dynamics and control problems, such as simultaneous force and motion control 47 , which is needed for robotic cutting or unscrewing. Dismantled materials must be grasped and manipulated, including fragmented or deformable materials, which pose challenges both to vision systems and autonomous grasp planners. Adjigble et al. 48 have recently demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in autonomous, vision-guided robotic grasping of arbitrary objects from random, cluttered heaps. These advances in computer vision, artificial intelligence and robotics fundamentals offer exceptionally promising tools with which to approach the extremely difficult open research challenge of automated disassembly of electric-vehicle batteries.

Electric-vehicle battery packs are complex in design, containing wiring looms, bus bars, electronics, modules, cells and other components. There are also many different types of fixtures and fastenings, including screws, bolts, adhesives, sealants and solders, which are not designed for robotic removal.

Stabilization and passivation of end-of-life batteries

Once LIBs have been designated for recycling, the three main processes involved consist of stabilization, opening and separation, which may be carried out separately or together. Stabilization of the LIB can be achieved through brine or Ohmic discharge. In-process stabilization during opening, however, is the current route preferred in industry, as it minimizes costs. This consists of shredding or crushing the batteries in an inert gas such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or a mixture of carbon dioxide and argon. State-of-the art physical processing of LIBs in Europe and North America includes the Recupyl 8 (France), Akkuser 49 (Finland), Duesenfeld 50 (Germany) and Retriev 51 (USA/ Canada) processes. Large-scale European processes do not currently use stabilization techniques prior to breaking cells open, instead opting for opening under an inert atmosphere of carbon dioxide or argon (with less than 4% molecular oxygen). Opening under carbon dioxide allows for the formation of a passivating layer of lithium carbonate on any exposed lithium metal. The Retriev process differs from the European processes in that it uses a water spray during the opening step 51 . The water hydrolyses any exposed lithium and acts as a heatsink, preventing thermal runaway during opening.

Discharging through salt solutions or ‘brine’ (seawater has been used previously 52 , 53 ) is an alternative method that is supposed to render the cells safe via the corrosion and subsequent water leaching into the cells that passivates the internal cell chemistries. Aqueous solutions of halide salts have been shown to result in substantial corrosion at the battery terminal ends, whereas alkali metal salts, such as sodium phosphate, produce much less corrosion with no water penetration, offering the possibility that cells could be assessed and re-used 53 . This represents a considerably safer discharging method than using seawater; however, competing electrochemical reactions do occur. Oxygen, hydrogen and other gases, such as chlorine (depending upon the salts in the brine), will form at the anode and cathode terminals, and can potentially be collected, though the dangers and difficulties associated with this should not be underestimated. The time for complete discharge is dependent on the solubility of the salt and hence the conductivity of the solution; increasing the temperature will also shorten the discharge time. Once discharge is complete, the cell components can be separated into different materials streams for further processing: steel can or laminated aluminium, separator, anode (graphite, copper, conductive additive), binder and cathode (active material, aluminium, carbon black, binder).

The brine discharge method is not suitable for high-voltage modules and packs, owing to the high rate of electrolysis and vigorous evolution of gases that would occur. However, for low-voltage modules and cells (or once a high-voltage pack has been dismantled into its constituent components) where the electrolysis can be more carefully controlled, this could, in principle, offer a method of discharge in which the hydrogen and oxygen could be recovered for other applications, adding to the cost-effectiveness of the process 54 . The downside, however, is that contamination of the cell contents threatens to complicate the downstream chemical processes or compromise the value of processed materials streams.

An alternative to the use of salt solutions is direct Ohmic discharge of the battery through a load-bearing circuit. If the electricity can be reclaimed from the discharge, this could offset some of the cost of further processing. To put it into context, the domestic consumption of a standard UK home is up to 4,600 kWh per year. So a 60-kWh battery pack at a 50% state of charge and a 75% state of health has a potential 22.5 kWh for end-of-life reclamation, which would power a UK home for nearly 2 hours. At 14.3 p per kWh, this equates to UK£3.22 per pack, which may seem a modest gain that does not warrant the cost of investing in equipment. However, if it is unrecovered, the energy from discharge must be dissipated, and this will add to the cooling burden of the facility, creating additional costs. Furthermore, an economy of scale is to be anticipated when recycling electric vehicle batteries in bulk. Similarly, reclaimed energy might make a useful contribution to the profitability of repurposing for second use (see section ‘Battery assessment and disassembly’).

LIB cells can be shredded at various states of charge, and from a commercial point of view, if discharged modules or cells are to be processed in this way, discharge prior to shredding adds cost to the processes. Furthermore, exactly what the optimum level of discharge might be remains unclear. Depending on cell chemistry and depth of discharge, over-discharging of cells can result in copper dissolution into the electrolyte. The presence of this copper is detrimental for materials reclamation as it may then contaminate all the different materials streams, including the cathode and separator. If the voltage is then increased again or ‘normal’ operation resumed 55 , this can be dangerous because copper can reprecipitate throughout the cell, increasing the risks of short-circuiting and thermal runaway.

Current LIB-processing technologies essentially bypass these concerns by feeding end-of-life batteries directly into a shredder or high-temperature reactor. Industrial comminution technologies can passivate batteries directly but recovered battery materials then require a complex set of physical and chemical processes to produce usable materials streams. Pyrometallurgical recycling processes (see section ‘Stabilization and passivation of end-of-life batteries’) at scale may be able to accept entire electric-vehicle modules without further disassembly. However, this solution fails to capture much of the embodied energy that goes into LIB manufacture, and leaves chemical separation techniques with much to do as the battery materials become ever more intimately mixed.

Recycling methods

Pyrometallurgical recovery.

Pyrometallurgical metals reclamation uses a high-temperature furnace to reduce the component metal oxides to an alloy of Co, Cu, Fe and Ni. The high temperatures involved mean that the batteries are ‘smelted’, and the process, which is a natural progression from those used for other types of batteries, is already established commercially for consumer LIBs. It is particularly advantageous for the recycling of general consumer LIBs, which currently tends to be geared towards an imperfectly sorted feedstock of cells (indeed, the batteries can be processed along with other types of waste to improve the thermodynamics and products obtained), and this versatility is also valuable with respect to electric-vehicle LIBs. As the metal current collectors aid the smelting process 56 , the technique has the important advantage that it can be used with whole cells or modules, without the need for a prior passivation step.

