Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Comparative life cycle assessment of LFP and NCM batteries including the
secondary use and different recycling technologies
Jiawei Quan, Siqi Zhao, Duanmei Song, Tianya Wang, Wenzhi He, Guangming Li
⁎
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resources Reuse, Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, College of Environmental Science and Engineering,
Tongji University, Mingjing Building, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, People's Republic of China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A from-cradle-to-grave life cycle assess-

ment and comparison between LFP and
NCM batteries were performed.
• The resource depletion and environmen-
tal emissions of the LFP batteries were
higher.
• Environmentally, hydrometallurgy outper
formed pyrometallurgy and direct physi-
cal recycling.
• Production, first use, and secondary use
dominated the environmental impacts of
LIBs.
• Enhanced charge-discharge efficiency
helped significantly reduce environmen-
tal burdens.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) batteries are the most
Received 1 September 2021 widely used power lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) in electric vehicles (EVs) currently. The future trend is to reuse LIBs re-
Received in revised form 9 January 2022 tired from EVs for other applications, such as energy storage systems (ESS). However, the environmental performance
Accepted 10 January 2022
of LIBs during the entire life cycle, from the cradle to the grave, has not been extensively discussed. In this study, life
Available online 15 January 2022
cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify and compare the environmental impacts of LFP and NCM batteries. Apart
Editor: Deyi Hou from the phases of production, the first use in EVs, and recycling, the repurposing of retired LIBs and their secondary
use in the ESS were also included in the system boundary. Also, the environmental impacts of various recycling pro-
Keywords: cesses were evaluated. The LCA results suggested that the NCM battery had better comprehensive environmental per-
Lithium-ion batteries formance than the LFP one but shorter service life over the whole life cycle. In China, the first and secondary use phases
Life cycle assessment contributed most to the environmental impacts with electricity mostly generated from fossil fuels. The LIB production
Secondary use phase was relevant to all assessed impact categories and contributed more than 50% to Abiotic Depletion Potential
Recycling (ADP elements) particularly. The environmental loads could be mitigated through the recovery of metals and other
materials. And, hydrometallurgy was recommended for recycling waste LIBs by better environmental advantages
than pyrometallurgy and direct physical recycling. Sensitivity analysis revealed that by optimizing the charge-
discharge efficiency of LIBs, particularly LFP batteries, all environmental burdens could be considerably decreased.
Therefore, improving the electrochemical performance of LIBs and increasing the use proportion of clean energy
were crucial to reduce the environmental impacts over their entire life cycle.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ligm@tongji.edu.cn (G. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153105
0048-9697/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Quan et al.
1. Introduction
Global warming was intensified by the rapid development of technology
and the industrial revolution (Kamran et al., 2021). Transportation accounted
for a sizable portion of CO2 emissions (Faria et al., 2013; Sommerville et al.,
2021; WRI, 2020). Therefore, electric vehicles (EVs) were being developed
globally for greater environmental benefits (Crenna et al., 2021; Faria et al.,
2013), which was also a critical strategy for China to address global climate
change and promote green development (Central People's Government of
China, 2020). Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) were the most frequently utilized
technology in EV power supply systems due to the long cycle life and high en-
ergy density (Alfaro-Algaba and Ramirez, 2020). In particular, lithium iron
phosphate (LFP) batteries and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide
(NCM) batteries were widely employed in the EVs market for their excellent
drivability performance (Kamran et al., 2021). But LIBs were essentially
energy-intensive products leading to significant energy demand and pollution
emissions during production and use stages.
The environmental impacts and resource demands associated with LIBs
within the life cycle were key challenges that restricted the sustainable devel-
opment of EVs. With the increasing amount of LIBs, the energy and resources
requirements for the production processes increased significantly (Yin et al.,
2016). Despite rising demand, China's lithium, nickel, and cobalt reserves
were comparatively small (USGS, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Meanwhile,
the environmental pollution associated with the battery production process
couldn't be ignored (Wang et al., 2019; Wu and Kong, 2018). When the capac-
ity decreased to 80% of the nominal capacity, the LIBs were considered to re-
tire from EVs for the first use phase (Fan et al., 2020). After repurposing,
retired LIBs could be utilized as energy storage modules in less-demanding
applications, such as peak shaving, renewable energy storage, low-speed elec-
tric cars, and power tools (Hua et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2018). Secondary use
was considered a cost-effective measure to delay the scrapping of LIBs,
while also providing opportunities for energy and the environment
(Ahmadi et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2020). Therefore, the secondary use of re-
tired LIBs was viewed as a promising development trend with commercial po-
tential and environmental advantages. However, studies on environmental
assessments of applications of second-life LIBs were limited to a degree.
The LIBs would enter the end-of-life (EoL) phase when their capacity
dropped below 60% of the nominal capacity. The proper treatments of
EoL LIBs were needed. On the one hand, EoL LIBs contained abundant
metals (especially lithium, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and copper), all of
which had a high economic value for recovery (Richa et al., 2014;
Sommerville et al., 2021). On the other hand, metals and organics included
in EoL LIBs would trigger environmental pollution and cause pathogenic
risks to human health without adequate recycling (Hua et al., 2020;
Winslow et al., 2018; Yin, 2018). Hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, and di-
rect physical recycling were the dominating techniques of recovery (Chen
et al., 2019). Additionally, the environmental performance of the various
recycling processes remains to be analyzed.
Therefore, an assessment was required to specify the environmental im-
pacts of LIBs from a whole life cycle perspective. Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) has been widely used to assess the environmental performance of
LIBs (Zhang et al., 2018) due to its ability to quantify and analyze environ-
mental impacts along with every lifecycle phase.
It could be found that the environmental impacts of LIBs had been quan-
titatively assessed in some recent LCA studies. However, these studies
focused more on the battery production and first use phase in EVs
(Ellingsen et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2016; Notter et al., 2010; Van den
Bossche et al., 2006; Zackrisson et al., 2010). Also, the environmental per-
formance of LIBs recycling has been discussed in some studies. The study by
Hendrickson et al. (2015), based their dataset on the Umicore Patent No.
US 7,169,206 B2 (2007), suggested that hydrometallurgy could save
more energy than pyrometallurgy. Hao et al. (2017b) observed that hydro-
metallurgical recycling of NCM batteries could achieve CO2 emissions re-
duction, but the comparison of recycling technologies was not carried
out. Mohr et al. (2020) quantified the potential reduction in environmental
impacts achieved by recycling according to data obtained from European
2
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
industry. However, the above LCA studies did not include a complete life
cycle and could therefore not provide any information or recommendation
regarding the environmental impact of any of the assessed battery types.
Hence, studies had gradually focused on the economic and environmental
feasibility of repurposing and second-use of LIBs. Farian et al. (2014) dem-
onstrated that the environmental implications of secondary use were highly
reliant on the electricity mix and battery efficiency loss. Richa et al. (2017b)
noted that reusing refurbished LIBs in energy storage systems (ESS) would
be more environmentally advantageous than manufacturing and utilizing
lead-acid batteries, without specifying the type of LIBs. Ahmadi et al.
(Ahmadi et al., 2017; Richa et al., 2017b) discussed environmental impacts
of LFP batteries throughout their entire life cycle, including manufacturing,
EV use, remanufacturing, reuse in ESS, and recycling, while the lifetime of
the two use stages was assumed to be 18 years roughly. Yang et al. (2020)
evaluated the environmental feasibility of repurposing LFP batteries in
communication base stations without considering the use phase in the sys-
tem boundary. And Peters et al. (2017) conducted a review of LCA studies
of LIBs and found that only a few publications provided original life cycle
inventory data. In sum, existing researches cannot adequately capture the
environmental implications of China's LFP and NCM batteries across their
whole life cycle, from cradle to grave.
