Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Are solid-state batteries absolutely more environmentally friendly

compared to traditional batteries-analyzing from the footprint
family viewpoint
Ziyi Liu a, b, Xi Li a, c, Hongliang Zhang d, Kai Huang e, Yajuan Yu a, b, *
a
School of Material Science & Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China
b
Chongqing Innovation Center, Beijing Institute of Technology, Chongqing, 401120, China
c
Beijing Automotive Technology Center, Beijing, 100163, China
d
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, 100081, China
e
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, China

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

Handling Editor: Jian Zuo In recent years, with the change of global climate, carbon neutralization has become a global consensus. Solid
state batteries have become the important way to develop batteries in the future due to their advantages such as
Keywords: high safety, high energy density, wider operating temperature range, and the battery production stage is the
Solid state battery main contributor to the environmental impact of the battery life cycle.This article selects three traditional
Carbon footprint
batteries, LFP battery, NMC battery, LTO battery, and two new solid-state batteries, Li-FeS2 battery and LLZO
Footprint family
battery, to conduct a study on the carbon footprint and other footprint family impacts during the production
Life cycle assessment
stage. The inventory data is collected from highly cited literature published in recent years, and the footprint
family impact values generated by different types of battery packs are compared and analyzed. When using 1 kg
as the functional unit, the footprint values of LLZO and Li-FeS2 solid-state batteries are higher than those of NMC
and LFP traditional batteries in most footprint indicators such as ionizing radiation and ozone layer depletion in
carbon footprint, material footprint, ecological footprint, and health footprint, resulting in greater environmental
pollution. Considering the energy density of the battery, with a functional unit of 1kWh, the high energy density
of solid-state batteries significantly reduces their environmental impact, while traditional battery LTO increases
its environmental impact due to the lower battery energy density. But in the material footprint, both functional
units of solid-state batteries have a significant impact. The high energy density of solid-state batteries still holds
great development prospects, and cleaner technology and energy, as well as higher energy density, remain the
direction of battery development.

very obvious, such as high energy density, long life, low self discharge
rate, fast charging, lightweight, etc. These advantages make them an
1. Introduction
important energy choice in the field of electric vehicles and other fields,
and stand out in applications, becoming the mainstream of the industry.
At present, fossil energy is gradually facing a crisis of depletion
However, LIBs also have some drawbacks, such as high cost and envi­
worldwide, and environmental pollution is significant. Therefore,
ronmental sensitivity, which need to be addressed through technological
accelerating the development of clean energy has become a top priority.
improvements and more environmentally friendly treatment methods
In 2021, the sales of new energy vehicles reached 352.1 million units
(Pan et al., 2022). In addition, the safety of batteries is also a focus of
(Miaomiao, 2023). With the rapid development of the new energy
attention in the new energy vehicle industry. In July 2022, the number
vehicle industry, in recent years, China’s battery industry has also
of recalls of new energy vehicles reached 112400, accounting for
entered a period of rapid development. In 2021, the shipment volume of
29.12% of the total (Gong). At present, the energy density of LIBs based
lithium batteries in China was 328GWh, a year-on-year increase of
on liquid electrolytes in China is close to the ceiling. It is generally
135%, setting a new historical high (Liu et al., 2022a).
believed that the upper limit of energy density for existing LIBs is
The advantages and disadvantages of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are

