Being successfully introduced into the market only 30 years ago, lithium‐ion batteries have become state‐of‐the‐art power sources for portable electronic devices and the most promising candidate for energy storage in stationary or electric vehicle applications. This widespread use in a multitude of industrial and private applications leads to the need for recycling and reutilization of their constituent components. Improving the “recycling technology” of lithium ion batteries is a continuous effort and recycling is far from maturity today. The complexity of lithium ion batteries with varying active and inactive material chemistries interferes with the desire to establish one robust recycling procedure for all kinds of lithium ion batteries. Therefore, the current state of the art needs to be analyzed, improved, and adapted for the coming cell chemistries and components. This paper provides an overview of regulations and new battery directive demands. It covers current practices in material collection, sorting, transportation, handling, and recycling. Future generations of batteries will further increase the diversity of cell chemistry and components. Therefore, this paper presents predictions related to the challenges of future battery recycling with regard to battery materials and chemical composition, and discusses future approaches to battery recycling.

No abstract

Aims The aim of the study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between sotalol and antacids, and its pharmacodynamic relevance. Methods In a randomized cross-over design with three treatment groups, six healthy volunteers received orally either 160 mg of sotalol alone ( phase 1), or 160 mg sotalol plus 20 ml of a suspension of an antacid (MAH; magnesium hydroxide (1200 mg ) and aluminium oxide (1800 mg )) ( phase 2) or 160 mg sotalol plus the antacid given 2 h after sotalol administration ( phase 3). Heart rate and plasma sotalol concentrations were measured before and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after sotalol administration. Urinary sotalol excretion was measured for 24 h after sotalol application. Results C max of sotalol decreased from 1.22±0.22 mg l −1 ( phase 1) to 0.89±0.29 mg l −1 ( phase 2) and increased again to 1.27±0.18 mg l −1 in phase 3.A similar significant change was noted in AUC (15.6±2.75 mg l −1 , 12.3±3.04 mg h l −1 and 15.0±2.06 mg l −1 ) and in the amount of cumulative urinary excretion (79.2±11.1 mg, 72.1±11.2 mg and 80.6±7.9 mg ), respectively. t max and elimination half-life (t 1/2,z ) of sotalol remained unchanged in the presence of MAH. After combined administration with MAH, the area under the heart rate curve of sotalol was reduced between 0 and 4 h when compared across treatments. Conclusions Combined administration of sotalol and MAH decreased the serum sotalol levels. The interaction can be avoided by a two hour interval between application of these drugs.

The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202206092.