This study aimed to address the gaps in environmental aspects of LIBs' en-
tire lifecycle via innovatively proposed complete life cycle models for both
LFP and NCM batteries. The battery production phase, first use (used in
EVs) phase, repurposing phase, secondary use (used in ESS) phase, and
recycling phase were all considered in system boundaries. For the
repurposing and recycling phases, foreground data were obtained from typi-
cal enterprises in China. As for the two use phases, the energy consumption
was calculated based on battery capacity decay and cycle life rather than a
simple assumption of service life. Simultaneously, two different recovery pro-
cesses were considered for LFP and NCM batteries, respectively. The objective
was further to explore the environmental performance of various recycling
technologies. Also, complete and transparent life cycle inventories were pro-
vided for all lifecycle phases. The LCA results would help make judgments on
secondary use in the ESS. Moreover, the comparative analysis of environmen-
tal impacts associated with the recycling phase would aid in selecting and
promoting recycling technologies. Additionally, decision-making and techni-
cal support were offered for related green manufacturing and full lifecycle
management to help the power LIBs industry develop more sustainably.
2. Data and methodology
In this study, LCA was used, which has been recognized to assess prod-
ucts' life-cycle environmental impacts quantitatively (Kirchain et al., 2017;
Liang et al., 2017).
LCA was carried out according to ISO 14040-2006 and ISO 14044-2006
(ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006) published by the International Orga-
nization for Standardization (ISO). Modeling was performed by GaBi Edu-
cation, which supported several databases and was widely used for LCA
(Zhao et al., 2019).
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goals of the study were:
(1) to establish and complete the entire life cycle inventories (LCIs) of
LFP and NCM batteries;
(2) to compare the environmental performance of LFP and NCM batte-
ries from a full life cycle perspective and to confirm the environmental fea-
sibility of secondary use of LIBs in ESS.
(3) to provide comparative analyses of environmental impacts of differ-
ent recycling technologies and to offer a reference for selecting industrial-
ized recycling methods.
2.1.1. Functional units
The functional unit (FU) was defined as the nominal capacity of a 1 kWh
battery pack. This FU had been used in related LCA studies (Matheys et al.,
J. Quan et al.
2007; Wu et al., 2021). And all collected data needed to be converted to FU
to ensure comparable results for the environmental impacts of different bat-
teries. It was essential for the accuracy of the calculation results.
2.1.2. System boundary
The system boundary considered five main phases during the lifetime of
LFP and NCM batteries (Fig. 1). There were the battery production, the first
use, the repurposing, the secondary use, and the recycling phase (transpor-
tation was not included), where:
Fig. 1. System boundaries of (a) LFP batteries and (b) NCM batteries. Each type of LIBs had two scenarios due to two recycling technologies.
3
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
(1) Battery production phase included the production and preparation of
cathode materials as well as the mining and refining of lithium. There-
fore, the research results were more precise and accurate.
(2) The first use phase accounted for electricity losses due to the charge-
discharge efficiency and weight of the LIB.
(3) In the reuse phase, it was assumed that only the parts and components
of the LIB were replaced, not the modules or cells.
(4) Secondary use phase: Integrating the current cascade utilization pol-
icy and relevant technology in China, this study assumed that the sec-
J. Quan et al.
ondary use scenario of retired LFP and NCM batteries after
repurposing is the energy storage field.
(5) Recycling phase: EoL NCM batteries were recycled by hydrometal-
lurgy (Mathieux et al., 2017; Swain, 2017) and pyrometallurgy
(Chen et al., 2019; Gaines, 2014), while EoL LFP batteries were
recycled by hydrometallurgy and direct physical recycling (Shi
et al., 2018a; Shi et al., 2018b). These choices were based on the tech-
nical characteristics of batteries (Chen et al., 2019; Wang, 2018). Hy-
drometallurgy has been widely used in the recovery of LIBs.
However, pyrometallurgy was not used to recycle LFP batteries be-
cause of the absence of cobalt, generally (Chen et al., 2019). NCM
batteries with complex cathode materials could not yet be strictly
sorted through direct physical recycling (Shi et al., 2018a; Shi et al.,
2018b). And, closed-loop recycling scenarios were assumed, in
which recovered materials were considered as substitutes for the pri-
mary materials to avoid impacts from the primary production route.
2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis
The data in this paper were divided into background data and fore-
ground data. The background data were primarily obtained from
Ecoinvent, GREET, and GaBi databases. Foreground data for LIBs pro-
duction, repurposing and recycling sourced from relevant research liter-
ature and the openly available environmental impact assessment
reports of typical companies in China. We reviewed and extracted de-
tailed input-output parameters to build flows and processes of produc-
tion and recycling of batteries and related materials, which followed
the principles of reliability, completeness, technical representativeness,
geographic representativeness and temporal representativeness to en-
sure data quality (Salemdeeb et al., 2021; Weidema et al., 2013). The
detailed foreground data would be disclosed in Section 2.2.1,
Section 2.2.3, and Section 2.2.5.
It was assumed that the complete lifecycle phases occurred in China,
and the average power mix in China was used (the relevant electricity
data referred to GaBi education China's power mix in 2016). In Sections
2.2.1–2.2.5, the authors compiled and constructed detailed LCIs for LFP
and NCM batteries.
2.2.1. Battery production phase
The bill of materials (BoMs) for LFP and NCM batteries was sourced
from Dai et al., which was based on Argonne's Battery Performance and
Cost (BatPac) model (Dai et al., 2018). A total mass of 203.1 kg has been se-
lected for the LFP batteries and 164.99 kg for the NCM batteries. Both LIBs
had a nominal capacity of 23.5 kWh. The BoMs for the studied LFP and
NCM pack were shown in Table S1. And the detailed information on the en-
ergy and water consumption of LIBs manufacturing processes was obtained
from a published study conducted by Dai et al. (2017). The data of the study
were collected from one leading Chinese LIB manufacturer.
The battery production process included three main parts: electrode
preparation, cell production, and battery assembly. Apart from the differ-
ences in electrode materials, the core processes of the LFP and NCM batte-
ries production process were primarily the same.
The battery pack assembly process didn't involve energy-intensive pro-
cesses like cooling or drying (Dai et al., 2017). Therefore, it was assumed
that the energy consumption for battery pack assembly was negligible com-
pared with that for cell production. In summary, the energy consumption
for LFP and NCM battery manufacturing was estimated to be 170 MJ/
kWh battery produced, of which 30 MJ was electrical energy and the re-
maining 140 MJ was heat, assumed for natural gas. In addition, the water
consumption for LIBs production was 8.6 gal/kWh battery produced. Simi-
larly, the water consumption of the battery pack assembly process was neg-
ligible (Dai et al., 2017; Ellingsen et al., 2014).
Therefore, the energy and material consumption for the production
phase of LIBs were presented in Tables S2–S3. Meanwhile, data on cathode
active materials and precursors were primarily derived from environmental
impact assessment reports of typical Chinese facilities in order to more
4
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
accurately reflect the current state of battery production in China
(Tables S4–S17).
2.2.2. First use phase
The first use phase referred to the process that the new LIBs were used in
EVs until the capacity decreased to 80% of the initial rate capacity. The
electricity losses in this phase included two main parts (Ellingsen et al.,
2017): one was caused by the battery's charge-discharge efficiency (below
100%), and the mass of the battery caused the other.