The products of the pyrometallurgical process are a metallic alloy fraction, slag and gases. The gaseous products produced at lower temperatures (<150 °C) comprise volatile organics from the electrolyte and binder components. At higher temperatures the polymers decompose and burn off. The metal alloy can be separated through hydrometallurgical processes (see section ‘Hydrometallurgical metals reclamation’) into the component metals, and the slag typically contains the metals aluminium, manganese and lithium, which can be reclaimed by further hydrometallurgical processing, but can alternatively be used in other industries such as the cement industry. There is relatively little safety risk in this process, as the cells and modules are all taken to extreme temperatures with a reductant for metal reclamation—aluminium from the electrode foils and packaging is a major contributor here—so the hazards are contained within the processing. In addition, the burning of the electrolytes and plastics is exothermic and reduce the energy consumption required for the process. It follows that in the pyrometallurgical process there is typically no consideration given to the reclamation of the electrolytes and the plastics (approximately 40–50 per cent of the battery weight) or other components such as the lithium salts. Despite environmental drawbacks (such as the production of toxic gases, which must be captured or remediated and the requirement for hydrometallurgical post-processing), high energy costs, and the limited number of materials reclaimed, this remains a frequently used process for the extraction of high-value transition metals such as cobalt and nickel 57 .

Physical materials separation

For reclamation after comminution, recovered materials can be subjected to a range of physical separation processes that exploit variations in properties such as particle size, density, ferromagnetism and hydrophobicity. These processes include sieves, filters, magnets, shaker tables and heavy media, used to separate a mixture of lithium-rich solution, low-density plastics and papers, magnetic casings, coated electrodes and electrode powders. The result is generally a concentration of electrode coatings in the fine fractions of material, and a concentration of plastics, casing materials, and metal foils in the coarse fractions 58 . The coarse fractions can be put through magnetic separation processes to remove magnetic material such as steel casings and density separation processes to separate plastics from foils. The fine product is referred to as the ‘black mass’, and comprises the electrode coatings (metal oxides and carbon). The carbon can be separated from metal oxides by froth flotation, which exploits the hydrophobicity of carbon to separate it from the more hydrophilic metal oxides 59 . An overview of how these processes are used by several companies is shown in Fig. 5 , which mentions the Recupyl 8 (France), Akkuser 49 (Finland), Duesenfeld 50 (Germany) and Retriev 51 (USA/ Canada) processes.

A range of commercial entities have commercialized processes for recycling LIBs. Different approaches for the physical separation of batteries and the recovery of materials are indicated.

Often, the polymeric binders from the ‘black mass’ components need to be eliminated to liberate the graphite and metal oxides from the copper and aluminium current collectors. Published routes include the use of sonication in a solvent such as N -methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) or dimethylformamide (DMF) to detach the cathode from the current collector 60 , thermal heat treatment to decompose the binder 61 , 62 , or dissolution of the aluminium current collector 63 . These processes, however, often require high temperatures (60–100 °C) and are relatively slow (3 h). While ultrasound can induce faster delamination (1.5 h), this is still too slow for a continuous-flow process and the required solvent-to-solid mass ratios of 10:1 will not be viable on a commercial scale with these solvents 64 .

Recent teardowns of cells indicate that manufacturers are transitioning away from fluorinated binders. Many newer batteries are moving toward alternative binders on the anode, such as carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), which is water-soluble, and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), which is not water-soluble but is applied as an emulsion that may be easier to remove at end-of-life. There is also work on water-based binder systems for cathodes, but this is proving to be more challenging. Other studies have used cellulose- and lignin-based binders, although many of these are still in the laboratory testing phase 65 .

Hydrometallurgical metals reclamation

Hydrometallurgical treatments involve the use of aqueous solutions to leach the desired metals from cathode material. By far the most common combination of reagents reported is H 2 SO 4 /H 2 O 2 (ref. 66 ). A number of studies have been carried out in order to determine the most efficient set of conditions to achieve an optimal leaching rate. These include: concentration of leaching acid, time, temperature of solution, the solid-to-liquid ratio and the addition of a reducing agent 67 . In most of these studies, it was found that leaching efficiency improved when H 2 O 2 was added. Somewhat counterintuitively, it is understood that H 2 O 2 acts as a reducing agent to convert insoluble Co(III) materials into soluble Co(II) through the reaction 7 :

A range of other possible leaching acids and reducing agents have been investigated 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 . The leached solution may also subsequently be treated with an organic solvent to perform a solvent extraction 73 , 74 , 75 . Once leached, the metals may be recovered through a number of precipitation reactions controlled by manipulating the pH of the solution. Cobalt is usually extracted either as the sulfate, oxalate, hydroxide or carbonate 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , and then lithium can be extracted through a precipitation reaction forming Li 2 CO 3 or Li 3 PO 4 80 , 81 . An alternative recycling method describes mechanochemical treatment of materials, where electrode materials are ground with a chlorine compound or complexing agent to produce water-soluble salts of cobalt, which can be separated from insoluble fractions by washing with water 82 , 83 .

Most current recycling processes fall under the umbrella of ‘reagent recovery’ because the materials, with sufficient purity, can be re-used not just for resynthesizing the original cathode materials, but also in a range of other applications, such as the synthesis of CoFe 2 O 4  or MnCo 2 O 4 (refs. 84 , 85 , 86 ). Following initial work focused on the leaching and remanufacture of LiCoO 2 (ref. 87 ), work has since moved on to strategies for new cell chemistries, which typically contain multiple transition metals (for example, LiNi 1 − x − y Mn x Co y O 2 ; NMC). In such cases, once the metals have been leached from the cathode material, either sequential precipitation is employed to recover the individual metals, or the direct remanufacture of the cathode is targeted, such as work to recover NMC 88 . In this work, after leaching the metals from the cathode, the concentrations of the various metals in solution were measured and adjusted to match those in the target material (1:1:1 Ni:Mn:Co for NMC-111). The same group has applied the technique to NMC with varying metal contents and successfully resynthesized such NMC materials through the production of a precursor hydroxide, Ni x Mn y Co z (OH) 2 with x , y and z varying according to the desired final composition of the cathode 89 .

