Lithium Extraction Methodology and Recovery from Conventional Resources: A Critical Review

Akbar, HM; Habib, S; Akoumeh, R; Mahdi, E; Al-Ejji, M; Altaee, A; Hawari, AH

Lithium Extraction Methodology and Recovery from Conventional Resources: A Critical Review

Akbar, HM Habib, S Akoumeh, R Mahdi, E Al-Ejji, M Altaee, A

Hawari, AH

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 2025, 236, (11)
Issue Date:: 2025-11

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.28 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Akbar, HM
dc.contributor.author	Habib, S
dc.contributor.author	Akoumeh, R
dc.contributor.author	Mahdi, E
dc.contributor.author	Al-Ejji, M
dc.contributor.author	Altaee, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9764-3974
dc.contributor.author	Hawari, AH
dc.date.accessioned	2025-08-04T03:58:09Z
dc.date.available	2025-08-04T03:58:09Z
dc.date.issued	2025-11
dc.identifier.citation	Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 2025, 236, (11)
dc.identifier.issn	0049-6979
dc.identifier.issn	1573-2932
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/189029
dc.description.abstract	<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Lithium recovery from various primary sources, such as brine, ores, seawater, and clay, or secondary resources that include lithium-ion batteries (LIB) and lithium-ion metal oxide batteries (LIMOB) poses a challenge due to the complexity of the extraction processes. This review aims to examine recent advancements in lithium extraction and recovery from both primary and secondary sources. It provides an overview of the established recovery and separation techniques for primary sources, including precipitation, chromatography, ion exchange, and membrane technologies, alongside the chemical agents used in these processes. Additionally, lithium recovery from secondary sources through methods such as hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, and bioleaching, highlighting the use of various organic and inorganic sorbents, is also addressed. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the recovery techniques, as well as economic, environmental, and technical data analysis, are also discussed. While the recovery of lithium from primary sources has been extensively studied, secondary sources—particularly spent LIBs and LIMOBs—have received relatively less attention, mainly due to challenges such as the hazardous nature of recycling processes, stringent environmental regulations, high operational costs, and significant energy requirements. Nevertheless, the emergence of bioleaching technologies offers a promising alternative technique for lithium recovery from secondary sources, owing to their potential for environmentally sustainable operations, cost-effectiveness, and lower energy consumption, availability of materials and bio-organisms, despite the new emergence for lithium recovery from secondary resources. The major highlight of this review paper is the comparison of each recovery technique. Among the primary resources -brine, ore, clay- recovery techniques, precipitation techniques were found to recover ~ 99.5% of lithium in the form of lithium chloride (LiCL), while membrane and chromatography managed to recover ~ 98%, and lastly, 78% using liquid–liquid extraction techniques. However, by implementing the hydrometallurgy technique to recover lithium from secondary resources in the form of lithium fluoride (LiF), lithium phosphate (Li<jats:sub>3</jats:sub>PO<jats:sub>4</jats:sub>, and lithium carbonate (Li<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>CO<jats:sub>3</jats:sub>), only ~ 88% of lithium salts were recovered, while in pyrometallurgy similar recovery percentage was noticed, 87%. Additionally, a 70 ~ 96% recovery rate is reached using bioleaching and microorganisms.</jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:bold>Graphical Abstract</jats:bold> </jats:p> <jats:p>Lithium recovery sources and its extraction processes graphical abstract.</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Springer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.relation	Qatar Foundation - MME03-1015-210003
dc.relation.ispartof	Water, Air, & Soil Pollution
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s11270-025-08382-4
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.classification	Environmental Sciences
dc.title	Lithium Extraction Methodology and Recovery from Conventional Resources: A Critical Review
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	236
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/Centre for Green Technology (CGT)
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2025-08-04T03:58:07Z
pubs.issue	11
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	236
utslib.citation.issue	11

Abstract:

Abstract Lithium recovery from various primary sources, such as brine, ores, seawater, and clay, or secondary resources that include lithium-ion batteries (LIB) and lithium-ion metal oxide batteries (LIMOB) poses a challenge due to the complexity of the extraction processes. This review aims to examine recent advancements in lithium extraction and recovery from both primary and secondary sources. It provides an overview of the established recovery and separation techniques for primary sources, including precipitation, chromatography, ion exchange, and membrane technologies, alongside the chemical agents used in these processes. Additionally, lithium recovery from secondary sources through methods such as hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, and bioleaching, highlighting the use of various organic and inorganic sorbents, is also addressed. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the recovery techniques, as well as economic, environmental, and technical data analysis, are also discussed. While the recovery of lithium from primary sources has been extensively studied, secondary sources—particularly spent LIBs and LIMOBs—have received relatively less attention, mainly due to challenges such as the hazardous nature of recycling processes, stringent environmental regulations, high operational costs, and significant energy requirements. Nevertheless, the emergence of bioleaching technologies offers a promising alternative technique for lithium recovery from secondary sources, owing to their potential for environmentally sustainable operations, cost-effectiveness, and lower energy consumption, availability of materials and bio-organisms, despite the new emergence for lithium recovery from secondary resources. The major highlight of this review paper is the comparison of each recovery technique. Among the primary resources -brine, ore, clay- recovery techniques, precipitation techniques were found to recover ~ 99.5% of lithium in the form of lithium chloride (LiCL), while membrane and chromatography managed to recover ~ 98%, and lastly, 78% using liquid–liquid extraction techniques. However, by implementing the hydrometallurgy technique to recover lithium from secondary resources in the form of lithium fluoride (LiF), lithium phosphate (Li3PO4, and lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), only ~ 88% of lithium salts were recovered, while in pyrometallurgy similar recovery percentage was noticed, 87%. Additionally, a 70 ~ 96% recovery rate is reached using bioleaching and microorganisms. Graphical Abstract Lithium recovery sources and its extraction processes graphical abstract.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/189029