(1) Electricity loss due to battery's charge-discharge efficiency
The charge-discharge efficiency usually depended on factors such as the
chemical composition and the operating conditions of the battery. Accord-
ing to previous studies, the charge-discharge efficiency of various LIBs
ranges from 80% to 95% (Amarakoon et al., 2013; Gerssen-Gondelach
and Faaij, 2012; Zackrisson, 2016; Zackrisson et al., 2010). With the in-
crease of battery cycle times, the charge-discharge efficiency will gradually
decrease. Considering that two use phases of the battery were included, it
was assumed that the charge-discharge efficiency was 90% during the
first use phase. And the charge-discharge efficiency did not decrease with
the increase of the cycle numbers to simplify the study.
The electricity losses due to charge-discharge efficiency (Ee, kWh) was
defined as Eq. (1):
Ee ¼ F v ∙ Dv ∙ ð1 − ηk1 Þ ð1Þ
where Fv indicated energy consumption limits for EVs (i.e., the amount of
electricity consumed by the EV per 100 km, kWh/100 km), Dv referred to
the distance traveled in the first use phase of the EVs (km), and ηk1 was
the charge-discharge efficiency of the LIB in the first use phase, which
took the value of 90%.
(2) The electricity losses needed to carry the battery
Another part of the electricity losses in the first use phase was the driv-
ing energy consumption due to the battery mass. And the electricity losses
needed to carry the battery (Em, kWh) could be defined as in Eq. (2).
Em ¼ k ∙ F v ∙ Dv ∙ ðm=M Þ ð2Þ
where: k denoted the powertrain apportionment factor, which indicated the
ratio of the vehicle's energy consumption related to the car weight
(Zackrisson et al., 2010); m was the mass of the LIB (kg), and M was the
mass of the EV (kg).
In this analysis, the value of k was taken as 0.49 by combining the re-
sults of Kim et al. (2015) in conventional vehicles and the revised value
in EVs by Yin (2018). The value of Fv was related to the mass of the EV
and the LIB. Consequently, the Fv was assumed to be 13.1 kWh/100 km
(Table S18). Also, Dv was assumed to be 200,000 km based on previous re-
search (Helmers et al., 2020; Zackrisson et al., 2010). Substituting the
above parameters into Eqs. (1) and (2), Ee, Em and the total electricity losses
in the first use phase were calculated, as shown in Table S19. The various
parameters related to the LFP and NCM battery systems and the equipped
EVs were shown in Tables S20–S21. The LCI data for the first use phase
were shown in Tables S22–S23.
2.2.3. Repurposing phase
Repurposing was an unavoidable process for retired LIBs before second-
ary use (Ardente et al., 2018). Typically, retired LIBs at this phase under-
went disassembly, inspection and assembly, cleaning, spot welding, laser
welding, and assembly (Wang, 2018). However, disassembly to the module
or cell level depended on specific application requirements. The data of LFP
batteries' repurposing process (Table S24) was obtained from the project
with an annual output of 120,000 sets of energy storage batteries, located
in Hebei province, China (Hebei Kui Xing New Energy Technology Co.,
2020). The products of the project would be supplied to China Tower Cor-
poration Limited, the world's largest telecommunications tower infrastruc-
ture service provider, for Echelon use and power backup. And the LIBs
 J. Quan et al.
dismantling and cascade utilization project in Zhuhai city provided the data
for the NCM battery repurposing phases (Zhuhai Zhongli New Energy
Technology Co., 2019). The remanufacturing system was built in 2019
with an annual capacity of 20,000 tons of repurposed batteries (Table S25).
2.2.4. Secondary use phase
After repurposing, the retired LIB could be reused as an energy storage
battery in the ESS of communication base stations. That was the secondary
use phase.
In the secondary use phase, the LIB capacity would continue to decay as
the battery ages, and the corresponding energy efficiency would also con-
tinue to decay (Ahmadi et al., 2014). However, the decay of energy effi-
ciency increased the study's complexity and was not accounted for in this
study to simplify the calculations. Although the performance of the
repurposed LIBs had not been widely studied (Tao et al., 2017), previous re-
search had shown that the capacity loss of LIBs was dependent on the num-
ber of cycles (Arora et al., 1998). Therefore, the semi-empirical model
proposed by Han et al. (2014) was used here to estimate the capacity loss
of LIBs. The model was convenient for calculating the electricity loss of
the LIB because LIBs did not have to be tested in advance. The LIB capacity
loss of each cycle (ξ) was defined in Eq. (3):
ξ ¼ A ∙ exp−ðEa =RtÞ ∙ nz ð3Þ
where A was a constant, Ea denoted the activation energy (J·mol−1), R rep-
resented the gas constant (J·mol−1·K−1), t referred to the thermodynamic
temperature, n was the cycle life (not counted if it cannot undergo a com-
plete charging and discharging process), and z represented the power-law
factor.
For the LFP battery, the parameters of the LIB model proposed by Han
et al. (2014) were used: the values of A, Ea/Rt, z and t were set to 0.1825,
1324.65, 0.5878, and 298.15 K (25 °C), respectively.
For the NCM battery, the parameters of the LIB model proposed by Li
et al. (2016) were used: simplified A ∙ exp−(Ea/Rt) to the constant B and
took the values of B and z as 0.00362 and 0.588, respectively.
In the secondary use phase, only electricity losses owing to the internal
efficiency of the battery and transmission efficiency were included (Richa
et al., 2017b). According to Yang et al. (2020) and Richa et al. (2017b),
the electricity losses (Eloss, kWh) in the secondary use phase of LIBs were es-
timated from the start of use in the ESS (n = 1) to the EoL (n = lc), which
were defined as in Eq. (4):
X
lc
Eloss ¼ E ∙ ð1 − ξÞ ∙ DoD ∙ ð1 −ηT ∙ ηk2 Þ=ðηT ∙ ηk2 Þ ð4Þ
n¼1
where E represented initial capacity of the secondary use phase of LIBs
(kWh), DoD was the depth of discharge, ηT indicated the transmission effi-
ciency, and ηk2 was the charge-discharge efficiency.
Combining with the actual level of China's power grid (Yin, 2018) and
the existing relevant research assumptions (Ahmadi et al., 2017), this
paper set the DoD, ηT, and ηk2 as 80%, 90% and 85%, respectively.
According to a related study (Yang, 2019), this paper assumed that LIBs
entered the end of secondary use life and were recycled when their capacity
dropped to 60% of their nominal capacity.
2.2.5. Recycling phase
(1) Recycling process and inventory of EoL LFP batteries
a) Hydrometallurgy
Foreground data for the hydrometallurgical recovery were collected
from a waste LIBs recycling project with the LFP recycling capacity of
10 kt/year in Anhui province (Anhui Daoming Energy Technology Co.,
2020). The completely discharged EoL LFP batteries were dismantled,
crushed, and sieved to obtain LFP powder. After that, the powder was
acid leached, iron removal, transformation de-hybridization, and hydro-
chloric acid distillation recovery, etc., to get the lithium chloride
5
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
purification solution. For simplicity, this paper converted the solution to
lithium chloride solids according to the concentration. The specific inven-
tory data was shown in Table S26.
b) Direct physical recycling
Direct physical recycling was another technology for LIBs recovery.
Wang (2018) provided the essential foreground data obtained from a repre-
sentative company of physical recycling in Beijing. Spent LFP batteries
were automatically and finely disassembled after being discharged. Theo-
retically, the cathode and anode materials, hardware, aluminum, copper,
electrolyte, and waste separator could be recovered, respectively. Then
the cathode and anode materials would be used in the production and
manufacturing of batteries after being repaired. The specific inventory
data was shown in Table S27.
(2) Recycling process and inventory of EoL NCM batteries
a) Hydrometallurgy
The hydrometallurgy of waste NCM batteries mainly included pretreat-
ment, leaching, precipitation, and sintering. Finally, NCM ternary cathode
materials were obtained, as well as aluminum, copper, steel, and other
metals. Aluminum was recovered at a relatively high rate in this technique.