Other groups have published similar recovery methods with modifications such as additional solvent extraction steps 90 , lactic acid or urea as an alternative to sulfuric acid (additionally facilitating resynthesis) 91 , 92 as well as investigating the effect of magnesium in the resynthesized material 93 . The big issues to be addressed with all solvo-metallurgical processes are the volumes of solvents required, the speed of delamination, the costs of neutralization and the likelihood of cross-contamination of materials. Although shredding is a fast and efficient method of rendering the battery materials safe, mixing the anode and cathode materials at the start of the recycling process complicates downstream processing. A method in which anode and cathode assemblies could be separated prior to mechanical or solvent-based separation would greatly improve material segregation. This is one of several key areas where designing for end-of-life recycling promises to have a real impact, but the historic backlog of batteries containing polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a binder will still need to be processed. It is clear that the current design of cells makes recycling extremely complex and neither hydro- nor pyrometallurgy currently provides routes that lead to pure streams of material that can easily be fed into a closed-loop system for batteries.

Direct recycling

The removal of cathode or anode material from the electrode for reconditioning and re-use in a remanufactured LIB is known as direct recycling. In principle, mixed metal-oxide cathode materials can be reincorporated into a new cathode electrode with minimal changes to the crystal morphology of the active material. In general, this will require the lithium content to be replenished to compensate for losses due to degradation of the material during battery use and because materials may not be recovered from batteries in the fully discharged state with the cathodes fully lithiated. So far, work in this area has focused primarily on laptop and mobile phone batteries, as a result of the larger amounts of these available for recycling 38 . An example of how this recycling route could work has been outlined recently 94 . Cathode strips, obtained after dismantling spent batteries, were soaked in NMP before undergoing sonication. Powders were either regenerated through simple solid-state synthesis with the addition of fresh Li 2 CO 3 or treated hydrothermally with a solution containing LiOH/Li 2 SO 4 before annealing.

For high-cobalt cathodes such as lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) conventional pyrometallurgical (see section ‘Pyrometallurgical recovery’) or hydrometallurgical (see section ‘Hydrometallurgical recovery’) recycling processes can recover around 70% of the cathode value 11 . However, for other cathode chemistries that are not as cobalt-rich, this figure drops notably 11 . A 2019 648-lb Nissan Leaf battery, for example, costs US$6,500–8,500 new, but the value of the pure metals in the cathode material is less than US$400 and the cost of the equivalent amount of NMC (an alternative cathode material) is in the region of US$4,000. It is important, therefore, to appreciate that cathode material must be directly recycled (or upcycled) to recover sufficient value. As direct recycling avoids lengthy and expensive purification steps, it could be particularly advantageous for lower-value cathodes such as LiMn 2 O 4 and LiFePO 4 , where manufacturing of the cathode oxides is the major contributor to cathode costs, embedded energy and carbon dioxide footprint 95 .

Direct recycling also has the advantage that, in principle, all battery components 20 can be recovered and re-used after further processing (with the exclusion of separators). Although there is substantial literature regarding the recycling of the cathode component from spent LIBs, research on recycling of the graphitic anode is limited, owing to its lower recovery value. Nevertheless, the successful re-use of mechanically separated graphite anodes from spent batteries has been demonstrated, with similar properties to that of pristine graphite 96 .

Despite the potential advantages of direct recycling, however, considerable obstacles remain to be overcome before it can become a practical reality. The efficiency of direct recycling processes is correlated with the state of health of the battery and may not be advantageous where the state of charge is low 97 . There are also potential issues with the flexibility of these routes to handle metal oxides of different compositions. For maximum efficiency, direct recycling processes must be tailored to specific cathode formulations, necessitating different processes for different cathode materials 97 . The ten or so years spent in a vehicle—followed, perhaps, by a few more in a second-use application—therefore present a challenge in an industry where battery formulations are evolving at a rapid pace. Direct recycling may struggle to accommodate feedstocks of unknown or poorly characterized provenance, and there will be commercial reluctance to re-use material if product quality is affected.

The direct recycling route for cathode coatings is also highly sensitive to contamination by other metals, such as aluminium, which results in poor electrochemical performance 60 . In particular, methods of recovering materials for further physical or chemical separation that involve a high degree of comminution form fine particles of Al and Cu, which are difficult to separate from the electrode coatings. For this reason, processes that do not mechanically stress the electrode foils are favoured in direct recycling, and separation of the materials streams prior to mechanical sorting is preferable. However, methods of removing the electrode binder—typically pyrolysis or dissolution—present further challenges, such as the production of hazardous byproducts such as HF from pyrolysis of the PVDF binder or the use of the highly toxic NMP as a solvent for dissolution. The potential for the undesirable reaction of the PVDF binder with the electrode material appears to be a notable omission in the recycling literature, despite a growing body of research illustrating that PVDF is an excellent low-temperature fluorinating reagent for metal oxides 98 . Furthermore, recent research suggests that a certain degree of reaction can occur with the cathode even under conditions of normal cell operation 99 .

Biological metals reclamation

Bioleaching, in which bacteria are harnessed to recover valuable metals, has been used successfully in the mining industry 100 , 101 . This is an emerging technology for LIB recycling and metal reclamation and is potentially complementary to the hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical processes currently used for metal extraction 102 , 103 ; cobalt and nickel, in particular, are difficult to separate and require additional solvent-extraction steps. The process uses microorganisms to digest metal oxides from the cathode selectively 104 and to reduce these oxides to produce metal nanoparticles 105 , 106 . The number of studies that have been performed thus far, however, is relatively small and there is plenty of opportunity for further investigation in this field. The recycling methods discussed are compared in Fig. 6 .

Summary and opportunities

The electric-vehicle revolution is set to change the automotive industry radically, and some of the most profound changes will inevitably relate to the management and decommissioning of vehicles at end-of-life. Of chief concern are the complex, high-tech power trains and, in particular, the LIBs. To put this into perspective, electrification of only 2% of the current global car fleet would represent a line of cars—and in due course, of end-of-life waste—that could stretch around the Earth. There is wide acceptance that, for environmental and safety reasons, stockpiling (or worse, landfill) and wholesale transport of end-of-life electric-vehicle batteries are not attractive options, and that the management of end-of-life electric-vehicle waste will require regional solutions.

In the waste management hierarchy, re-use is considered preferable to recycling, in order to extract maximum economic value and minimize environmental impacts. Many companies in various parts of the world are already piloting the second use of electric-vehicle LIBs for a range of energy storage applications. Advanced sensors and improved methods of monitoring batteries in the field and end-of-life testing would enable the characteristics of individual end-of-life batteries to be better matched to proposed second-use applications, with concomitant advantages in lifetime, safety and market value. Even if all the benefits of second-use are realized, however, it must be remembered that recycling (if not landfill) is the inevitable fate of all batteries.