* Corresponding author. School of Material Science & Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.
E-mail address: 04575@bit.edu.cn (Y. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141452
Received 29 November 2023; Received in revised form 21 February 2024; Accepted 24 February 2024
Available online 27 February 2024
0959-6526/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Liu et al.
Abbreviations
LFP Lithium iron phosphate battery
NMC Nickel cobalt manganese lithium battery
LTO Lithium titanate battery
LLZO Lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide
Li-FeS2 Lithium iron battery
LiPON Lithium phosphorus oxide nitrogen
LIBs Lithium-ion batteries
SSBs Solid-state batteries
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
REPA Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis
UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme
SETAC The Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
LCI Life cycle inventory
LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
LVO Lithium vanadium oxide
SVO Silver vanadium oxide
CED Cumulative energy demand
350Wh/kg, while all solid-state batteries (SSBs)can achieve energy
density above 500Wh/kg by using metal lithium negative electrodes
(Randau et al., 2020). Currently, more than 60 companies, universities,
and research institutions worldwide are committed to developing
advanced solid-state battery technology (Zuo et al., 2022).Therefore, the
possibility of occupying the future market is SSBs with higher safety and
power density (Zhenhua et al.).
SSBs use solid materials as electrolytes for transporting lithium ions
back and forth. Traditional lithium batteries use organic solvents as the
electrolyte, which poses safety hazards such as liquid leakage, ignition,
and explosion. Solid electrolytes have advantages such as non leakage,
good thermal stability, non volatility, low risk of spontaneous combus­
tion or explosion. SSBs have both greater energy density improvement
space and higher safety, making them the next generation of energy
storage technology with broad application prospects (Hong et al., 2023).
This inherent safety makes SSBs more attractive in applications than
LIBs and other potential energy storage systems using organic liquid
electrolytes.
As one of the most promising next-generation batteries, SSBs have
aroused great interest. SSBs have improved safety characteristics, higher
energy density, and a wider operating temperature range. Researchers
and engineers from various countries are working to promote the tran­
sition of solid state batteries from laboratory scale to commercial
products. However, most studies have focused on material synthesis and
electrochemistry, such as improving the ion conductivity of inorganic
solid electrolytes and the battery performance of SSBs. So far, only a few
studies have evaluated the environmental impact of solid-state batteries.
The following will provide a detailed introduction to the research
progress of solid-state battery environmental assessment.
In 2015, Lastoskie and Dai (2015)compared the environmental
impact of two solid-state battery manufacturing processes: laminated
and thin film vacuum vapor deposition solid-state batteries. Thin film
vacuum vapor deposition solid-state batteries use carbon doped lithium
as the negative electrode, lithium phosphorus oxide nitrogen (LiPON) as
the electrolyte, and eight different active materials are selected for the
positive electrode, such as lithium vanadium oxide (LVO) and silver
vanadium oxide (SVO). Research has found that LVO solid-state batte­
ries have the least impact on cumulative energy demand (CED), global
warming potential (GWP), and six other midpoint environmental in­
dicators. The impact of LVO solid-state batteries on human health and
resource consumption is usually higher than that of laminated batteries,
and the unit energy storage CED and GWP of solid-state batteries in all
cathode chemicals are 25–65% lower. In order to compare the
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
GWP Global warming potential
BEVs Battery electric vehicles
FZJ Forschungszentrum Jülich
FE Freshwater eutrophication
IR Ionizing radiation
ODP Ozone depletion potential
RDP Resource depletion potential
SE Saline eutrophication
PM Particulate matter
AP Acidification potentia
LATP Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3
ETP Ecological potential toxicity
FU Functional units
NMP 1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
PVDF Polyvinylidene difluoride
PMMA Polymethyl Methacrylate
BMS Battery management system
PP Polypropylene
PE Polyethylene
environmental burden of battery packs during use, researchers simu­
lated the scenario of batteries installed on BEVs, made assumptions
about relevant parameters, and used Simapro7.1 software for modeling
and analysis. According to observations, electricity consumption during
the usage phase is the main determining factor of CED and GWP impact
indicators, accounting for approximately 80% of CED and GWP.
In 2016, Troy et al. (2016). first used the life cycle assessment
method to evaluate the production process of bagged shell solid-state
batteries. The battery is manufactured by the Institute of Energy and
Climate Research of the Forschungszentrum Jülich(FZJ) in Germany,
with a size of 5 cm × 5 cm, with a capacity of 43.75 mAh. The study
collected and evaluated all inputs and outputs related to material and
energy flows, and conducted LCA evaluations for three scenarios: lab­
oratory production, ideal laboratory production, and industrial pro­
duction. The results indicate that due to many high-temperature
production steps, electricity consumption plays a significant role, and
the enhanced battery performance will also seriously affect the results.
Under ideal laboratory and industrial production scenarios, the impact
categories of freshwater eutrophication (FE), ionizing radiation (IR),
ozone depletion potential (ODP), GWP, and resource depletion potential
(RDP) have increased by 18–32%, while cumulative energy demand,
saline eutrophication (SE), particulate matter (PM) and acidification
potential (AP) have even increased by 95%, solely due to the improve­
ment of electricity consumption efficiency. In order to supplement the
LCA results, resource analysis was also conducted to study the use of key
raw materials. The results confirmed that lithium and lanthanum are
crucial materials and accounted for 10% of the market share of
solid-state battery raw materials in 2020. Zirconia is also relatively
important, with a share exceeding 40%. Therefore, it is necessary to
closely monitor the use of lanthanum, lithium, and zirconium, and
consider using other materials instead or minimizing the usage of each
battery unit.
In 2018, Keshavarzmohmamadian et al. (Keshavarzmohammadian
et al., 2018). studied the environmental impact of sulfur based
solid-state pyrite lithium batteries for electric vehicles, using laboratory
data, literature, US patents, and the US-EI 2.2 Life Cycle Inventory
database to estimate the materials and energy required for the battery
and its expected manufacturing and assembly processes. The study
found that the estimated CED and GWP within a 100 year time range are
3300 MJ kWh− 1 and 199 kg CO2 eq kWh− 1, respectively. The combi­
nation of direct energy and upstream energy related to the operation of
clean drying rooms accounts for the largest share of total CED (75%) and
GWP (73%), followed by positive electrode slurry (10% and 6%,
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 1. Life cycle assessment scope and framework diagram.
respectively). The energy demand and environmental impact of clean
drying rooms and cathode slurry provide opportunities for improving
production processes and reducing costs. Pyrite batteries have a higher
specific capacity than current lithium-ion battery chemicals, and their
CED and GWP100 impact values are not significantly different.
In 2021, Smith et al. (2021). compared the environmental impact of
LIB using lithium iron phosphate cathode with SSB based on garnet
structured electrolyte. This study selected two functional units: each
delivering 50 MJ of electricity and each kg of battery. The results indi­
cate that when the functional unit is 1 kg, the environmental impact of
SSB is higher in all environmental impact categories except for fresh­
water ecotoxicity potential, human ecotoxicity potential, and marine
ecotoxicity potential. For these categories, LIB has a higher environ­
mental impact. When the functional unit is 50 MJ of electrical energy,
the environmental impact of LIB is relatively low across all impact cat­
egories. In addition, researchers conducted sensitivity analysis to
determine the impact of SSB on GWP indicators with increased cycle life.
It was found that at 2800 cycles, the environmental impact of SSB was
lower than that of LIB. Therefore, stakeholders must determine which
environmental impact categories are the most important and develop
advanced technologies to increase the number of SSB cycles to provide
solid-state batteries with better functionality and safety, while reducing
their impact on the environment.
In 2022, Zhang et al. (2022). developed a lifecycle assessment model
from cradle to gate to study the environmental impact of traditional LIB
and all solid state lithium batteries with new inorganic solid electrolytes,
and conducted comparative analysis to guide the sustainable design of
all solid state batteries. The study defines functional units as the
manufacturing of a button battery. The data list comes from Ecoinvent
and GaBi Professional (2021) databases and related literature. All solid
state lithium batteries are composed of nickel manganese cobalt oxide
positive electrode, Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3(LATP) solid electrolyte, lithium
metal negative electrode, positive and negative electrode caps, and
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
gaskets. The positive and negative electrode materials of LIB are the
same as those of all solid state batteries. The results indicate that in
indicators such as GWP, AP, ecological potential toxicity (ETP), raw
material extraction and processing account for over 50% of the envi­
ronmental impact. Due to the stirring and high heating energy used to
precipitate LATP powder and prepare H2[TiO (C2O4)2] precursor, the
manufacturing process of LATP solid electrolyte has a relatively high
environmental impact. Comparing the environmental impact results of
all solid state lithium batteries with traditional LIBs, it was found that
the environmental impact of all solid state batteries is generally higher
due to differences in electrolyte materials and manufacturing processes.
2. Research methods and experimental data
2.1. Life cycle assessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool for assessing the potential
environmental impacts and resource use of products (including goods
and services) throughout their entire lifecycle (Finnveden et al., 2009).
The idea of LCA was inspired in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when it
was called Resource and Environmental Analysis (REPA), but it was not
until the late 1980s that it was widely studied (Peña et al., 2021). The
United Nations Environment Programme and the Society for Environ­
mental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) divide LCA research
into four stages: definition of objectives and scope, Life cycle inventory
analysis (LCI), Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation of
results (Artz et al., 2018), Fig. 1 shows the lifecycle assessment scope
and framework.
There is a strong dependence between the results of LCA and the
selection of functional units (FU), and the determination of functional
units can ensure that the evaluation object and evaluation process have
the same benchmark. Considering that different types of batteries
consume different qualities of raw materials, in order to obtain
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

comparability of various battery materials, it is necessary to convert the Table 1

original values of battery components and masses into standard masses. Footprint family evaluation indicators and methods.
This article has selected two functional units in total. Chapter 3 takes 1 Footprint Impact category Method of calculation Unit
kg as the functional unit, which evaluates the footprint value of syn­ indicators
thesized 1 kg object materials. Chapter 4 analyzes and discusses the (1) Carbon – IPCC 2013 GWP 20a kg CO2 eq
footprint families of five types of batteries using two functional units, 1 footprint V1.03
kg and 1wh. Ecoinvent 3 database, which includes all production, (2) Water – AWARE V1.03 m3

transportation, and economic processes. Based on material synthesis and footprint