Due to the fact that the aluminum foil was separated from the battery active
material following pyrolysis. The LCIs of hydrometallurgy were obtained
from a published research conducted by Xie et al. (2015), as shown in
Table S28. The data of the study were collected from a leading battery
recycling enterprise, owned by the world's top three LIB suppliers, in
Foshan city, Guangdong province.
b) Pyrometallurgy
The waste NCM battery was crushed initially and then smelted, blown,
ground, floated, cast anode, electrolytic refining, dissolution, precipitation,
and sintering. The final products were NCM ternary cathode materials. This
process consumed a lot of energy.
The inventory data of pyrometallurgy of EoL NCM batteries were based
on the study of Xie et al. (2015), as shown in Table S29.
Waste BMS, steel scrap, aluminum scrap, copper scrap, plastic scrap,
graphite scrap, etc., generated in the recycling process were further regen-
erated. The obtained recycled materials would be used in the battery pro-
duction phase. The detailed regeneration process and inventory data were
listed in Tables S30–S33. Other solid wastes were treated by incineration
and landfill in accordance with general municipal waste, and the specific
process referred to GaBi's database.
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The whole lifetime of LIBs was modeled and calculated by GaBi Educa-
tion. And the environmental impact assessment was performed by CML
2001, which included characterization, normalization, and weighting.
CML2001 was a problem-oriented method that could reflect the direct
impact of the life cycle on the environment (Fernandez-Marchante et al.,
2020). It quantifies the results into multiple impact categories at the mid-
point level. This method was also widely used in LCAs about LIBs (Choma
and Ugaya, 2017; Marques et al., 2019).
In order to avoid problem shifting, multiple impact categories were
covered. Seven environmental impact indicators were taken in this paper,
which were: Abiotic Depletion (ADP elements), Abiotic Depletion (ADP
fossil), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (AP),
Eutrophication Potential (EP), Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP),
and Photochemistry Ozone Creation Potential (POCP). The impact of
every substance emitted into the environment hereby could be attributed
to one out of the above-mentioned seven impact categories, which have
been internationally agreed upon (Müller et al., 2014).
The results were then compared with previous studies and sensitivity
analyses were performed to test the reliability and robustness of our results.
Based on a review of the studies, results focused on GWP were compared, as
it is the only fully reported impact category. Moreover, the comparison of
J. Quan et al.
GWP was based only on the production phase, since this was generally the
phase more precisely assessed. Because LCA results in production were less
affected by changes in assumptions (Cusenza et al., 2019).
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis was introduced to quantify the fluctuations in
LCA results caused by changes of some parameters (Gu et al., 2019).
And the following four parameters were considered, which were:
(1) Energy consumption in the battery production phase (Ep);
(2) Charge-discharge efficiency in the first use phase (ηk1);
(3) Energy consumption limits for the first use phase (Fv);
(4) Charge-discharge efficiency in secondary use phase (ηK2).
For all the selected parameters, simulations are conducted in 10% in-
creasing and 10% decreasing of the value in base case for comprehensive
analysis.
The above four sensitivity factors were all related to the energy con-
sumption of the whole lifetime of LIBs. These parameters were also of cur-
rent concern in batteries' production and use phases.
Studies had shown that the environmental impact of the battery produc-
tion phase was strongly related to energy consumption. The charge-
discharge efficiency of a battery was closely associated with its internal
performance and determined the energy loss in the process of use. There-
fore, changes in battery charge-discharge efficiency might significantly
influence the impact indicators, which could not be ignored when assessing
the environmental impact (Peters et al., 2017). The energy consumption
limit was related to the design of the EV, like curb weight. The energy con-
sumption limit also affected the electricity consumption of the LIBs during
the first use phase.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Characterization results of environmental impact indicators
Depending on the types of battery and recycling process, four scenarios
were included, as follows:
Scenario 1: LFP battery production phase, first use phase (used in EV),
repurposing phase, secondary use phase (used in ESS),
recycling phase (hydrometallurgy).
Scenario 2: LFP battery production phase, first use phase (used in EV),
repurposing phase, secondary use phase (used in ESS),
recycling phase (direct physical recycling).
Scenario 3: NCM battery production phase, first use phase (used in EV),
repurposing phase, secondary use phase (used in ESS),
recycling phase (hydrometallurgy).
Scenario 4: NCM battery production phase, first use phase (used in EV),
Fig. 2. Comparisons of resource depletion potential of per kWh LFP and NCM battery pack: (a) Abiotic Depletion (ADP elements), and (b) Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil).
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
repurposing phase, secondary use phase (used in ESS),
recycling phase (pyrometallurgy).
And in the following, positive values represented the environmental
burden due to energy and resource consumption, and pollutant emissions,
while negative values indicated the environmental benefit due to the recov-
ered materials.
3.1.1. Abiotic resource depletion impacts
(1) Abiotic Depletion (ADP elements)
As shown in Fig. 2a, the battery production phase was the primary con-
tributor to ADP elements (ADPe). And the contribution of the NCM battery
was slightly lower than that of the LFP battery. Due to the lower energy den-
sity of the LFP battery, it required more LFP cathode material and various
metals for the same functional unit conditions (Yu et al., 2018). For LFP bat-
teries, either hydrometallurgy or direct physical recycling could offset a cer-
tain amount of ADPe. However, for NCM batteries, only hydrometallurgy
provided considerable mineral resource benefits, whereas pyrometallurgy
provided negligible environmental benefits. Because the steel, copper,
and aluminum in NCM batteries were not well recycled by the pyrometal-
lurgy. And a quantity of lithium carbonate was consumed to regenerate
the cathode material.
(2) Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil)
Fig. 2b showed that the ADP fossil (ADPf) of LIBs was mainly concen-
trated in the battery production, first use, and secondary use phases. The
battery production phase consumed a great deal of energy such as coal,
oil, and electricity to manufacture metals like steel, aluminum, lithium,
and cobalt. And the first and secondary use phases mainly consumed elec-
tricity. China was still dominated by coal power, which accounted for
65% of the electric power structure in 2016 (China Energy Portal, 2016).
Hence the two use phases were the primary contributors to ADPf. And
the ADPf of the secondary use phase was obviously higher than that in
the first use phase, especially for the LFP batteries. Because in the sec-
ondary use phase, the LIB would charge and discharge repeatedly until
the remaining capacity decays to 60% of the nominal capacity
(Ioakimidis et al., 2019). Therefore, it had experienced more charge
and discharge cycle numbers than the first use phase. Moreover, the ex-
cellent capacity retention performance of the LFP battery allowed it to
be cycled 3275 times in the secondary use phase, which was about 2.4
times that of the NCM battery. For all scenarios, the environmental ben-
efits associated with materials recovered through battery recycling pro-
cesses exceed the associated environmental burdens linked to the
recycling process in ADPf. And the environmental benefit of hydromet-
allurgy was significantly higher than that of direct physical recycling
and pyrometallurgy. In general, compared with NCM batteries, LFP bat-
teries generated the severer burden of ADPf.
6
 J. Quan et al.
This study-NCM
This study-LFP
Sun et al., 2020-NCM
Dai et al., 2019-NCM
Hao et al., 2017-NCM
Hao et al., 2017-LFP
Kim et al., 2016-LMO+NCM
McManus, 2012-LFP
Majeau-Bettez et al., 2011-LFP
Majeau-Bettez et al., 2011-NCM
Zackrisson et al., 2010-LFP
0 50 100 150 200 250
kg CO2 eq./kWh battery production
Fig. 3. Comparison of per kWh LIB production among research findings.