Some recent life-cycle analyses has indicated that the application of current recycling processes to the present generation of electric-vehicle LIBs may not in all cases result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to primary production 107 . More efficient processes are urgently needed to improve both the environmental and economic viability of recycling, which at present is heavily dependent on cobalt content. However, as the amount of cobalt in cathodes is reduced for economic and other reasons, to recycle using current methods will become less advantageous owing to the lower value of the materials recovered.

At present, there are low volumes of electric-vehicle batteries that require recycling. As these volumes increase dramatically, there are questions concerning the economies (and diseconomies) of scale in relation to recycling operations 58 . Pyrometallurgical routes, in particular, suffer from high capital costs, and if full recyclability of LIBs is to be achieved, alternative methods are urgently required, rather than seeking to recycle only the most economically valuable components.

There are a number of lessons that the future LIB recycling industry could learn from the highly successful lead–acid battery recycling industry. As a technology, lead–acid batteries are relatively standardized and simple to disassemble and recycle, which minimizes costs, allowing the value of lead to drive recycling. Unfortunately, for a rapidly developing technology such as electric-vehicle LIBs, such advantages are not likely to apply any time soon.

A number of improvements could make electric-vehicle LIB recycling processes economically more efficient 23 , such as better sorting technologies, a method for separating electrode materials, greater process flexibility, design for recycling, and greater manufacturer standardization of batteries. There is a clear opportunity for a more sophisticated approach to battery recovery through automated disassembly, smart segregation of different batteries and the intelligent characterization, evaluation and ‘triage’ of used batteries into streams for remanufacture, re-use and recycling. The potential benefits of this are many and include reduced costs, higher value of recovered material streams, and the near elimination of the risk of harm to human workers.

The design of current battery packs is not optimized for easy disassembly. Use of adhesives, bonding methods and fixtures do not lend themselves to easy deconstruction either by hand or machine. All reported current commercial physical cell-breaking processes employ shredding or milling with subsequent sorting of the component materials. This makes the separation of the components more difficult than if they were presorted and considerably reduces the economic value of waste material streams. Many of the challenges this presents to remanufacture, re-use and recycling could be addressed if considered early in the design process.

For direct recycling where purity of the recovered materials is required, a process which involves less component contamination during the breaking stage is important. This would benefit from an analysis of the cell component chemistries, and the state of charge and state of health of the cells before disassembly into the component parts, rather than the production of a mixture of all components. At present, this separation has only been performed at a laboratory scale and usually employs manual disassembly methods that are difficult to scale up economically. The move to greater automation and robotic disassembly promises to overcome some of these hurdles. Issues regarding the binder still need to be resolved, and acid, alkali, solvent and thermal treatments all have their positives and negatives. A cell design for reclamation of materials is extremely appealing, with low-cost water-soluble binders.

We have focused here on the scientific challenges of recycling LIBs, but we recognize that the ‘system performance’ of the LIB recycling industry will be strongly affected by a range of non-technical factors, such as the nature of the collection, transportation, storage and logistics of LIBs at the end-of-life. As these vary from country to country and region to region, it follows that different jurisdictions may arrive at different answers to the problems posed. Research is under way in the Faraday Institution ReLiB Project, UK; the ReCell Project, US; at CSIRO in Australia and at a number of European Union projects including ReLieVe, Lithorec and AmplifII.

Recycling electric-vehicle batteries at end-of-life is essential for many reasons. At present there is little hope that profitable processes will be found for all types of current and future types of electric-vehicle LIBs without substantial successful research and development, so the imperative to recycle will derive primarily from the desire to avoid landfill and to secure the supply of strategic elements. The environmental and economic advantages of second-use and the low volume of electric-vehicle batteries currently available for recycling could stifle the development of a recycling industry in some places. In many nations, the elements and materials contained in the batteries are not available, and access to resources is crucial in ensuring a stable supply chain. Electric vehicles may prove to be a valuable secondary resource for critical materials. Careful husbandry of the resources consumed by electric-vehicle battery manufacturing—and recycling—surely hold the key to the sustainability of the future automotive industry.

Change history

21 january 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

International Energy Agency (IEA) Global EV Outlook 2018 (IEA, 2018).

Ahmadi, L., Young, S. B., Fowler, M., Fraser, R. A. & Achachlouei, M. A. A cascaded life cycle: reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess . 22 , 111–124 (2017).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Doughty, D. H. & Roth, E. P. A general discussion of Li ion battery safety. Electrochem. Soc. Interface 21 , 37–44 (2012).

Kong, L., Li, C., Jiang, J. & Pecht, M. Li-ion battery fire hazards and safety strategies. Energies 11 , 2191 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Rethink Waste https://www.rethinkwaste.org/uploads/media_items/111617-shoreway-operations.original.pdf (Shoreway Operations and Contract Management, 2017).

Reaugh, L. American Manganese: Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC) Conversation with President and CEO Larry Reaugh – MoonShot Exec, https://moonshotexec.com/american-manganese-vric-conversation-with-president-and-ceo-larry-reaugh/ (2018).

Meshram, P., Pandey, B. D. & Mankhand, T. R. Extraction of lithium from primary and secondary sources by pre-treatment, leaching and separation: a comprehensive review. Hydrometallurgy 150 , 192–208 (2014).

Tedjar, F. in Challenge for Recycling Advanced EV Batteries https://congresses.icmab.es/iba2013/images/files/Friday/Morning/Farouk%20Tedjar.pdf (2013).

Katwala, A. The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction. Wired https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact (2018).

Larcher, D. & Tarascon, J.-M. Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nat. Chem . 7 , 19–29 (2015).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gaines, L. Lithium-ion battery recycling processes: research towards a sustainable course. Sustain. Mater. Technol . 17 , e00068 (2018). The net impact of LIB production can be greatly reduced if more materials can be recovered from end-of-life LIBs, in as usable a form as possible .

Turcheniuk, K., Bondarev, D., Singhal, V. & Yushin, G. Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries. Nature 559 , 467–470 (2018).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tahil, W. The Trouble with Lithium: Implications of Future PHEV Production for Lithium Demand (Meridian International Research, 2007).