(3) Material Mineral resource ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint USD2013
energy use, study the various footprint family impacts generated by footprint scarcity (E) V1.04
different types and components of power batteries during the produc­ Fossil resource
tion stage. scarcity
(4) Ecological Carbon dioxide Ecological footprint m2a
footprint V1.01
2.2. Footprint family
Nuclear
Land occupation
Giljum first proposed the term footprint family (Giljum et al., 2008), (5) Health Carcinogens IMPACT 2002+ V2.15 kg C2H3Cl
this paper tries to supplement the ecological footprint with other foot­ footprint eq
Non-carcinogens kg C2H3Cl
print indicators. In 2013, Galli (Galli et al., 2013) et al. developed a
eq
multi regional input-output model that incorporated various footprints Respiratory kg PM2.5 eq
into a common framework and provided a systematic definition of inorganics
footprint families. The footprint family is a systematic framework Ionizing radiation Bq C-14 eq
composed of multiple footprint types, used to assess the environmental Ozone layer kg CFC-11
depletion eq
impacts of production processes such as resource consumption and en­
Respiratory kg C2H4 eq
ergy consumption (Fang, 2015). The selection of footprint families de­ organics
pends on specific research needs and often comes in various
combinations.
(3) Material footprint
(1) Carbon footprint
The material footprint is defined as the final demand for allocating
The term ‘Carbon footprint’ originates from the concept of ecological used raw materials to an economy. The material footprint does not re­
footprint and was proposed by Wackernagel and Rees in the 1990s cord the actual physical movement of materials within or between
(Rees, 1992). Since the emergence of global warming and global countries, but rather provides a quantitative connection between the
attention, carbon footprint has been considered separately and has now starting point of the production chain (where raw materials are
become one of the most important ecological indicators that must be extracted from the natural environment) and its endpoint (where
measured and explained. Carbon footprint usually represents a certain products or services end) (Xie and Ling, 2018). The material footprint
amount of gas emissions related to climate change, which is related to illustrates the extraction of materials within the global lifecycle and the
human production or consumption activities. Carbon footprint is final consumption of materials within the region. Another definition of
defined as the total carbon emissions of a product or service system material footprint is that it is a resource consumption indicator that
throughout its entire lifecycle, or the total direct and indirect carbon measures and optimizes products, their components, and the entire
emissions of activity entities (including individuals, organizations, de­ production process along the value chain.
partments, etc.) during a certain activity process, expressed as CO2
equivalents (Yu et al., 2021). Carbon “refers to the carbon element (4) Ecological footprint
contained in natural resources, therefore, the greater the carbon con­
sumption, the greater the carbon footprint, and the greater the contri­ Generally speaking, ecological footprint can be described as “a
bution to the greenhouse effect. method of measuring the impact of human activities on the Earth,"
especially in terms of biological carrying capacity (Rafique et al., 2021).
(2) Water footprint It is a measurement tool used to determine human demand and supply of
natural resources, usually expressed in equivalent global hectares.
The concept of Water footprint was introduced by Hoekstra and Ecological footprint can calculate how much land and water with bio­
Hung in 2002, and the first studies were published by the UNESCO IHE logical productivity is needed to produce appropriate resources and
Institute for Water Education (Konar and Marston, 2020). The princi­ absorb human generated waste (Liu et al., 2022b). Ecological footprint is
ples, requirements, and guidelines of this method were standardized by currently the most suitable measure for determining the maximum
ISO 14046 in 2014, and the water footprint has also attracted wide­ sustainable scale within global boundaries.
spread attention in the scientific community, but far below the carbon
footprint. Water footprint is an indicator of direct and indirect water (5) Health footprint
consumption by individuals, communities, businesses, or countries. It is
considered a consumption based indicator as it attributes water con­ Health footprint is a relatively new concept that has not been sys­
sumption to consumers rather than producers (Lu et al., 2021). The tematically studied internationally. Li (Li et al., 2020) et al. proposed the
water footprint consists of three parts (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011): concept of health footprint to describe the direct and indirect health
(i) Blue Water Footprint: The indicator of fresh water (surface water and costs incurred by consuming the final product or service, which vary
groundwater) consumed by individuals and businesses to produce with individual mobility. The health footprint quantifies and presents
products or provide services. (ii) Green Water Footprint: The consumed the health cost data of a product or service throughout its entire lifecycle
rainwater does not runoff or recharge groundwater, but is stored as soil in a consistent manner, and accounts for it. Currently, there is no
moisture in the soil. (iii) Grey water footprint: pollution indicator. It is internationally agreed definition and standard.
defined as the amount of fresh water required to dilute pollutants to a This study selects carbon footprint, water footprint, material foot­
certain extent to maintain water quality above agreed water quality print, ecological footprint, and health footprint as indicators for evalu­
standards. ating the environmental impact of battery packs, and establishes a