3.1.2. Environmental emissions impacts
(1) Global Warming Potential (GWP)
As shown in Fig. 4a, the GWP of LIBs had a high correlation with the dis-
tribution of the abiotic depletion (fossil). Owing to the large amounts of
CO2 emitted by coal-fired power generation, the contribution to GWP of
two use phases exceeded 60%. The secondary use phase of LFP batteries
with the highest GWP was 441 kg CO2 eq., accounting for approximately
41% of the whole life cycle. The GWP of the NCM battery during the sec-
ondary use phase was much smaller, only 181 kg CO2 eq. And the GWP
of the repurposing phase was very inconspicuous.
The GWP of LFP and NCM batteries production phase in our findings was
compared with existing studies in Fig. 3 (Dai et al., 2019; Hao et al., 2017a;
Kim et al., 2016; Majeau-Bettez et al., 2011; McManus, 2012; Sun et al.,
2020; Zackrisson et al., 2010). Our results of GWP for LFP and NCM batteries
production phase (76.7 kg CO2 eq. and 87.1 kg CO2 eq.) were in the midrange
of literature estimates (61–266 CO2 eq. and 72.9–140 kg CO2 eq.). Distinc-
tions from existing results could be attributed to the differences in battery de-
sign and energy consumption. The GWP in the LFP battery production phase
determined by Zackrisson et al. (2010) and Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) were
over three times higher than this study. Their data based on laboratory trials
or industry reports published over 10 years might not reflect current LFP
Fig. 4. Comparison of the environmental emissions of per kWh LFP and NCM battery packs: (a) Global Warming Potential, (b) Acidification Potential, (c) Eutrophication
potential, (d) Ozone Layer Depletion Potential, and (e) Photochemistry. Ozone Creation Potential.
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
batteries production practices. Besides, diversity in data collection channels
and background datasets during the battery production phase might also
lead to differences in results, which was worth exploring in the future.
(2) Acidification Potential (AP)
As shown in Fig. 4b, the positive values of AP were mainly concentrated
in the battery production and two use phases, and the contribution of the
repurposing phase was minimal. The AP of the LFP battery in the secondary
use phase was still the highest, which was related to the electricity consump-
tion in this phase. The coal-fired power generation was the main body of
China's electricity structure, leading to the emission of numerous acidifying
gases like SO2 and NOX (Yu et al., 2018). Nonetheless, the AP of the NCM bat-
300
tery in the production phase was greater than that of the LFP battery (Majeau-
Bettez et al., 2011) because of the higher nickel and cobalt content rates. The
smelting process of these metals generated high levels of sulfur oxides, which
would lead to the formation of acidification. Therefore, recycling the ternary
cathode material from EoL LIBs could avoid the environmental impacts in the
upstream acquisition phase of primary nickel and cobalt resources. Thus, the
negative value of AP in the recycling phase indicated that, the recycling pro-
cess has some environmental benefits. For LFP batteries, the environmental
benefits of hydrometallurgy mainly came from the secondary lithium chlo-
ride generated in the recycling phase. As for NCM batteries, the hydrometal-
lurgical and pyrometallurgical recycling had obvious environmental benefits
due to the regeneration of cathode materials. Overall, the AP of LFP batteries
is higher than that of NCM batteries.
(3) Eutrophication Potential (EP)
As shown in Fig. 4c, the EP of all life cycle phases was positive except for
the hydrometallurgical recycling process of the LFP battery. The environ-
mental benefit (about EP) was obtained due to the generation of lithium
chloride from the hydrometallurgy of LFP batteries. In contrast, the envi-
ronmental burden (about EP) for the hydrometallurgical recycling process
of NCM batteries was created. Given the fact that the hydrometallurgy of
NCM batteries involved a significant amount of ammonia which triggered
large impact in EP. And the contribution to the EP of the repurposing
phase in all scenarios was almost zero.
(4) Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP)
As shown in Fig. 4d, the positive ODP values were mainly concentrated
in the battery production and two use phases. The ODP of the battery
7
J. Quan et al.
production phase was primarily due to the copper produced by electrolytic.
And the ODP of the two use phases was still caused by electricity generated
by coal combustion. For LIBs recycling, there was some environmental ben-
efit (about ODP) obtained due to the mental (copper) recovery and NCM
cathode material regenerated. For the same functional unit, the environ-
mental benefit of ODP generated by the hydrometallurgy of LFP batteries
was almost double that of NCM batteries. However, the repurposing
phase contributes very minimally to the ODP. But overall, the whole life-
time ODP of LFP batteries was higher than that of NCM batteries.
(5) Photochemistry. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
As shown in Fig. 4e, the positive values of POCP were also mainly dis-
tributed in the battery production and two use phases, and the negative
values appear only in the recycling phase, with little contribution from
the repurposing phase. The POCP of NCM battery production was a little
higher than that of LFP batteries, while the POCP of LFP batteries secondary
use phase was roughly two twice that of NCM batteries. The highest POCP
value was found in the secondary use phase of LFP batteries. Since that, the
environmental impact substances of POCP were mainly HC, NMVOC, and
CO, which were the primary air pollutants emitted during coal mining
and coal-fired power generation (Wu, 2011). As for the recycling phase of
LIBs, the environmental benefit (about POCP) was obtained due to the lith-
ium chloride and ternary cathode materials recovery. Overall, the POCP of
LFP batteries was higher than that of NCM batteries.
3.2. Comparative and contribution analysis of environmental impacts
3.2.1. The comprehensive value of different environmental impacts indicators
Further normalizing and quantifying the characterization results
(Section 3.1), the comprehensive environmental impacts of LIBs in different
scenarios could be obtained. As shown in Fig. 5, the comprehensive envi-
ronmental impact value of the entire life cycle indicated that Scenario 2,
Scenario 1, Scenario 4, and Scenario 3 were arranged in descending
order. The main reason was that hydrometallurgy had more significant en-
vironmental benefits than either pyrometallurgy or direct physical
recycling. The comprehensive environmental load of Scenario 2 was 1.6
times that of Scenario 3. And the comprehensive environmental load of Sce-
nario 1 was 43.51% higher than that of Scenario 3. These indicated that the
comprehensive environmental performance of NCM batteries was better
than that of LFP batteries. For Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the environmental im-
pact indicators presented in descending order were GWP, ADPf, AP, POCP,
ADPe, EP, and ODP. However, for Scenario 4, ADPe was followed by GWP
and ADPf. Because compared with hydrometallurgy, the pyrometallurgy of
NCM batteries was ineffective in recovering various metals (Chen et al.,
Fig. 5. Comparison of the comprehensive value of different environmental impact
indicators of the entire life cycle for four LIBs scenarios.
8
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
2019). GWP was the dominant environmental impact indicator because
of the massive CO2 emissions from electricity generation by coal combus-
tion (Chen, 2016). It contributed 37.14%, 38.31%, 31.05%, and 35.94%
to the total environmental impacts of Scenario 1, Scenario 2, Scenario 3,
and Scenario 4, respectively. Overall, the LFP battery featured the highest
environmental load during the entire life cycle.
3.2.2. Contributions of life cycle phases
In summary, the hydrometallurgy of LIBs was more environmentally
friendly. Therefore, based on the characterization results, the entire life
cycle phases and various categories of environmental impacts of the LIBs
recycled by the hydrometallurgy were further analyzed, as shown in Fig. 6.
The LFP and NCM battery production phase was the primary contribu-
tor to ADPe, accounting for 51% and 58% of the total value, respectively.
For NCM batteries, the battery production phase contributed 18%–32% to
such categories as POCP, GWP, AP, ADPf, and ODP, while 9% to EP. As
for LFP batteries, the battery production phase accounted for 9%–21% of
the total POCP, EP, GWP, AP, ADPf, and ODP.