Gaines, L. & Nelson, P. Lithium-ion batteries: examining material demand and recycling issues. In TMS 2010 Annual Meeting and Exhibition 27–39 (TMS 2013). Initial concerns regarding resource constraints for scaling up LIB production focused on lithium; however, in the near term, reserves of lithium are unlikely to present a constraint .

Narins, T. P. The battery business: lithium availability and the growth of the global electric car industry. Extr. Ind. Soc . 4 , 321–328 (2017).

Schmuch, R., Wagner, R., Hörpel, G., Placke, T. & Winter, M. Performance and cost of materials for lithium-based rechargeable automotive batteries. Nat. Energy 3 , 267 (2018).

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nkulu, C. B. L. et al. Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo. Nat. Sustain . 1 , 495 (2018).

Gür, T. M. Review of electrical energy storage technologies, materials and systems: challenges and prospects for large-scale grid storage. Energy Environ. Sci . 11 , 2696–2767 (2018).

Sun, S. I., Chipperfield, A. J., Kiaee, M. & Wills, R. G. A. Effects of market dynamics on the time-evolving price of second-life electric vehicle batteries. J. Energy Storage 19 , 41–51 (2018).

Gaines, L. The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a sustainable course. Sustain. Mater. Technol . 1–2 , 2–7 (2014).

Jaffe, S. Vulnerable links in the lithium-ion battery supply chain. Joule 1 , 225–228 (2017).

Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A. M., Wietschel, L., Thorenz, A. & Tuma, A. Supply risks associated with lithium-ion battery materials. J. Clean. Prod . 172 , 274–286 (2018). Focusing on six battery systems (LCO-C, LMO-C, NMC-C, NCA-C, LFP-C and LFP-LTO) this research evaluates the relative supply risk for individual elements (Li, Al, Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, P and graphite) in LIBs .

Diekmann, J. et al. Ecological recycling of lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles with focus on mechanical processes. J. Electrochem. Soc . 164 , A6184–A6191 (2017).

Nedjalkov, A. et al. Toxic gas emissions from damaged lithium ion batteries—analysis and safety enhancement solution. Batteries 2 , 5 (2016).

Elwert, T., Römer, F., Schneider, K., Hua, Q. & Buchert, M. in Behaviour of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles (eds Pistoia, G. & Liaw, B.) 289–321 (Springer, 2018). This article describes the recycling and value chain of LIBs from vehicles and the different industrial approaches currently used for cell recycling, discussing the economic and ecological aspects briefly and highlighting current challenges of LIB recycling .

Lambert, S. M. et al. Rapid nondestructive-testing technique for in-line quality control of Li-ion batteries. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron . 64 , 4017–4026 (2017).

Attidekou, P. S., Wang, C., Armstrong, M., Lambert, S. M. & Christensen, P. A. A New Time Constant Approach to Online Capacity Monitoring and Lifetime Prediction of Lithium Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles (EV). J. Electrochem. Soc . 164 , A1792–A1801 (2017).

Attidekou, P. S. et al. A study of 40 Ah lithium ion batteries at zero percent state of charge as a function of temperature. J. Power Sources 269 , 694–703 (2014). 

Cerdas, F. et al. in Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries 83–97 (Springer, 2018).

Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) IMI Raises Skills And Regulation Concerns As Demand For Electric And Hybrid Vehicle Surges https://www.theimi.org.uk/news/imi-raises-skills-and-regulation-concerns-demand-electric-and-hybrid-vehicle-surges (IMI, 2015)

EVs and industrial strategy. In Electric Vehicles: Driving The Transition https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/38309.htm . (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, House of Commons, UK, 2018).

Duflou, J. R. et al. Efficiency and feasibility of product disassembly: a case-based study. CIRP Ann . 57 , 583–600 (2008).

Wegener, K., Chen, W. H., Dietrich, F., Dröder, K. & Kara, S. Robot assisted disassembly for the recycling of electric vehicle batteries. Proc. CIRP 29 , 716–721 (2015).

Dornfeld, D. A. & Linke, B. S. (eds) Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World . (Proc. 19th CIRP Conf. on Life Cycle Engineering) (Springer, 2012).

Markowski, J., Ay, P., Pempel, H. & Müller, M. in Recycling und Rohstoffe https://www.vivis.de/wp-content/uploads/RuR5/2012_RuR_443_456_Markowski.pdf (TK, 2012).

ReLiB. Gateway Testing & Dismantling . https://relib.org.uk/gateway-testing-dismantling/ (The Faraday Insititution, 2019).

Arora, S. & Kapoor, A. in Behaviour of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles (eds Pistoia, G. & Liaw, B.) 175–200 (Springer, 2018).

Chen, H. & Shen, J. A degradation-based sorting method for lithium-ion battery reuse. PLoS One 12 , e0185922 (2017).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Advances in Battery Technologies for Electric Vehicles (eds Bruno Scrosati, B., Jürgen Garche, J. & Werner Tillmetz, W.) 245–263 (Elsevier, 2015).

Bazilian, M. D. The mineral foundation of the energy transition. Extr. Ind. Soc . 5 , 93–97 (2018).

Rujanavech, C. et al. Liam—An Innovation Story (Apple, 2016).

Luca, A., Albu-Schaffer, A., Haddadin, S. & Hirzinger, G. in 2006 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems 1623–1630 (IEEE, 2006).

Chapman, H., Lawton, S. & Fitzpatrick, J. Laser cutting for nuclear decommissioning: an integrated safety approach. Atw. Int. Z. Kernenergie 63 , 521–526 (2018).

Sun, L. et al. A novel weakly-supervised approach for RGB-D-based nuclear waste object detection. IEEE Sens. J . 19 , 3487–3500 (2018).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Xiao, J., Stolkin, R., Gao, Y. & Leonardis, A. Robust fusion of color and depth data for RGB-D target tracking using adaptive range-invariant depth models and spatio-temporal consistency constraints. IEEE Trans. Cybern . 48 , 2485–2499 (2018).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Marturi, N. et al. Dynamic grasp and trajectory planning for moving objects. Auton. Robots 43 , 1241–1256 (2018).

Ortenzi, V., Stolkin, R., Kuo, J. & Mistry, M. Hybrid motion/force control: a review. Adv. Robot . 31 , 1102–1113 (2017).