4
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 2. Carbon Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries Unit: kg CO2 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
footprint family evaluation system. The detailed evaluation methods
and units are shown in Table 1.
2.3. Experimental data
Numerous studies have shown that the environmental impact of
batteries is mainly generated during the production and use stages, and
the production stage is the main contributor to the environmental
impact of the battery life cycle. As of October 2023, the total cumulative
production of power and energy storage batteries in China in 2023 was
611.0 GWh, with LFP batteries producing 416.5 GWh, accounting for
68.2%, and NMC batteries producing 193.3 GWh, accounting for 31.6%.
They are the main components of power and energy storage batteries in
China (Zheng, 2023). The ultra long cycle life of LTO lithium titanate
batteries is much better than that of various lead-acid batteries. Its ef­
ficiency, cost, and electrochemical performance are even better than
battery systems such as sodium sulfur and liquid vanadium, and it has
certain development potential (Wang et al., 2023). In the development
of solid-state batteries, LLZO batteries have excellent thermal stability,
Li-FeS2 batteries have good ion conductivity, and the study of their
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
electrolyte performance is an important research direction (Zhang et al.,
2023). Therefore, this article selects three traditional batteries, LFP
battery, NMC battery, LTO battery, and two new solid-state batteries,
Li-FeS2 battery and LLZO battery, for the footprint family impact study
in the production stage. The list data is collected from highly cited
literature published in recent years. Input its quality list into Simapro
software for modeling and analysis. The list of LFP power batteries
comes from Yang’s research (Yang et al., 2021), with an energy density
of 88Wh/kg; The list of NMC power batteries comes from Satish’s
research (Mylavarapu et al., 2021), with an energy density of 150
Wh/kg; The list of LTO power batteries comes from Liu’s (Liu et al.,
2019) research, with a battery energy density of 60 Wh/kg; The list of
Li-FeS2 solid-state batteries comes from Zhang’s (Zhang, 2015)research,
with an energy density of 176Wh/kg; The list of LLZO solid-state bat­
teries comes from Kravchyk’s research (Kravchyk et al., 2022), with an
energy density of 310 Wh/kg.
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 3. Carbon Footprint Distribution of NMC Batteries Unit: kg CO2 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
3. Research on the impact of footprint family in battery
production stage
3.1. Research on the impact of carbon footprint on battery production
stage
3.1.1. Carbon footprint of LFP battery
The carbon footprint distribution of LFP batteries is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 (a) shows the carbon footprint contribution of each component in
LFP batteries. It can be seen that the positive electrode material is the
component with the highest contribution value, producing a carbon
footprint of 3.87 kg CO2 eq, accounting for 29.6% of the carbon footprint
in the production stage of LFP batteries. The carbon footprint contri­
butions of other components, in descending order, are battery man­
agement system (3.69 kg CO2 eq, 28.2%), negative electrode (2.34 kg
CO2 eq, 17.9%), battery shell (2.11 kg CO2 eq, 16.1%), electrolyte (1.04
kg CO2 eq, 8.0%), and separator (0.03 kg CO2 eq, 0.2%). As shown in
Fig. 2 (b), LiFePO4, NMP, and aluminum foil are the major contributing
components in the positive electrode material, accounting for 86% of the
total carbon footprint of the positive electrode. As shown in Fig. 2 (c),
the carbon footprint contributions of each component in the negative
electrode material are in descending order: NMP, copper sheet, graphite,
and PVDF. From the perspective of all components of LFP batteries, the
substance with the greatest contribution to carbon footprint is the
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
integrated circuit in BMS.
3.1.2. Carbon footprint of NMC battery
The carbon footprint distribution of NMC batteries is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 (a) shows the carbon footprint contribution of each component in
the NMC battery. The carbon footprint generated by the positive elec­
trode material is 4.43 kg CO2 eq, accounting for approximately 49.3% of
the total carbon footprint of the battery, approximately half. The rest are
negative electrode (1.98 kg CO2 eq,22%), BMS (1.2 kg CO2 eq,13.4%),
cooling system (0.68 kg CO2 eq,7.6%), electrolyte (0.51 kg CO2 eq,
5.7%), battery shell (0.13 kg CO2 eq,1.4%), and separator (0.05 kg CO2
eq,0.6%). Fig. 3 (b) shows that the carbon footprint sizes of each
component in the positive electrode material are NMC, NMP, aluminum
foil, PVDF, and carbon black in order. Fig. 3 (c) shows that the carbon
footprint sizes of each component in the negative electrode material are
NMP, copper sheet, graphite, carboxymethyl cellulose, and acrylic acid
in order. Taking into account all the components of NMC batteries,
Simapro software shows that NMC has the highest contribution to car­
bon footprint, at 2.52 kg CO2 eq.
3.1.3. Carbon footprint of LTO battery
The carbon footprint distribution of LTO batteries is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4(a) shows the carbon footprint contribution of each component in
the LTO battery. The carbon footprint generated by the positive
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 4. Carbon Footprint Distribution of LTO Batteries Unit: kg CO2 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
electrode material is 7.66 kg CO2 eq, with the highest contribution,
accounting for approximately 41% of the total carbon footprint of the
battery. The contribution of components such as BMS (3.69 kg CO2 eq,
19.8%), negative electrode (3.44 kg CO2 eq, 18.4%), battery shell (2.95
kg CO2 eq, 15.8%), electrolyte (0.81 kg CO2 eq, 4.3%), and separator
(0.12 kg CO2 eq, 0.7%) to the carbon footprint of LTO batteries de­
creases sequentially. Fig. 4(b) shows that the carbon footprint sizes of
each component in the positive electrode material are aluminum foil,
NCM, NMP, and PVDF in order. Fig. 4(c) shows that the components
with higher contribution values in the negative electrode material are
NMP and carbon black, with carbon footprints of 1.71 kg CO2 eq and
1.504 kg CO2 eq, respectively, while PVDF and LTO have smaller
contribution values. Taking into account all components of LTO batte­
ries, Simapro software shows that aluminum, NMP, and integrated cir­
cuits are the top three substances with the highest contribution to
carbon footprint, reaching levels of 5.76 kg CO2 eq, 3.72 kg CO2 eq, and
3.63 kg CO2 eq, respectively.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
3.1.4. Carbon footprint of Li-FeS2 battery
Fig. 5 shows the carbon footprint distribution of Li-FeS2 batteries.
Fig. 5 (a) shows the carbon footprint contribution of each component in
the Li-FeS2 battery. The carbon footprint contribution of the battery
management system is the highest, at 9.61 kg CO2 eq, accounting for
nearly half of the total. The contribution of components such as negative
electrode (4.82 kg CO2 eq, 24.9%), positive electrode (3.28 kg CO2 eq,
16.9%), electrolyte (1.09 kg CO2 eq, 5.6%), and battery shell (0.59 kg
CO2 eq, 3%) to the carbon footprint of Li FeS2 batteries decreases
sequentially. Fig. 5 (b) shows that the carbon footprint contribution of
TiS2, xylene, and positive electrode collector foil in the positive elec­
trode material is relatively high, while the carbon footprint contribution
of terminals, FeS2, and PMMA is relatively low. Fig. 5 (c) shows that the
carbon footprint contribution of lithium in the negative electrode ma­
terial is as high as 92.7%, which is 64 times that of the PMMA compo­
nent. Taking into account all the components of the Li-FeS2battery,
Simapro software shows that integrated circuits and lithium have the
highest contribution to the carbon footprint, reaching levels of 9.14 kg
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.5. Carbon Footprint Distribution of Li-FeS2 Batteries Unit: kg CO2 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
CO2 eq and 4.46 kg CO2 eq, respectively.
3.1.5. Carbon footprint of LLZO battery
Fig. 6 shows the carbon footprint distribution of LLZO solid-state
batteries. From Fig. 6 (a), it can be seen that the carbon footprint
contribution order of each component in the LLZO battery is from high
to low as follows: electrolyte (33.77 kg CO2 eq, 82.1%), negative elec­
trode (4.77 kg CO2 eq, 11.6%), positive electrode (1.78 kg CO2 eq,
4.3%), collector (0.7 kg CO2 eq, 1.7%), and battery shell (0.11 kg CO2
eq, 0.3%), with electrolyte contributing more prominently. Fig. 6 (b)
shows that the carbon footprint contribution of the LiTFSI component in
the positive electrode material is the highest, while the footprint
contribution values of NMP, LiFePO4, PVDF, and carbon black decrease
sequentially. Based on all the components of the LLZO battery, Simapro
software shows that tantalum pentoxide, which is required for synthe­
sizing electrolytes, has the highest contribution to the carbon footprint,
with a contribution value of 29.7 kg CO2 eq.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
3.2. Research on the impact of water footprint on battery production stage
3.2.1. Water footprint of LFP battery
Fig. 7 shows the water footprint distribution of each component in
LFP batteries. It can be seen that the positive electrode material has the
greatest contribution to the water footprint of LFP batteries, followed by
the negative electrode material. The contribution of components such as
battery management system, electrolyte, battery shell, and separator is
relatively small. The specific values and proportions from high to low
are 3.583 m3, 2.239 m3, 0.736 m3, 0.546 m3, 0.244 m3, and 0.015 m3,
respectively. In the positive electrode material, the water footprint of
LiFePO4 and NMP are 1.789 m3 and 1.59 m3, respectively, contributing
a total of 94% of the water footprint. NMP contributes the vast majority
of water footprint in negative electrode materials. Taking into account
all the components of LFP batteries, Simapro software shows that NMP
contributes the most to the water footprint, with a water footprint of
3.35 m3, followed by LiFePO4.
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.6. Carbon Footprint Distribution of LLZO Batteries Unit: kg CO2 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode.

Fig.7. Water footprint distribution of LFP batteries Unit: m.3.

9
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.8. Water footprint distribution of NMC batteries Unit: m.3.

Fig.9. Water footprint distribution of LTO batteries Unit: m.3.

10
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.10. Water footprint distribution of Li-FeS2 batteries Unit: m.3.

3.2.2. Water footprint of NMC battery
Fig. 8 shows the distribution of water footprint of each component in
the NMC battery. It can be seen that the water footprint of the positive
and negative electrode materials contributes the vast majority of the
battery’s total water footprint. In NCM batteries, the specific order of the
contribution of each component’s water footprint is from highest to
lowest: positive electrode (2.906 m3, 51%), negative electrode (1.908
m3, 33.5%), battery management system (0.3 m3, 5.3%), cooling system
(0.272 m3, 4.8%), electrolyte (0.269 m3, 4.7%), battery shell (0.025 m3,
0.4%), and separator (0.015 m3, 0.3%). In positive electrode materials,
NMC and NMP have a higher water footprint, contributing a total of
95%, while in negative electrode materials, NMP and metallic copper
contribute the vast majority of the water footprint. Taking into account
all the components of NMC batteries, Simapro software shows that NMP
and NMC contribute significantly to the water footprint, reaching levels
of 2.52 m3 and 1.505 m3, respectively.
3.2.3. Water footprint of LTO battery
Fig. 9 shows the distribution of water footprint of each component in
LTO batteries. It can be seen that the water footprint of positive and
negative electrode materials accounts for the vast majority of the total
water footprint of the battery. In NCM batteries, the specific order of the
contribution of each component’s water footprint from highest to lowest
is the positive electrode (4.935 m3, 49.8%), negative electrode (3.433
m3, 34.7%), battery management system (0.736 m3, 7.4%), electrolyte
(0.417 m3, 4.2%), battery shell (0.342 m3, 3.5%), and separator (0.038

Fig.11. Water footprint distribution of LLZO batteries Unit: m.3.

11
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.12. Material Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries Unit: USD2013 (a) Each component (c) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
m3, 0.4%). In the positive electrode material, the water footprint of
NMP and NMC are 3.016 m3and 1.529 m3, respectively, contributing a
total of 92% of the water footprint impact value. Almost 99% of the
water footprint of LTO battery negative electrode materials comes from
NMP and LTO. Taking into account all the components of LTO batteries,
Simapro software shows that NMP and NCM are the most significant
contributors, with contribution values of 5.6 m3 and 1.53 m3,
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
respectively.
3.2.4. Water footprint of Li-FeS2 battery
Fig. 10 shows the water footprint distribution of each component in
the Li FeS2 battery. It can be seen that the water footprint of the positive
electrode material, negative electrode material, and battery manage­
ment system accounts for the vast majority of the total water footprint of
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.13. Material Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries Unit: USD2013 (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

13
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.14. Material Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries Unit: USD2013 (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

the battery, accounting for a total of 88.6%. The specific ranking of the
contribution degree of each component’s water footprint from highest to
lowest is negative electrode (2.08 m3, 32.3%), battery management
system (1.89 m3, 29.4%), positive electrode (1.731 m3, 26.9%), elec­
trolyte (0.59 m3, 9.2%), and battery shell (0.14 m3, 2.2%). Among the
positive electrode materials, TiS2 and xylene contribute the most water
footprint, with 1.117 m3and 0.423 m3, respectively. Almost 96% of the
water footprint of LTO battery negative electrode materials comes from
metallic lithium. Taking into account all the components of Li FeS2
batteries, Simapro software shows that metallic lithium and integrated
circuits contribute the most to the water footprint.