The LFP battery two use phases contributed 63%–84% to such catego-
ries as ODP, ADPf, AP, EP, GWP, and POCP, while 1% to ADPe. And the
NCM battery two use phases were also the major contributors to ODP,
ADPf, AP, POCP, and GWP, sharing 54%–76% of their life cycle impacts.
Since electricity use was the only considered impact source during the
LIBs' first and secondary use phases, the environmental burdens from
LIBs' two use phases were mainly associated with the China grid power gen-
eration. Thus, to reduce the environmental impacts of LIBs, the power gen-
eration and proportion of clean energy should be increased immediately.
Repurposing phases of both types of LIBs caused the least environmen-
tal impact. It indicated that repurposed retired LIBs were more environmen-
tally friendly compared with producing new LIBs. The LCA results
suggested that the reuse of spent LIBs in ESS can provide environmental
benefits by avoiding the burden of manufacturing new LIBs (Richa et al.,
2017a).
In the recycling phase, the hydrometallurgy of waste LIBs had obvious
environmental benefits to almost each environmental impact type. Signifi-
cantly, LIBs hydrometallurgical recycling process can reduce more than
40% of the life cycle ADPe. The only exception was the EP impact, where
a considerable 45% impact share was observed. Because the NCM battery
was treated by hydrometallurgy, which involved a large amount of ammo-
nia, it triggered a significant impact in EP. Overall, the entire life cycle en-
vironmental burden of LIBs was higher than the environmental benefit.
We compared the cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of LFP batte-
ries and NCM batteries with different recycling technologies. Except for
the EP and ADPe, all other impact categories for the whole life cycle of
LFP batteries were larger than that of NCM batteries. Simislarly, the first
and secondary use phases had the most important contributions to environ-
mental impact categories other than EP and ADPe. And the contribution of
LFP batteries was always higher than that of NCM batteries. Therefore,
from the environmental point of view, extending the service life of LIBs
did not necessarily have better environmental advantages unless the elec-
tricity consumed during the two use phases came from clean energy
(Ahmadi et al., 2017). The environmental benefits of recycling were signif-
icant. For LFP batteries, the hydrometallurgical recycling process helps re-
duce all mentioned environmental burdens. It was more environmentally
friendly than direct physical recycling. The benefits of hydrometallurgical
recycling of NCM batteries were always higher than those of pyrometal-
lurgy for all impact categories, except EP.
3.3. The results of sensitivity analysis
The results of sensitivity analysis were given in Tables S34–S35, and the
±10% variation in four parameters of Scenarios 1 and 3 were carried out.
It was found that the battery production energy consumption was not
sensitive to the environmental impact results, particularly for ADPe. Com-
pared to other studies (Ellingsen et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2016), this paper
assumed a lower energy consumption of 170 MJ/kWh battery produced
J. Quan et al.
Fig. 6. Contribution of life cycle phases to environmental impacts. The recycling process was hydrometallurgy.
(Dai et al., 2019). Under current conditions, a ±10% change in battery pro-
duction energy consumption cannot considerably alter battery production
energy intensity. As a result, it will have little effect on ADPe. Compara-
tively, changing the energy consumption limit had a more significant effect
in all the environmental impact categories except ADPe. ADPf, AP, GWP,
ODP, and POCP were more affected by changes in the energy consumption
limit for NCM batteries than for LFP batteries. However, the sensitivity of
the energy consumption limit to ADPe was not noticeable. Because chang-
ing the energy consumption limit by ±10% had no major impact on the
electricity consumption during the first use phase. And the coal-fired
power generation process contributed little to the depletion of metal re-
sources. By reducing the weight of EVs and LIBs to decrease energy con-
sumption while driving, the environmental burden of LIBs might be
successfully mitigated. The parameters that caused the largest variation of
results were the charge-discharge efficiency in the first and secondary use
phases, affecting the LIBs' performance in all impact categories. Assuming
that the −10% variation of charge-discharge efficiency in the secondary
use phase, the impacts would increase by 2%–32% for LFP batteries and
1%–21% for NCM batteries depending on impact categories. And the im-
pacts could be decreased by 2%–27% for LFP batteries and 0.6%–17% for
NCM batteries when the charge-discharge efficiency in the secondary use
phase increased by 10% theoretically. For ADPf, AP, GWP, ODP, and
POCP, a 10% variation of charge-discharge efficiency in the first use
phase could reduce the impacts by 9%–20% depending on LIBs types. In
conclusion, there was a need to enhance the research on the internal
charge/discharge mechanism of power LIBs. The lifecycle impacts could
be significantly reduced by improving the battery technology to increase
the charge-discharge efficiency in the two use phases.
4. Conclusion and suggestion
In this study, a detailed LCA was conducted to quantitatively analyze
the environmental impacts of LFP and NCM batteries throughout their en-
tire life cycle. And the battery production phase, first use (for EV) phase,
repurposing phase, secondary use (for ESS) phase, and recycling phase
were all included in the system boundary. The sensitivity analysis of energy
consumption in the battery production phase, energy consumption limits
for the first use phase, and charge-discharge efficiency in the first and sec-
ondary use phases was also presented.
9
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
The LCA results indicated that for both types of LIBs, battery produc-
tion, first use, and secondary use phases posed the greatest environmental
loads, which could be mitigated through recycling. However, recycling by
hydrometallurgy could mitigate more environmental impacts compared
to pyrometallurgy and direct physical recycling. The environmental bur-
dens of the repurposing phase were much smaller than those of the battery
production phase. It suggested that the reuse of retired LIBs could provide
environmental benefits by avoiding the burdens of manufacturing new
LIBs.
Moreover, the comprehensive environmental impacts of LFP batteries
were more significant than those of NCM batteries. In particular, the elec-
tricity structure in China was dominated by coal-fired power. Because the
total power consumption of the LFP battery in the two use phases far ex-
ceeds that of the NCM battery. And LFP batteries had approximately 1.8
times the environmental impact of NCM batteries during the two use
phases. However, it must be noted that the long secondary service life of
LFP batteries was the advantage for reuse. Therefore, it was critical to im-
prove the electrochemical performance of LIBs and increase the usage of re-
newable energy sources (such as hydropower and wind power). In other
phases, the environmental impacts of LFP batteries and NCM batteries
were not much different.
The sensitivity analysis results showed that the charge-discharge effi-
ciency of the battery's first and secondary use phases had a more significant
effect on the LCA results.
To reduce the environmental impacts of LIBs and to promote the
secondary use of LIBs, suggestions were made in four aspects. Firstly, the
proportion of renewable energy generation in China could increase. Sec-
ondly, the charge-discharge efficiency and energy density of power LIBs
need to be further improved. In addition, the design of power LIBs should
be adjusted and standardized according to meet repurposing and secondary
use requirements. Finally, NCM batteries could be promoted to the market,
and hydrometallurgy was recommended for recycling.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jiawei Quan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Visualization. Siqi Zhao: Investigation, Writing – review &
editing. Duanmei Song: Validation, Data curation. Tianya Wang:
Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Wenzhi He: Supervision,
J. Quan et al.
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Guangming Li: Supervi-
sion, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This study was financially supported by the Funding of Shanghai Insti-
tute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security (HJGFXK-2017-002).
The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for
supplying their valuable comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153105.
References
Ahmadi, L., Yip, A., Fowler, M., Young, S.B., Fraser, R.A., 2014. Environmental feasibility of
re-use of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 6, 64–74. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.01.006.
Ahmadi, L., Young, S.B., Fowler, M., Fraser, R.A., Achachlouei, M.A., 2017. A cascaded life
cycle: reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage systems. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0959-7.
Alfaro-Algaba, M., Ramirez, F.J., 2020. Techno-economic and environmental disassembly
planning of lithium-ion electric vehicle battery packs for remanufacturing. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 154, 104461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104461.