Adjigble, M. et al. Model-free and learning-free grasping by Local Contact Moment matching. In Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2933–2940 (IEEE, 2018). This paper presents an algorithm that is key to automated battery processing, in which an artificial intelligence and robotic vision system can autonomously plan where to place a robot’s fingers to stably grasp an arbitrarily shaped object, without relying on any prior knowledge or models of the object or needing any machine learning using offline training data.

Pudas, J., Erkkila, A. & Viljamaa, J. Battery recycling method. US Patent No . 8 , 979, 006 (2010).

Hanisch, C. Recycling method for treating used batteries, in particular rechargeable batteries, and battery processing installation. US Patent Application 2019/0260101A1 (2019).

Smith, W. N. & Swoffer, S. Recovery of lithium ion batteries. US Patent 8 , 616, 475 (2013).

Li, J., Wang, G. & Xu, Z. Generation and detection of metal ions and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions from the pretreatment processes for recycling spent lithium-ion batteries. Waste Manag . 52 , 221–227 (2016).

Shaw-Stewart, J. et al. Aqueous solution discharge of cylindrical lithium-ion cells. Sustain. Mater. Technol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2019.e00110 (2019).

Al-Thyabat, S., Nakamura, T., Shibata, E. & Iizuka, A. Adaptation of minerals processing operations for lithium-ion (LiBs) and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries recycling: critical review. Miner. Eng . 45 , 4–17 (2013).

Guo, R., Lu, L., Ouyang, M. & Feng, X. Mechanism of the entire overdischarge process and overdischarge-induced internal short circuit in lithium-ion batteries. Sci. Rep . 6 , 30248 (2016).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Georgi-Maschler, T., Friedrich, B., Weyhe, R., Heegn, H. & Rutz, M. Development of a recycling process for Li-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 207 , 173–182 (2012).

Lv, W. et al. A critical review and analysis on the recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng . 6 , 1504–1521 (2018).

Wang, X., Gaustad, G. & Babbitt, C. W. Targeting high value metals in lithium-ion battery recycling via shredding and size-based separation. Waste Manag . 51 , 204–213 (2016).

Zhan, R., Oldenburg, Z. & Pan, L. Recovery of active cathode materials from lithium-ion batteries using froth flotation. Sustain. Mater. Technol . 17 , e00062 (2018).

Li, X., Zhang, J., Song, D., Song, J. & Zhang, L. Direct regeneration of recycled cathode material mixture from scrapped LiFePO 4 batteries. J. Power Sources 345 , 78–84 (2017).

Li, J., Wang, G. & Xu, Z. Environmentally-friendly oxygen-free roasting/wet magnetic separation technology for in situ recycling cobalt, lithium carbonate and graphite from spent LiCoO 2 /graphite lithium batteries. J. Hazard. Mater . 302 , 97–104 (2016).

Song, D. et al. Recovery and heat treatment of the Li(Ni 1/3 Co 1/3 Mn 1/3 )O 2 cathode scrap material for lithium ion battery. J. Power Sources 232 , 348–352 (2013).

Chen, J. et al. Environmentally friendly recycling and effective repairing of cathode powders from spent LiFePO 4 batteries. Green Chem . 18 , 2500–2506 (2016).

Zhang, Z. et al. Ultrasound-assisted hydrothermal renovation of LiCoO 2 from the cathode of spent lithium-ion batteries. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci . 9 , 3691–3700 (2014).

Nirmale, T. C., Kale, B. B. & Varma, A. J. A review on cellulose and lignin based binders and electrodes: small steps towards a sustainable lithium ion battery. Int. J. Biol. Macromol . 103 , 1032–1043 (2017).

Ferreira, D. A., Prados, L. M. Z., Majuste, D. & Mansur, M. B. Hydrometallurgical separation of aluminium, cobalt, copper and lithium from spent Li-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 187 , 238–246 (2009).

He, L.-P., Sun, S.-Y., Song, X.-F. & Yu, J.-G. Leaching process for recovering valuable metals from the LiNi 1/3 Co 1/3 Mn 1/3 O 2 cathode of lithium-ion batteries. Waste Manag . 64 , 171–181 (2017).

Li, J., Shi, P., Wang, Z., Chen, Y. & Chang, C.-C. A combined recovery process of metals in spent lithium-ion batteries. Chemosphere 77 , 1132–1136 (2009).

Nayaka, G. P., Pai, K. V., Santhosh, G. & Manjanna, J. Dissolution of cathode active material of spent Li-ion batteries using tartaric acid and ascorbic acid mixture to recover Co. Hydrometallurgy 161 , 54–57 (2016).

Pinna, E. G, Ruiz, M. C., Ojeda, W. M. & Rodriguez, M. H. Cathodes of spent Li-ion batteries: dissolution with phosphoric acid and recovery of lithium and cobalt from leach liquors. Hydrometallurgy 167 , 66–71 (2016).

Yang, L. et al. Preparation and magnetic performance of Co 0.8 Fe 2.2 O 4 by a sol–gel method using cathode materials of spent Li-ion batteries. Ceram. Int . 42 , 1897–1902 (2016).

Zheng, X. et al. Spent lithium-ion battery recycling—reductive ammonia leaching of metals from cathode scrap by sodium sulphite. Waste Manag . 60 , 680–688 (2017).

Granata, G., Moscardini, E., Pagnanelli, F., Trabucco, F. & Toro, L. Product recovery from Li-ion battery wastes coming from an industrial pre-treatment plant: lab scale tests and process simulations. J. Power Sources 206 , 393–401 (2012).

Mantuano, D. P., Dorella, G., Elias, R. C. A. & Mansur, M. B. Analysis of a hydrometallurgical route to recover base metals from spent rechargeable batteries by liquid–liquid extraction with Cyanex 272. J. Power Sources 159 , 1510–1518 (2006).

Kang, J., Senanayake, G., Sohn, J. & Shin, S. M. Recovery of cobalt sulfate from spent lithium ion batteries by reductive leaching and solvent extraction with Cyanex 272. Hydrometallurgy 100 , 168–171 (2010).

Kang, J., Sohn, J.-S., Chang, H., Senanayake, G. & Shin, S. Preparation of cobalt oxide from concentrated cathode material of spent lithium ion batteries by hydrometallurgical method. Adv. Powder Technol . 21 , 175–179 (2010).

Pagnanelli, F., Moscardini, E., Altimari, P., Abo Atia, T. & Toro, L. Cobalt products from real waste fractions of end of life lithium ion batteries. Waste Manag . 51 , 214–221 (2016).