14
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.15. Material Footprint Distribution of Li-FeS2 Batteries Unit: USD2013 (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

3.2.5. Water footprint of LLZO battery
Fig. 11 shows the distribution of water footprint of each component
in LLZO solid-state batteries. It can be seen that almost 82.7% of the
water footprint of LLZO solid-state batteries comes from solid electro­
lytes. The specific ranking of the contribution degree of each
component’s water footprint from highest to lowest is solid electrolyte
(33.77 m3, 82.7%), negative electrode (4.77 m3, 11.7%), positive elec­
trode (1.494 m3, 3.7%), collector (0.7 m3, 1.7%), and battery shell (0.11
m3, 0.3%). Among the positive electrode materials, NMP, LiTFSI, and
LiFePO4contribute significantly to the water footprint, with values of

15
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.16. Material Footprint Distribution of LLZO Batteries Unit: USD2013 (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode.
0.75 m3, 0.392 m3, and 0.312 m3, respectively. Taking into account all
the components of the LLZO battery, Simapro software shows that
tantalum pentoxide raw material and metallic lithium contribute a
higher proportion to the water footprint, at 8.38 m3 and 2.23 m3,
respectively.
3.3. Research on the impact of material footprint on battery production
stage
3.3.1. Material footprin of LFP battery
Fig. 12 shows the distribution of material footprint of each compo­
nent in LFP batteries. It can be seen that the contribution degree of
material footprint of each component in the two indicators is the same.
In the indicator of fossil resource depletion, the contribution ratios of
components from high to low are positive electrode (0.256 USD 2013),
BMS (0.179 USD 2013), negative electrode (0.162 USD 2013), electro­
lyte (0.101 USD 2013), battery shell (0.073 USD 2013), and separator
(0.007 USD 2013). In the positive electrode materials, the component
that contributes the most to the depletion index of mineral resources is
LiFeO4, accounting for over 96%. At the level of fossil resource depletion
indicators, NMP and LiFePO4 have higher contributions, contributing
38% and 37% respectively, while aluminum foil, carbon black, and
PVDF have lower contributions, ranging from 6% to 12%. In the nega­
tive electrode materials, the component that contributes the most to the
depletion index of mineral resources is copper, accounting for over 97%.
At the level of fossil resource depletion indicators, NMP has the highest
contribution, accounting for 66%, while the other components in
descending order are copper (17%), graphite (12%), and PVDF (4%).
3.3.2. Material footprin of NMC battery
Fig. 13 shows the distribution of the material footprint of each
component in the NMC battery. It can be seen that the positive electrode
is the component that contributes the most to the material footprint of
the battery. In the indicator of fossil resource depletion, the contribution
ratios of components from high to low are positive electrode (0.281 USD
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
2013), negative electrode (0.136 USD 2013), BMS (0.063 USD 2013),
electrolyte (0.05 USD 2013), cooling system (0.026 USD 2013), sepa­
rator (0.011 USD 2013), and battery shell (0.005 USD 2013). In positive
electrode materials, NMC contributes almost 99% of the mineral
resource depletion index values. At the level of fossil resource depletion
indicators, NMC and NMP have a higher contribution, contributing 58%
and 27% respectively, while aluminum foil, PVDF, and carbon black
have a lower contribution, contributing 9%, 4%, and 2% respectively. In
the negative electrode materials, the component that contributes the
most to the depletion index of mineral resources is copper, accounting
for over 99%. At the level of fossil resource depletion indicators, NMP
has the highest contribution at 57%, while the other components in
descending order are copper (30%), graphite (11%), carboxymethyl
cellulose (1%), and acrylic acid (1%).
3.3.3. Material footprin of LTO battery
Fig. 14 shows the distribution of material footprint of each compo­
nent in LTO batteries. It can be seen that the positive electrode is the
component that contributes the most to the material footprint of the
battery. In the indicator of fossil resource depletion, the contribution
ratios of components are in descending order: positive electrode (0.457
USD 2013), negative electrode (0.27 USD 2013), BMS (0.179 USD
2013), battery shell (0.102 USD 2013), electrolyte (0.084 USD 2013),
and separator (0.027 USD 2013). In positive electrode materials, NCM
contributes almost 97% of the mineral resource depletion index value.
At the level of fossil resource depletion indicators, NMP and NCM have a
higher contribution, contributing 40% and 36% respectively, while
aluminum foil and PVDF have a lower contribution, contributing 20%
and 3% respectively. In the negative electrode materials, the component
that contributes the most to the depletion index of mineral resources is
LTO, accounting for over 99%. At the level of fossil resource depletion
indicators, NMP has the highest contribution, accounting for 58%, while
the other components in descending order are LTO (32%), carbon black
(8%), and PVDF (2%).
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.17. Ecological Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries Unit: m2a (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
3.3.4. Material footprin of Li-FeS2 battery
Fig. 15 shows the distribution of material footprint of each compo­
nent in Li FeS2 battery, and it can be seen that there are significant
differences in the contribution of footprint indicators of each component
in the battery. In the indicator of mineral resource depletion, the
contribution ratios of components from highest to lowest are as follows:
negative electrode (0.171 USD 2013), BMS (0.085 USD 2013), electro­
lyte (0.083 USD 2013), positive electrode (0.035 USD 2013), and battery
shell (0.001 USD 2013). In the indicator of fossil resource depletion, the
contribution ratios of components from highest to lowest are BMS
(0.479 USD 2013), positive electrode (0.353 USD 2013), negative
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
electrode (0.243 USD 2013), electrolyte (0.094 USD 2013), and battery
shell (0.076 USD 2013). In the positive electrode materials, the mineral
resource depletion index values of TiS2 and terminals are relatively high,
accounting for 72% and 21% of the positive electrode materials,
respectively. At the level of fossil resource depletion indicators, xylene
and TiS2 have a higher contribution, contributing 58% and 24%
respectively, while terminals, PMMA, and FeS2 have a lower contribu­
tion, both contributing 4%. In negative electrode materials, metallic
lithium is the most prominent component in the two indicators of
mineral resource depletion and fossil resource depletion, accounting for
over 92%.
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.18. Ecological Footprint Distribution of NMC Batteries Unit: m2a (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
3.3.5. Material footprin of LLZO battery
Fig. 16 shows the distribution of the material footprint of each
component in the LLZO battery, and it can be seen that the contribution
of the footprint indicators of each component in the battery follows the
same pattern. In the indicator of mineral resource depletion, the
contribution ratios of each component of the battery are in descending
order: solid electrolyte (2.129 USD 2013), negative electrode (0.175
USD 2013), positive electrode (0.023 USD 2013), collector (0.015 USD
2013), and battery shell (0.002 USD 2013). In the indicator of fossil
resource depletion, the contribution ratios of each component of the
battery are in descending order: solid electrolyte (2.771 USD 2013),
18
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
negative electrode (0.239 USD 2013), positive electrode (0.143 USD
2013), collector (0.032 USD 2013), and battery shell (0.005 USD 2013).
In the positive electrode materials, LiFePO4 and LiTFSI have higher
mineral resource depletion index values, accounting for 62% and 36% of
the positive electrode materials, respectively. At the level of fossil
resource depletion indicators, LiTFSI and NMP have higher contribu­
tions, contributing 45% and 32% respectively, while LiFePO4, carbon
black, and PVDF have lower contributions, contributing 12%, 7%, and
4% respectively.
