Study (open access): Universal and efficient extraction of lithium for lithium-ion battery recycling using mechanochemistry

>Abstract

>The increasing lithium-ion battery production calls for profitable and ecologically benign technologies for their recycling. Unfortunately, all used recycling technologies are always associated with large energy consumption and utilization of corrosive reagents, which creates a risk to the environment. Herein we report a highly efficient mechanochemically induced acid-free process for recycling Li from cathode materials of different chemistries such as LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, Li(CoNiMn)O2, and LiFePO4. The introduced technology uses Al as a reducing agent in the mechanochemical reaction. Two different processes have been developed to regenerate lithium and transform it into pure Li2CO3. The mechanisms of mechanochemical transformation, aqueous leaching, and lithium purification were investigated. The presented technology achieves a recovery rate for Li of up to 70% without applying any corrosive leachates or utilizing high temperatures. The key innovation is that the regeneration of lithium was successfully performed for all relevant cathode chemistries, including their mixture.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Logic errors? Hahahaha sure buddy.

Read the article. It was an experiment in automated enforcement. It was not meant to be permanent. The community did not change the law, only the enforcement model.

Need... Uhm... It's useful in the same way that you need English. To expand your world.

Or just communicate. It's great when you find other's thoughts that you can take as yours.

As long as we don't take it too much seriously, I suppose.

[removed]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Abstract

>Objective: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has a relapse rate that cannot be ignored and places a tremendous burden on the patient in the prevention and treatment process. Yoga, a combination of physical and mental exercises, is effective and acceptable for the adjunctive treatment of MDD. This study aimed to explore further the evidence of yoga’s efficacy for patients with MDD.
>
>Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, PsycINFO, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from their inception to 13 October 2022 were searched by a pre-defined search strategy. RCTs of patients with MDD who met diagnostic criteria for yoga treatment were included. RoB2.0 was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. Improvement in depressive symptoms was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), or other scales were used as primary outcome indicators, and improvement in anxiety was assessed by the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scale as secondary outcome indicators. RR and Cohen’s d at 95% CI were used as effect size estimates, and Q and I2 were used to evaluate the size of heterogeneity, with a p-value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance.
>
>Results: Thirty-four RCT studies, including 1,269 patients in the treatment group and 1,072 patients in the control group, 48.4% of whom were women, were included in the study. Compared to the control group, the BDI-II results yielded a moderate effect of yoga on the improvement of depressive symptoms (Cohen’s d = −0.60; 95% CI: −1.00 to −0.21; p < 0.01), the HAMD results yielded a moderate improvement of yoga on the severity of depressive symptoms (Cohen’s d = −0.64; 95% CI: −0.98 to −0.30; p < 0.01), and the STAI results can be concluded that yoga had a negligible effect on the improvement of the level of anxiety (Cohen’s d = −0.26; 95% CI: −0.48 to −0.04; p = 0.02). No adverse events occurred in the yoga group during the treatment.
>
>Conclusion: Yoga can improve depressive symptoms and anxiety in patients with MDD and has a safe and wide patient acceptance.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I suppose also for some of us, the learning is part of the enjoying.

I also understand the perspective also wanting to appreciate the art as it is presented, and without the context. And as others in this discussion thread have noted, some artists want it to be approached that way - leaving the piece as Untitled and requesting that it be presented without the context or notes.

There's really no wrong way to appreciate art, despite what the clickbait title says. If you find the beauty in the image and not the words, that's valid too.

Cheers, stranger.

As part of my job, I do risk analysis and mitigation. I agree that it's not terribly useful to stack up the potential harms, hand wave and say that the advice to wear masks was wrong at the time (indeed, the paper reiterates this multiple times). However, going forwards, it's useful to have data that explores exactly what is being impacted and, where possible, to quantify the extent to which it's being impacted.

As they state in the discussion, this doesn't just have to be making a decision between masks and no masks; strategies could be adopted (particularly when caring for the mentally vulnerable) to reduce the impact. Not that I'm attributing this to you but it's disappointing generally when people skim a headline and laugh at the temerity of a researcher to explore something that, on the surface, is common sense.

[deleted]

I’m not a chaplain.

That isn't terribly helpful. Just saying that someone doesn't understand something doesn't really demonstrate anything.

I don’t know why you would need someone else’s “approach.” You either enjoy something or you don’t. More context either works for you or it doesn’t. Who cares what Susan Sontag has to say.

[removed]

The Elizabeth Stewart Gardner museum in Boston has this problem. In order to adhere to Mrs. Gardner's will they can't alter placement or appearance. They've got audio tour and QR code information on placard stands for the rooms, but it is frustrating to have to be on your phone to get the info. It's a beautiful place but it takes you out of the experience a bit compared to each piece having an info plaque.

[removed]

all of them? probably ever?

I wish they had more information. Like ideally each work would have something as in depth as a Wikipedia article. But often there are just a couple of sentences.

Probably a good use case for QR codes.

[removed]

I guess that's valid for many people.

What you've said to me remembers me how people approached art in my school days. It was more important to learn than enjoying. Legit, sure.

Luckily, when I go to a museum I get a different experience that is quite deep, personal... And often independent from the life of those who appear in the painting or what was in the painter's mind. I am not trying to start a discussion, anyway.

There are several logic issues here. People behave up to a point. After that, no amount of enforcement will act as a deterrent. Also, laws don't have the societal function you purport them to have. Mostly, laws are meant to keep a certain group of people suppressed. Here, the social norm is that people spend a certain amount of water. Once it became apparent the law was hurting the in-group, it was discontinued.

I am afraid I am too influenced by Susan Sontag's approach to art to be convinced by that, but I have to recognise that you have a point there.

Sponsorship by Facebook or something?

I may be fully ignorant of well known facts here, but I really want to ask.

We’ve been hearing nonstop about face masks’ impact on interpersonal interactions via hiding expressions, and the supposed harm therein. Most of it has been relating to children and learning in school settings, but it has branched out to include the population at large.

Is there a genuine concern or anything resembling a consensus in respectable scientific circles that this is a serious potential harm of facial PPE that could outweigh their utility, and that this should give us pause about the decision to have utilized it so broadly during the Covid pandemic?

I get that it’s a theoretical harm, and maybe there’s now some evidence that bears it out. But quantitatively how much of a harm is it? When we talk about rise in mental illness, learning deficits in children, personal isolation, I can think of about a billion other confounding variables that could have contributed to these other than “we lost our sense of connection to strangers in public because we periodically were unable to see their facial expressions.”

I feel like there was a strong demand for something to put under the “harms” column with masks, given that they were and are widely seen as basically a zero risk intervention.

When I’m seeing stuff about how periodic inability to see facial expressions is causing widespread harm, it feels like it’s coming mostly from one particular crowd, and has a strong “post hoc” flavor to it.

But I could be dead ass wrong here.