Hu, C., Guo, J., Wen, J. & Peng, Y. Preparation and electrochemical performance of nano-Co 3 O 4 anode materials from spent Li-ion batteries for lithium-ion batteries. J. Mater. Sci. Technol . 29 , 215–220 (2013).

Paulino, J. F., Busnardo, N. G. & Afonso, J. C. Recovery of valuable elements from spent Li-batteries. J. Hazard. Mater . 150 , 843–849 (2008).

Gao, W. et al. Lithium carbonate recovery from cathode scrap of spent lithium-ion battery: a closed-loop process. Environ. Sci. Technol . 51 , 1662–1669 (2017).

Yang, Y. et al. A closed-loop process for selective metal recovery from spent lithium iron phosphate batteries through mechanochemical activation. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng . 5 , 9972–9980 (2017).

Wang, M.-M., Zhang, C.-C. & Zhang, F.-S. An environmental benign process for cobalt and lithium recovery from spent lithium-ion batteries by mechanochemical approach. Waste Manag . 51 , 239–244 (2016).

Wang, M.-M., Zhang, C.-C. & Zhang, F.-S. Recycling of spent lithium-ion battery with polyvinyl chloride by mechanochemical process. Waste Manag . 67 , 232–239 (2017).

Natarajan, S., Anantharaj, S., Tayade, R. J., Bajaj, H. C. & Kundu, S. Recovered spinel MnCo 2 O 4 from spent lithium-ion batteries for enhanced electrocatalytic oxygen evolution in alkaline medium. Dalton Trans . 46 , 14382–14392 (2017).

Xi, G., Zhao, T., Wang, L., Dun, C. & Zhang, Y. Effect of doping rare earths on magnetostriction characteristics of CoFe 2 O 4 prepared from spent Li-ion batteries. Physica B 534 , 76–82 (2018).

Moura, M. N. et al. Synthesis, characterization and photocatalytic properties of nanostructured CoFe 2 O 4 recycled from spent Li-ion batteries. Chemosphere 182 , 339–347 (2017).

Li, J., Zhao, R., He, X. & Liu, H. Preparation of LiCoO 2 cathode materials from spent lithium–ion batteries. Ionics 15 , 111–113 (2009).

Zou, H., Gratz, E., Apelian, D. & Wang, Y. A novel method to recycle mixed cathode materials for lithium ion batteries. Green Chem . 15 , 1183–1191 (2013). The process is elegantly designed to remove impurities and easily tunable to synthesize the current generation of cathode materials .

Sa, Q. et al. Synthesis of diverse LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 cathode materials from lithium ion battery recovery stream. J. Sustain. Metall . 2 , 248–256 (2016).

Yang, Y., Xu, S. & He, Y. Lithium recycling and cathode material regeneration from acid leach liquor of spent lithium-ion battery via facile co-extraction and co-precipitation processes. Waste Manag . 64 , 219–227 (2017).

Li, L. et al. Sustainable recovery of cathode materials from spent lithium-ion batteries using lactic acid leaching system. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng . 5 , 5224–5233 (2017).

Liu, Y. & Liu, M. Reproduction of Li battery LiNi x Mn y Co 1− x − y O 2 positive electrode material from the recycling of waste battery. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 , 18189–18195 (2017).

Nithya, C., Thirunakaran, R., Sivashanmugam, A. & Gopukumar, S. High-performing LiMg x Cu y Co 1– x – y O 2 cathode material for lithium rechargeable batteries. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 4 , 4040–4046 (2012).

Shi, Y., Chen, G., Liu, F., Yue, X. & Chen, Z. Resolving the compositional and structural defects of degraded LiNi x Co y Mn z O 2 particles to directly regenerate high-performance lithium-ion battery cathodes. ACS Energy Lett . 3 , 1683–1692 (2018). This paper highlights the importance of direct recycling to gain economic value from the resource .

Dunn, J. B., Gaines, L., Sullivan, J. & Wang, M. Q. Impact of recycling on cradle-to-gate energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion batteries. Environ. Sci. Technol . 46 , 12704–12710 (2012). This paper was one of the first to report the environmental burdens of material production, assembly and recycling of automotive LIBs in hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and battery electric vehicles .

Sabisch, J. E. C., Anapolsky, A., Liu, G. & Minor, A. M. Evaluation of using pre-lithiated graphite from recycled Li-ion batteries for new LiB anodes. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 129 , 129–134 (2018). Whereas most papers focus on the recycling of valuable cathode materials, this examines the direct recycling of anode material .

Editorial. Recycle spent batteries. Nat. Energy 4 , 253 (2019).

Clemens, O. & Slater, P. R. Topochemical modifications of mixed metal oxide compounds by low-temperature fluorination routes. Rev. Inorg. Chem . 33 , https://doi.org/10.1515/revic-2013-0002 (2013).

Bolli, C., Guéguen, A., Mendez, M. A. & Berg, E. J. Operando monitoring of F formation in lithium ion batteries. Chem. Mater . 31 , 1258–1267 (2019). This paper suggests that the binder (PVDF) may also contribute to cell degradation and must be taken into account when developing future recycling methodologies .

Karimi, G. R., Rowson, N. A. & Hewitt, C. J. Bioleaching of copper via iron oxidation from chalcopyrite at elevated temperatures. Food Bioprod. Process . 88 , 21–25 (2010).

Smith, S. L., Grail, B. M. & Johnson, D. B. Reductive bioprocessing of cobalt-bearing limonitic laterites. Miner. Eng . 106 , 86–90 (2017).

Horeh, N. B., Mousavi, S. M. & Shojaosadati, S. A. Bioleaching of valuable metals from spent lithium-ion mobile phone batteries using Aspergillus niger . J. Power Sources 320 , 257–266 (2016).

Xin, Y. et al. Bioleaching of valuable metals Li, Co, Ni and Mn from spent electric vehicle Li-ion batteries for the purpose of recovery. J. Clean. Prod . 116 , 249–258 (2016).

Mishra, D., Kim, D.-J., Ralph, D. E., Ahn, J.-G. & Rhee, Y.-H. Bioleaching of metals from spent lithium ion secondary batteries using Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans . Waste Manag . 28 , 333–338 (2008).

Pollmann, K., Raff, J., Merroun, M., Fahmy, K. & Selenska-Pobell, S. Metal binding by bacteria from uranium mining waste piles and its technological applications. Biotechnol. Adv . 24 , 58–68 (2006).