Amarakoon, S., Smith, J., Segal, B., 2013. Application of life-cycle assessment to nanoscale
technology: lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. US. https://trid.trb.org/
view/1300236 (Accessed June 2021).
Anhui Daoming Energy Technology Co., Ltd., 2020. Waste lithium battery dismantling and
comprehensive utilization project environmental impact report. http://sthjj.chuzhou.
gov.cn/download/5e5cb55be4b066dbdcb9119c (Accessed June 2021).
Ardente, F., Talens, Peiró L., Mathieux, F., Polverini, D., 2018. Accounting for the environ-
mental benefits of remanufactured products: method and application. J. Clean. Prod.
198, 1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.012.
Arora, P., White, R.E., Doyle, M., 1998. Capacity fade mechanisms and side reactions in
lithium-ion batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 145, 3647–3667. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.
1838857.
Chen, M., Ma, X., Chen, B., Arsenault, R., Karlson, P., Simon, N., et al., 2019. Recycling end-of-
life electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries. Joule. 3, 2622–2646. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.joule.2019.09.014.
Chen, W., 2016. Research on Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile Power System in Perspec-
tive of Circular Economy. Xiamen University.
Central People's Government of China, 2020. The General Office of the State Council on Print-
ing and Issuing New Energy Automobile Industry Notice of development plan (2021 –
2035). http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2020-11/02/content_5556716.htm
(Accessed June 2021).
Choma, E.F., Ugaya, C.M.L., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of increasing electric ve-
hicles in the Brazilian fleet. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.07.091.
Crenna, E., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P., Hischier, R., 2021. Towards more flexibility
and transparency in life cycle inventories for lithium-ion batteries. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 170, 105619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105619.
Cusenza, M.A., Bobba, S., Ardente, F., Cellura, M., Di Persio, F., 2019. Energy and environ-
mental assessment of a traction lithium-ion battery pack for plug-in hybrid electric vehi-
cles. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 634–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.056.
Dai, Q., Dunn, J., Kelly, J., Elgowainy, A., 2017. Update of life cycle analysis of lithium-ion
batteries in the GREET® model. Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA.
https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-Li_battery_update_2017 (Accessed June 2021).
Dai, Q., Kelly, J.C., Dunn, J., Benavides, P.T., 2018. Update of bill-of-materials and cathode
materials production for lithium-ion batteries in the GREET® model. Argonne National
Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA. https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-update_bom_cm
(Accessed June 2021).
Dai, Q., Kelly, J.C., Gaines, L., Wang, M., 2019. Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for
automotive applications. Batteries 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries5020048.
Ellingsen, L.A.-W., Hung, C.R., Strømman, A.H., 2017. Identifying key assumptions and differ-
ences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with focus on green-
house gas emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 55, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trd.2017.06.028.
Ellingsen, L.A.-W., Majeau-Bettez, G., Singh, B., Srivastava, A.K., Valøen, L.O., Strømman,
A.H., 2014. Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J. Ind. Ecol. 18,
113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12072.
10
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
Fan, Z., Qiao, D., Cui, H., 2020. Influence of charge and discharge rate on capacity fade of lith-
ium ion battery. Chin.J.Power Sources 44, 325–329. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.
1002-087X.2020.03.006.
Faria, R., Marques, P., Garcia, R., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., et al., 2014. Primary and
secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a life cycle perspective. J. Power Sources
262, 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.092.
Faria, R., Marques, P., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., de Almeida, A.T., 2013. Impact of the
electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles. Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 24, 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.063.
Fernandez-Marchante, C.M., Millán, M., Medina-Santos, J.I., Lobato, J., 2020. Environmental
and preliminary cost assessments of redox flow batteries for renewable energy storage.
Energy Technol. 8, 1900914. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201900914.
Gaines, L., 2014. The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a sustainable
course. Sustain.Mater. Technol. 1, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2014.10.001.
Gerssen-Gondelach, S.J., Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. Performance of batteries for electric vehicles on
short and longer term. J. Power Sources 212, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2012.03.085.
Gu, F., Zhang, W., Guo, J., Hall, P., 2019. Exploring “Internet+Recycling”: mass balance and
life cycle assessment of a waste management system associated with a mobile application.
Sci. Total Environ. 649, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.298.
Han, X., Ouyang, M., Lu, L., Li, J., 2014. A comparative study of commercial lithium ion bat-
tery cycle life in electric vehicle: capacity loss estimation. J. Power Sources 268, 658–669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.111.
Hao, H., Mu, Z., Jiang, S., Liu, Z., Zhao, F., 2017a. GHG emissions from the production of
lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles in China. Sustainability 9. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su9040504.
Hao, H., Qiao, Q., Liu, Z., Zhao, F., 2017b. Impact of recycling on energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions from electric vehicle production: the China 2025 case. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 122, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.005.
Hebei Kui Xing New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., 2020. Hebei Kui Xing New Energy Technol-
ogy Co., Ltd. supporting CHINA TOWER new energy gradient battery utilization and
power backup storage annual production of 120,000 sets of projects. http://www.
doc88.com/p-01847331761007.html. (Accessed 15 March 2021).
Helmers, E., Dietz, J., Weiss, M., 2020. Sensitivity analysis in the life-cycle assessment of elec-
tric vs. combustion engine cars under approximate real-world conditions. Sustainability
12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031241.
Hendrickson, T.P., Kavvada, O., Shah, N., Sathre, R., Scown, C.D., 2015. Life-cycle implica-
tions and supply chain logistics of electric vehicle battery recycling in California. Environ.
Res. Lett. 10, 014011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014011.
Hua, Y., Liu, X., Zhou, S., Huang, Y., Ling, H., Yang, S., 2020. Toward sustainable reuse of re-
tired lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105249.
Ioakimidis, C.S., Murillo-Marrodán, A., Bagheri, A., Thomas, D., Genikomsakis, K.N., 2019.
Life cycle aassessment of a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) electric vehicle battery in second
life application scenarios. Sustainability 11, 2527. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092527.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and frame-
work. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (Accessed June 2021).
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and
Guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (Accessed June 2021).
Jia, X., Feng, Q., Tao, Z., Wang, B., 2018. Study on the echelon used scenario and technical
recycling economy of power battery. Tianjin Auto 14–19. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.
issn.1674-6546.2018.06.004.
Kamran, M., Raugei, M., Hutchinson, A., 2021. A dynamic material flow analysis of lithium-
ion battery metals for electric vehicles and grid storage in the UK: assessing the impact of
shared mobility and end-of-life strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 167, 105412. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105412.
Kim, H.C., Wallington, T.J., Arsenault, R., Bae, C., Ahn, S., Lee, J., 2016. Cradle-to-gate emis-
sions from a commercial electric vehicle Li-ion battery: a comparative analysis. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 50, 7715–7722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00830.
Kim, H.C., Wallington, T.J., Sullivan, J.L., Keoleian, G.A., 2015. Life cycle assessment of vehi-
cle lightweighting: novel mathematical methods to estimate use-phase fuel consumption.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10209–10216. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01655.
Kirchain Jr., R.E., Gregory, J.R., Olivetti, E.A., 2017. Environmental life-cycle assessment. Nat.
Mater. 16, 693. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4923.
Li, X., Kang, J., Yang, Y., Yan, F., Du, C., Luo, M., 2016. A study on capacity and power fading
characteristics of Li(Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3)O2-based lithium-ion batteries. Ionics 22,
2027–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11581-016-1735-9.
Liang, Y., Su, J., Xi, B., Yu, Y., Ji, D., Sun, Y., et al., 2017. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion
batteries for greenhouse gas emissions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 285–293. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.028.