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.19. Ecological Footprint Distribution of LTO Batteries Unit: m2a (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
3.4. Research on the impact of ecological footprint on battery production
stage
3.4.1. Ecological footprint of LFP battery
Fig. 17 shows the ecological footprint distribution of each compo­
nent in LFP batteries. It can be seen that the positive electrode and BMS
contribute the majority of the ecological footprint values, while the
negative electrode, battery shell, electrolyte, and separator contribute
relatively low ecological footprint values. In the carbon dioxide index,
the footprint values of each component of the battery are in descending
order: BMS (7.702 m2a), positive electrode (7.546 m2a), battery shell
(4.161 m2a), negative electrode (4.099 m2a), electrolyte (2.049 m2a),
and separator (0.055 m2a). In the nuclear energy usage indicators, the
19
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
footprint value of BMS is 1.242 m2a, contributing 45.4% of the share.
The contributions of positive electrode materials, negative electrode
materials, electrolytes, battery shells, and separators are 21.4%, 17.4%,
10.9%, 4.7%, and 0.2%, respectively. In the land occupation index, the
contributions of positive electrode, BMS, negative electrode, electrolyte,
battery case, and separator are 39.3%, 27.6%, 20.6%, 6.8%, 5.6%, and
0.1%, respectively. Among the positive electrode materials of batteries,
LiFeO4 is the component with the highest contribution to ecological
footprint, accounting for 40%, 36%, and 76% of the three indicators,
followed by NMP, accounting for 28%, 40%, and 15%, respectively. The
contribution of aluminum foil to the three indicators decreases in
sequence. In the negative electrode materials of batteries, copper sheets
and NMP contribute significantly to the ecological footprint.
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.20. Ecological Footprint Distribution of Li-FeS2 Batteries Unit: m2a (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.
3.4.2. Ecological footprint of NMC battery
Fig. 18 shows the ecological footprint distribution of each compo­
nent in NMC batteries. It can be seen that the positive and negative
electrodes contribute the majority of the ecological footprint values,
while the ecological footprint contributions of BMS, electrolyte, cooling
system, battery shell, and separator are relatively low. In the carbon
dioxide index, the footprint values of each component of the battery are
in descending order: positive electrode (8.96 m2a), negative electrode
(3.719 m2a), BMS (2.458 m2a), cooling system (1.338 m2a), electrolyte
(0.992 m2a), battery shell (0.251 m2a), and separator (0.08 m2a). In the
20
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
nuclear energy usage indicators, the footprint value of the positive
electrode is 0.816 m2a, contributing 47% of the share, while the con­
tributions of the negative electrode, BMS, electrolyte, cooling system,
battery shell, and separator are 22.4%, 17.6%, 8.6%, 3.4%, and 0.6%,
respectively. In the land occupation index, the footprint value of the
positive electrode is 2.979 m2a, with a more significant contribution
(83.2%), while the contributions of the negative electrode, BMS, elec­
trolyte, cooling system, battery case, and separator in the other com­
ponents are 9.9%, 4.4%, 1.4%, 0.8%, 0.3%, and 0.03%, respectively.
Among the positive electrode materials of batteries, NMC has the most
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.21. Ecological Footprint Distribution of LLZO Batteries Unit: m2a (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode.
significant contribution to the ecological footprint, accounting for 61%,
65%, and 96% of the three indicators, followed by NMP, accounting for
19%, 23%, and 2%, respectively, while the contribution of aluminum
foil in the three indicators decreases in sequence. In the negative elec­
trode materials of batteries, copper sheets and NMP contribute signifi­
cantly to the ecological footprint.
3.4.3. Ecological footprint of LTO battery
Fig. 19 shows the ecological footprint distribution of each compo­
nent in LTO batteries. It can be seen that the positive electrode, negative
electrode, and BMS contribute most of the ecological footprint values,
while the ecological footprint contributions of the battery shell, elec­
trolyte, and separator are relatively low. In the carbon dioxide index, the
footprint values of each component of the battery are in descending
order: positive electrode (15.326 m2a, 40.7%), BMS (7.702 m2a, 20.4%),
negative electrode (7.039 m2a, 18.7%), battery shell (5.825 m2a,
15.5%), electrolyte (1.593 m2a, 4.2%), and separator (0.202 m2a,
0.5%). In the nuclear energy usage indicators, the footprint values of
BMS and positive electrode are 1.242 m2a and 1.216 m2a, respectively,
contributing 35.6% and 34.8% of the shares. The contributions of
negative electrode, electrolyte, battery shell, and separator are 17.3%,
6.5%, 5.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. In the land occupation index, the
footprint value of the positive electrode is 3.204 m2a, with a significant
contribution of 77%. The contributions of BMS, negative electrode,
battery case, electrolyte, and separator in the other components are
9.8%, 8.5%, 2.8%, 1.8%, and 0.07%, respectively. Among the positive
electrode materials of batteries, NCM has the most significant contri­
bution to the ecological footprint, accounting for 36%, 44%, and 91%
respectively in the three indicators, followed by NMP, accounting for
26%, 37%, and 5% respectively, while the contribution of aluminum foil
in the three indicators decreases sequentially. LTO and NMP contribute
significantly to the ecological footprint of negative electrode materials
in batteries.
3.4.4. Ecological footprint of Li-FeS2 battery
Fig. 20 shows the distribution of ecological footprint of each
component in Li-FeS2 battery. It can be seen that BMS and negative
21
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
electrode contribute most of the ecological footprint values, while pos­
itive electrode, electrolyte, and battery shell contribute relatively low
ecological footprint values. In the carbon dioxide index, the footprint
values of each component of the battery are in descending order: BMS
(19.841 m2a, 50.2%), negative electrode (10.312 m2a, 26.1%), positive
electrode (6.099 m2a, 15.4%), electrolyte (2.22 m2a, 5.6%), and battery
shell (1.074 m2a, 2.7%). In the nuclear energy usage indicators, the
footprint value of BMS is 3.205 m2a, contributing 62.1% of the share.
The contributions of negative electrode, positive electrode, electrolyte,
and battery shell are 25.6%, 5.8%, 5.1%, and 1.4%, respectively. In the
land occupation index, the footprint values of BMS and negative elec­
trode are 1.006 m2a and 0.613 m2a, respectively, with a more significant
contribution to the footprint. The contributions of positive electrode,
electrolyte, and battery shell in the other components are 11.5%, 10.2%,
and 1%, respectively. Among the positive electrode materials of batte­
ries, TiS2 has the most significant contribution in terms of material
footprint. In the land occupation indicators, the proportion of TiS2 and
terminals is 58% and 27%, respectively; In the nuclear energy in­
dicators, the proportions of xylene and TiS2 are 41% and 34%, respec­
tively; In the carbon dioxide index, the proportions of TiS2, xylene, and
collector foil are 40%, 21%, and 21%, respectively. Among the negative
electrode materials of batteries, lithium contributes the most to the
ecological footprint, accounting for over 90%.
3.4.5. Ecological footprint of LLZO battery
Fig. 21 shows the ecological footprint distribution of each compo­
nent in LLZO batteries. It can be seen that electrolytes contribute the
majority of the ecological footprint values, while the ecological footprint
contributions of the negative electrode, positive electrode, collector, and
battery shell are relatively low. In the carbon dioxide index, the foot­
print values of each component of the battery are in descending order:
solid electrolyte (74.389 m2a, 82.7%), negative electrode (10.293 m2a,
11.4%), positive electrode (3.597 m2a, 4%), collector (1.472 m2a,
1.6%), and battery shell (0.227 m2a, 0.3%). In the nuclear energy usage
indicators, the footprint value of electrolytes is 7.294 m2a, contributing
74.1% of the share. The contributions of negative electrodes, positive
electrodes, collectors, and battery shells are 14%, 10.8%, 1%, and 0.1%,
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