Macaskie, L. E. et al. Today’s wastes, tomorrow’s materials for environmental protection. Hydrometallurgy 104 , 483–487 (2010).

Ciez, R. E. & Whitacre, J. F. Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 148–156 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many of the ideas suggested for recovery of high-value materials will be trialled by the Faraday Institution’s ReLiB fast-start project funded by the Faraday Institution (grant numbers FIRG005 and FIRG006) and by the ReCell Center, at Argonne National Laboratory, funded by the US Department of Energy. We acknowledge the contribution to the creation of the ReLiB project of N. Rowson (Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements and Critical Materials). We also thank Q. Dai at Argonne National Laboratories for providing additional data for Fig. 6 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faraday Institution, ReLiB Project, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Gavin Harper, Roberto Sommerville, Emma Kendrick, Laura Driscoll, Peter Slater, Rustam Stolkin, Allan Walton, Paul Christensen, Oliver Heidrich, Simon Lambert, Andrew Abbott, Karl Ryder & Paul Anderson

Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements and Critical Materials, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Gavin Harper, Roberto Sommerville, Emma Kendrick, Laura Driscoll, Peter Slater, Rustam Stolkin, Allan Walton & Paul Anderson

School of Metallurgy and Materials, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Gavin Harper, Emma Kendrick, Rustam Stolkin & Allan Walton

School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Roberto Sommerville

School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Laura Driscoll, Peter Slater & Paul Anderson

National Centre for Nuclear Robotics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Rustam Stolkin

School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

Paul Christensen, Oliver Heidrich & Simon Lambert

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

Oliver Heidrich

Materials Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Andrew Abbott & Karl Ryder

ReCell Center, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA

Linda Gaines

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

G.H. and P.A. produced the original concept of the Review, and wrote the article, integrating contributions from the team and editing and shaping the review. G.H. produced the ‘Social and environmental impacts of LIBs’ section. R. Somerville and E.K. collaborated on the ‘Physical materials separation’ and ‘Stabilization and passivation of end-of-life batteries’ sections; E.K. produced the ‘Biological recovery’ section. L.D. and P.S. produced the ‘Direct recycling’ section and part of the ‘Hydrometallurgical metals reclamation’ section. R. Stolkin and A.W. collaboratively produced the ‘Automating battery assembly’ section. P.C. provided contributions on safety, and safe discharging of batteries, O.H. contributed to the supply and value chain, environmental impact and economic assessments and S.L. provided information on battery re-use. A.A. and K.R. produced most of the ‘Hydrometallurgical metals reclamation’ section. L.G. critically revised the article. Figures 1 and 2 were created by G.H. (with help from R. Somerville and E.K.) and Fig. 4 was created by R. Somerville. Figure 3 was created by L.D., P.A. and G.H. and Fig. 6 was created by G.H. and L.G.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gavin Harper or Paul Anderson .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Anand Bhatt and Matthew Lacey and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E. et al. Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature 575 , 75–86 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1682-5

Download citation

Received : 14 January 2019

Accepted : 23 July 2019

Published : 06 November 2019

Issue Date : 07 November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1682-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Recycling of solid-state batteries.

• Marco Ahuis
• Stefan Doose

Nature Energy (2024)

Advances in 3D silicon-based lithium-ion microbatteries

• Andam Deatama Refino
• Calvin Eldona
• Hutomo Suryo Wasisto

Communications Materials (2024)

Grave-to-cradle photothermal upcycling of waste polyesters over spent LiCoO2

• Xiangxi Lou
• Penglei Yan
• Jinxing Chen

Nature Communications (2024)

Subtractive transformation of cathode materials in spent Li-ion batteries to a low-cobalt 5 V-class cathode material

• Junxiong Wang
• Guangmin Zhou

Towards Greener Recycling: Direct Repair of Cathode Materials in Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries

• Jiahui Zhou
• Shengming Xu

Electrochemical Energy Reviews (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

CleanHub research report says 10 countries export over 4.4 million tonnes of plastic waste

• Recycling Product News Staff
• May 14, 2024

A new research report from CleanHub ranks the top 10 countries that export and import the most plastic waste annually. The top 10 export more than 4.4 million tonnes of plastic waste per year, accounting for 71 percent of all plastic waste exports.

With many governments reluctant to release official figures, highlighting the complicated and shady nature of global plastic waste disposal, the research has been compiled from various key industry and scientific reports for a definitive ranking. 

Some countries export and import an enormous amount of plastic waste per year, simultaneously getting rid of the plastic they can't process while taking in plastic they can turn into material to manufacture new goods.

Key report findings:

• The top 10 countries export more than 4.4 million tonnes of plastic waste per year, accounting for 71 percent of all plastic waste exports.
• The top 10 exporting countries are all high-income, developed nations, and seven of them are in Europe.
• Germany, Japan, and the UK are the top three plastic waste exporting countries.
• The Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany are the top three importers of plastic waste.
• Many nations have reduced plastic waste exports over the past year – notably the U.S. by 28 percent, and Germany by six percent.
• In the last year, Japan's exports have increased by seven percent, Canada's have grown by 10 percent, and the Netherlands' have shot up by 69 percent in the past four years.
• Around five million tonnes of used plastic are exported each year, 55 percent of which are discarded.

Exporting plastic waste has become a cheaper way for some of the wealthiest countries to avoid having to recycle, reuse, or properly process millions of tonnes of their own garbage. It keeps their carbon footprints and plastic footprints low and maintains the impression that they're progressing towards their net-zero targets.

Instead, they send it to other nations for recycling – while aware that vast quantities of the exported waste are mismanaged through dumping in landfills and/or burning.

The CleanHub report looks at the ongoing legislation around plastic waste, as well as detailing the way plastic waste exports impact the environment through:

• Polluting oceans: Five percent of ocean plastic pollution is from waste exports, a total of around 635,000 tonnes of bottles, bags, plates, and other waste.
• Polluting countries: Exported plastic waste is routinely burned illegally, which sends toxic chemical pollutants into the air, or dumped illegally, causing toxins to seep into ground and water supplies.
• Polluting our atmosphere: The five million tonnes of plastic exports are mainly shipped abroad, which emits 320,900 tonnes of CO2 annually.

Read the full report .

Related Articles

Eastman to build second U.S. molecular recycling plant in Texas

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this site you agree to our use of cookies.