Majeau-Bettez, G., Hawkins, T.R., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle environmental assessment
of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric
vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4548–4554. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103607c.
Marques, P., Garcia, R., Kulay, L., Freire, F., 2019. Comparative life cycle assessment of
lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles addressing capacity fade. J. Clean. Prod. 229,
787–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026.
Matheys, J., Van Autenboer, W., Timmermans, J.-M., Van Mierlo, J., Van den Bossche, P.,
Maggetto, G., 2007. Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction
batteries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 191. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.322.
Mathieux, F., Ardente, F., Bobba, S., Nuss, P., Blengini, G.A., Dias, P.A., 2017. Critical raw ma-
terials and the circular economy - Background report. Publications Office of the European
Union (Accessed June 2021) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/J
RC108710.
McManus, M.C., 2012. Environmental consequences of the use of batteries in low carbon sys-
tems: the impact of battery production. Appl. Energy 93, 288–295. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.062.
J. Quan et al.
Mohr, M., Peters, J.F., Baumann, M., Weil, M., 2020. Toward a cell-chemistry specific life
cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling processes. J. Ind. Ecol. 24,
1310–1322. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13021.
Müller, H.S., Haist, M., Vogel, M., 2014. Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete
and concrete structures considering their environmental impact, performance and life-
time. Constr. Build. Mater. 67, 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.
01.039.
Notter, D.A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., et al., 2010. Contribution
of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol.
44, 6550–6556. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903729a.
Peters, J.F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J., Weil, M., 2017. The environmental im-
pact of Li-ion batteries and the role of key parameters – a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 67, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039.
China Energy Portal, 2016. National electric power industry statistica. https://
chinaenergyportal.org/en/2016-detailed-electricity-statistics/ Accessed June 2021.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., 2017a. Eco-efficiency analysis of a lithium-ion battery
waste hierarchy inspired by circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 715–730. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jiec.12607.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., Wang, X., 2014. A future perspective on lithium-ion bat-
tery waste flows from electric vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 63–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.008.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Nenadic, N.G., Gaustad, G., 2017b. Environmental trade-offs across
cascading lithium-ion battery life cycles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 66–81. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0942-3.
Salemdeeb, R., Saint, R., Clark, W., Lenaghan, M., Pratt, K., Millar, F., 2021. A pragmatic and
industry-oriented framework for data quality assessment of environmental footprint
tools. Resour.Environ.Sustain. 3, 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.
100019.
Shi, Y., Chen, G., Chen, Z., 2018a. Effective regeneration of LiCoO2 from spent lithium-ion
batteries: a direct approach towards high-performance active particles. Green Chem.
20, 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC02831H.
Shi, Y., Chen, G., Liu, F., Yue, X., Chen, Z., 2018b. Resolving the compositional and structural
defects of degraded LiNixCoyMnzO2 particles to directly regenerate high-performance
lithium-ion battery cathodes. ACS Energy Lett. 3, 1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsenergylett.8b00833.
Sommerville, R., Zhu, P., Rajaeifar, M.A., Heidrich, O., Goodship, V., Kendrick, E., 2021. A
qualitative assessment of lithium ion battery recycling processes. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 165, 105219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105219.
Sun, X., Luo, X., Zhang, Z., Meng, F., Yang, J., 2020. Life cycle assessment of lithium nickel
cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) batteries for electric passenger vehicles. J. Clean. Prod.
273, 123006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123006.
Swain, B., 2017. Recovery and recycling of lithium: a review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 172,
388–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.08.031.
Tao, L., Ma, J., Cheng, Y., Noktehdan, A., Chong, J., Lu, C., 2017. A review of stochastic bat-
tery models and health management. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 716–732. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.127.
USGS, 2020. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2020. U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.
usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020.pdf.
Van den Bossche, P., Vergels, F., Van Mierlo, J., Matheys, J., Van Autenboer, W., 2006.
SUBAT: an assessment of sustainable battery technology. J. Power Sources 162,
913–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.07.039.
Wang, Y., Yu, Y., Huang, K., Tang, B., 2019. From the perspective of battery production:
energy–environment–economy (3E) analysis of lithium-ion batteries in China. Sustain-
ability 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246941.
11
Science of the Total Environment 819 (2022) 153105
Wang, Z., 2018. Potential And Life Cycle Assessment of Recycling of Power Batteries for New
Energy Vehicles. Tsinghua University https://doi.org/10.27266/d.cnki.gqhau.2018.
000656.
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., 2013. Overview
And Methodology: Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3.
Winslow, K.M., Laux, S.J., Townsend, T.G., 2018. A review on the growing concern and po-
tential management strategies of waste lithium-ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
129, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.001.
World Resources Institute, 2020. World greenhouse gas emissions: 2016. https://www.wri.
org/data/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2016 (Accessed June 2021).
Wu, H., Hu, Y., Yu, Y., Huang, K., Wang, L., 2021. The environmental footprint of electric ve-
hicle battery packs during the production and use phases with different functional units.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01836-3.
Wu, M., 2011. The Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Generation. Taiyuan University
of Technology.
Wu, Z., Kong, D., 2018. Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries with lith-
ium metal, silicon nanowire, and graphite anodes. Clean Tech. Environ. Policy 20,
1233–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1548-9.
Xie, Y., Yu, H., Ou, Y., Li, C., 2015. Environmental impact assessment of recycling waste trac-
tion battery. Inorg.Chem.Ind. 47 (43–46), 61.
Yang, J., Gu, F., Guo, J., 2020. Environmental feasibility of secondary use of electric vehicle
lithium-ion batteries in communication base stations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156,
104713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104713.
Yang, Y., 2019. Investigation on Cascade Utilization, Capacity Attenuation And Recovery Pro-
cess of Retired Lithium Power Batteries. Hunan University https://doi.org/10.27135/d.
cnki.ghudu.2019.003985.
Yin, R., 2018. Research on the Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Ve-
hicles in China. Hunan University.
Yin, R., Yang, Y., Xie, L., Chen, Z., Chen, Y., 2016. Demand prediction of non-ferrous metal
resources driven by new energy vehicle battery. Resour.Ind. 18, 85–91. https://doi.
org/10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20161024.007.
Yu, A., Wei, Y., Chen, W., Peng, N., Peng, L., 2018. Life cycle environmental impacts and car-
bon emissions: a case study of electric and gasoline vehicles in China. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 65, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.009.
Zackrisson, M., 2016. Life cycle assessment of long life lithiumelectrode for electric vehicle
batteries — 5Ah cell. Swerea IVF AB. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/
diva2:1131668/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed June 2021).
Zackrisson, M., Avellán, L., Orlenius, J., 2010. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles – critical issues. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1519–1529.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.004.
Zhang, S., Cui, L., Kong, L., Jiang, A., Li, J., 2020. Summarize on the lithium mineral resources
and their distribution at home and abroad. Nonferrous Met.Eng. 10, 95–104. https://doi.
org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-1744.2020.10.015.
Zhang, X., Li, L., Fan, E., Xue, Q., Chen, R., 2018. Toward sustainable and systematic recycling
of spent rechargeable batteries. Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 7239–7302. https://doi.org/10.
1039/C8CS00297E.
Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Liang, S., Hao, Y., Pang, M., Wang, C., 2019. Environmental benefits of
biodiesel production from waste cooking oil based on the life cycle perspective. Acta
Sci. Circumst. 39, 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2018.0461.
Zhuhai Zhongli New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., 2019. Environmental impact assess-
ment report on the production project of decommissioned lithium battery gradient
utilization as well as disassembly and classification. https://wenku.baidu.com/
view/509dff93ae1ffc4ffe4733687e21af45b207fecf.html. (Accessed 25 August
2020).