2
Fig.22. Health Footprint Distribution of LFP Batteries the units in sequence are: kg C2H3Cl eq; kg C2H3Cl eq; 10− kgPM2.5 eq; 102 Bq C-14 eq; 10− 6
kg CFC-11 eq;
10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

22
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

2
Fig.23. Health Footprint Distribution of NMC Batteries the units in sequence are: kg C2H3Cl eq; kg C2H3Cl eq; 10− kgPM2.5 eq; 102 Bq C-14 eq; 10− 6
kg CFC-11 eq;
10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

23
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

2
Fig.24. Health Footprint Distribution of LTO Batteries the units in sequence are: kg C2H3Cl eq; kg C2H3Cl eq; 10− kgPM2.5 eq; 102 Bq C-14 eq; 10− 6
kg CFC-11 eq;
10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

24
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

2
Fig.25. Health Footprint Distribution of Li-FeS2Batteries the units in sequence are: kg C2H3Cl eq; kg C2H3Cl eq; 10− kgPM2.5 eq; 102 Bq C-14 eq; 10− 6
kg CFC-11 eq;
10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode (c) Negative electrode.

25
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.26. Health Footprint Distribution of LLZO Batteries the units in sequence are: kg C2H3Cl eq; kg C2H3Cl eq; 10−
10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Each component (b) Positive electrode.
respectively. In the land occupation index, the footprint value of elec­
trolyte is 16.73 m2a, with a significant contribution of 94.8%. The
contributions of negative electrode, positive electrode, collector, and
battery shell in the other components are 3.3%, 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.1%,
respectively. Among the positive electrode materials of batteries, LiTFSI
has the most significant contribution to the ecological footprint, ac­
counting for 51%, 83%, and 48% of the three indicators, respectively.
3.5. Research on the impact of health footprint on battery production
stage
3.5.1. Health footprint of LFP battery
Fig. 22 shows the distribution of the health footprint of LFP batteries.
It can be seen that in the indicators of carcinogens, non carcinogens,
respiratory inorganic substances, and respiratory organic substances,
the negative electrode material is the main contributor to the health
footprint of the battery, while in the indicators of ionizing radiation and
ozone depletion, BMS contributes the most footprint impact value.
Taking the cancer indicator as an example, the footprint values of each
component in the battery are in descending order: negative electrode
(0.198 kg C2H3Cl eq), positive electrode (0.089 kg C2H3Cl eq), BMS
(0.067 kg C2H3Cl eq), battery shell (0.056 kg C2H3Cl eq), electrolyte
(0.027 kg C2H3Cl eq), and separator (0.002 kg C2H3Cl eq). In the posi­
tive electrode of the battery, LiFePO4 contributes the most to the health
footprint, followed by NMP and aluminum foil. In the negative electrode
of a battery, copper has the greatest footprint impact value in carcino­
genic, non carcinogenic, and respiratory inorganic indicators, while
NMP has the greatest footprint impact value in ionizing radiation and
ozone depletion indicators, and graphite has the highest contribution
value in respiratory organic indicators.
3.5.2. Health footprint of NMC battery
Fig. 23 shows the distribution of the health footprint of NMC batte­
ries. It can be seen that in the indicators of respiratory inorganic matter,
26
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
2
kgPM2.5 eq; 102 Bq C-14 eq; 10− 6
kg CFC-11 eq;
ionizing radiation, and ozone depletion, the positive electrode material
is the main contributor to the health footprint of the battery, while in the
indicators of carcinogens, non carcinogens, and respiratory organic
matter, the negative electrode material contributes the most footprint
impact value. Taking the cancer indicator as an example, the footprint
values of each component of the battery are in descending order:
negative electrode (0.233 kg C2H3Cl eq), positive electrode (0.09 kg
C2H3Cl eq), BMS (0.036 kg C2H3Cl eq), cooling system (0.019 kg C2H3Cl
eq), electrolyte (0.013 kg C2H3Cl eq), battery shell (0.006 kg C2H3Cl eq),
and separator (0.002 kg C2H3Cl eq). In the positive electrode of the
battery, NMC contributes the most to the health footprint, followed by
NMP and aluminum foil, and carbon black has the smallest footprint
impact value. In the negative electrode of a battery, copper has the
greatest footprint impact value in carcinogenic, non carcinogenic, res­
piratory inorganic, and respiratory organic indicators, while NMP has
the greatest footprint impact value in ionizing radiation and ozone
depletion indicators.
3.5.3. Health footprint of LTO battery
Fig. 24 shows the distribution of health footprint of LTO batteries. It
can be seen that in the indicators of carcinogens, non carcinogens, res­
piratory inorganic substances, respiratory organic substances, ionizing
radiation, and ozone depletion, the positive electrode material is the
main contributor to the battery health footprint, followed by BMS and
negative electrode. Taking the cancer indicator as an example, the
footprint values of each component in the battery are in descending
order: positive electrode (0.174 kg C2H3Cl eq), battery shell (0.079 kg
C2H3Cl eq), negative electrode (0.067 kg C2H3Cl eq), BMS (0.067 kg
C2H3Cl eq), electrolyte (0.022 kg C2H3Cl eq), and separator (0.006 kg
C2H3Cl eq). In the positive electrode of the battery, NCM contributes the
most to the health footprint, followed by NMP and aluminum foil, and
PVDF has the smallest footprint impact value. In the negative electrode
of the battery, LTO has the highest footprint impact value in non
carcinogenic and respiratory inorganic indicators, while NMP has the
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.27. Comparison of Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint Values of Various Batteries.The units in sequence are:kg CO2 eq; m.3.
highest footprint impact value in carcinogenic, ionizing radiation, ozone
depletion, and respiratory organic indicators.
3.5.4. Health footprint of Li-FeS2 battery
Fig. 25 shows the distribution of health footprint of Li-FeS2 batteries.
It can be seen that in the indicators of carcinogens, non carcinogens,
respiratory inorganic substances, respiratory organic substances,
ionizing radiation, and ozone depletion, BMS is the main contributor to
the battery health footprint, followed by the negative and positive
electrodes. Taking the cancer indicator as an example, the footprint
values of each component in the battery, from highest to lowest, are BMS
(0.148 kg C2H3Cl eq, 37%), positive electrode (0.121 kg C2H3Cl eq,
30.2%), negative electrode (0.072 kg C2H3Cl eq, 18%), electrolyte
(0.037 kg C2H3Cl eq, 9.3%), and battery shell (0.022 kg C2H3Cl eq,
5.5%). In the positive electrode of the battery, TiS2 has the highest
contribution proportion at the non carcinogenic, respiratory inorganic,
ionizing radiation, and ozone depletion levels, while xylene has the
highest contribution proportion at the carcinogenic and respiratory
organic levels. In the negative electrode of the battery, lithium metal has
the highest footprint impact value among the six indicators, while
PMMA has the lowest.
3.5.5. Health footprint of LLZO battery
Fig. 26 shows the distribution of the health footprint of LLZO bat­
teries. It can be seen that in the indicators of carcinogens, non carcin­
ogens, respiratory inorganic substances, respiratory organic substances,
ionizing radiation, and ozone depletion, solid electrolytes are the main
contributors to the health footprint of batteries, followed by negative
and positive electrodes. Taking the cancer indicator as an example, the
footprint values of each component in the battery are in descending
order: electrolyte (0.619 kg C2H3Cl eq, 80.7%), negative electrode (0.07
kg C2H3Cl eq, 9.1%), collector (0.038 kg C2H3Cl eq, 5%), positive
electrode (0.034 kg C2H3Cl eq, 4.4%), and battery shell (0.006 kg
C2H3Cl eq, 0.8%). In the positive electrode of the battery, LiTFSI con­
tributes the most to the health footprint in terms of carcinogens, respi­
ratory inorganic substances, ionizing radiation, and ozone depletion,
followed by NMP and LiFePO4, while PVDF and carbon black contribute
the least to the health footprint.
27
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
4. Comparative analysis of footprint families of various types of
batteries
4.1. Comparative analysis of carbon footprint and water footprint of
various types of batteries
4.1.1. Comparative analysis of battery carbon footprint and water footprint
(FU = 1 kg)
The carbon footprint and water footprint of five types of batteries
were analyzed in functional units of 1 kg, and the results are as follows:
As shown in Fig. 27, the carbon footprint of LLZO battery, Li-FeS2
battery, LTO battery, LFP battery, and NMC battery is 41.12 kg CO2 eq,
19.39 kg CO2 eq, 18.68 kg CO2 eq, 13.08 kg CO2 eq, and 8.98 kg CO2 eq
in descending order.
A comprehensive analysis of the impact of different types of battery
packs on carbon footprint reveals that in LFP, NMC, and LTO batteries,
the positive electrode materials all contribute significantly to the carbon
footprint. Based on the list of battery components, it can be found that
this phenomenon is first related to the generally high quality of the
positive electrode of the battery, and secondly to the high carbon
emissions of active substances such as LiFePO4 and NMC in the elec­
trode. Positive electrode active materials containing metals such as
nickel, cobalt, and manganese typically have a greater impact on the
environment than positive electrode materials without these metals, as
the processing of metals inevitably generates more environmental
pollution. Among them, the positive electrode mass of NMC battery pack
is smaller than that of the negative electrode, but it produces a higher
carbon footprint impact value, and NMC’s carbon footprint accounts for
as high as 56.8%, further confirming the conclusion that positive elec­
trode active substances will have a greater impact on footprint value.
Therefore, we need to pay attention to the recycling and utilization of
electrode active substances, reduce environmental pollution and energy
consumption in the production process of electrode active substances,
and try to improve the environmental burden. The carbon footprint
contribution of BMS is the greatest in Li-FeS2 solid-state batteries, due to
the high carbon footprint intensity per unit mass of integrated circuits.
The solid electrolyte of LLZO solid-state batteries shows a carbon foot­
print impact intensity of approximately 82%, which mainly depends on
the energy demand related to the electrolyte manufacturing process,
such as electricity consumption for sintering. As is well known, the
ceramic industry is an energy intensive industry. In this case, heating the
electrolyte composition requires 900 ◦ C, and completing the sintering
process requires 1140 ◦ C. Therefore, in order to reduce the impact of
electrolytes (as well as solid-state technology) on the environment, it is
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.28. Comparison of Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint Values of Various Batteries.The units in sequence are:kg CO2 eq; m.3.
necessary to study the process parameters required to reduce ceramic
densification, such as cold sintering, which is currently an ongoing
research.
Copper, LTO, and NMP solvents in the negative electrodes of LFP,
NMC, and LTO traditional batteries contribute significantly to the car­
bon footprint, while solid-state batteries use lithium (3860 mAh/g) with
higher theoretical capacity as the negative electrode material instead of
graphite (372 mAh/g), resulting in more carbon emissions from metallic
lithium. In addition, the component with the smallest carbon footprint
contribution in the three traditional batteries of LFP, NMC, and LTO is
the separator, which is mainly composed of polymers such as poly­
propylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE). Compared with the production
process of metals, it generates less carbon emissions. It can be seen that
the carbon footprint of solid-state batteries is generally higher than that
of traditional batteries, and their impact on the environment is more
unfriendly. The high carbon emissions of LLZO batteries can be
explained by the production of LLZO solid electrolytes, while Li-FeS2
batteries can be explained by the source and material consumption of
metallic lithium in the negative electrode material during the produc­
tion stage.
The water footprint mainly reflects the water resource consumption
of battery packs during their lifecycle stages. Batteries consume a large
amount of water resources during production and use. In addition,
batteries produce a large amount of wastewater and heavy metal ions
during the manufacturing process. Allowing them to enter the natural
environment not only poses a threat to human health, but also has a
significant impact on water resources. As shown in Fig. 27, the water
footprint of LLZO battery, LTO battery, LFP battery, Li-FeS2 battery, and
NMC battery are 13.85 m3, 9.9 m3, 7.36 m3, 6.43 m3, and 5.69 m3 in
descending order. A comprehensive analysis of the water footprint
impact of different types of battery packs reveals that, similar to carbon
footprint, the production process of positive electrode materials in LFP,
NMC, and LTO batteries consumes the most water resources. The pro­
duction of NMP solvents and positive electrode active materials con­
tributes over 92% of the water footprint impact value. Therefore, it is
necessary to develop more environmentally friendly production tech­
nologies for electrode active materials as soon as possible, and to use
cleaner solvents without damaging battery properties. The high water
footprint of solid electrolytes in LLZO batteries is related to the high
water resource consumption in the electrolyte manufacturing process,
and the production of tantalum pentoxide raw materials also causes a
higher water footprint impact value. The positive electrode mass of Li-
28
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
FeS2 solid-state batteries and LLZO solid-state batteries is higher than
the negative electrode mass, while the water footprint of the negative
electrode material is higher than that of the positive electrode. This is
due to the higher unit mass footprint intensity of lithium.
In LFP batteries, the carbon footprint of BMS is higher than that of
negative electrode materials, but in the water footprint, the water
footprint of negative electrode materials exceeds that of BMS. This re­
flects that the emission preferences of the same component for different
emissions are different, and the materials in BMS are more sensitive to
water resource consumption. The NMP solvent in the negative electrode
of LFP, NMC, and LTO traditional batteries contributes the most water
resource consumption potential, accounting for 66.6%–78.5%, followed
by the electrode (copper or LTO). Among solid-state battery negative
electrode materials, lithium negative electrode has the highest water
footprint. It can be seen that the water footprint of solid-state batteries
and traditional batteries does not have a clear pattern, and the water
footprint is more affected by the specific components of the battery.
Among all types of batteries, NMC batteries have a more environmen­
tally friendly carbon footprint and water footprint.
4.1.2. Comparative analysis of battery carbon footprint and water footprint
(FU = 1kwh)
The carbon footprint and water footprint of five types of batteries
were analyzed in functional units of 1kWh, and the results are as follows:
As shown in Fig. 28, the carbon footprint of LTO battery, LFP battery,
LLZO battery, Li-FeS2 battery, and NMC battery in descending order is
311.33 kg CO2 eq, 148.64 kg CO2 eq, 132.65 kg CO2 eq, 110.17 kg CO2
eq, and 59.87 kg CO2 eq. Compared with the results of 1 kg functional
unit, the carbon footprint of LLZO and LTO batteries has changed
significantly. The carbon footprint of LLZO batteries has decreased from
first to third, while the carbon footprint of LTO batteries has increased to
first, and Li-FeS2 batteries have also decreased to fourth. Overall, the
carbon footprint of solid-state batteries has significantly decreased due
to the influence of battery energy density. The energy density of LLZO
batteries is more than 5 times that of LTO batteries. Among the two
functional units, NMC batteries have the lowest carbon footprint, with a
lower energy density than solid-state batteries but higher than the other
two traditional batteries, and are close to Li-FeS2 batteries. Therefore, it
can be seen that NMC batteries have the most potential in carbon
footprint.
The water footprint of LTO battery, LFP battery, LLZO battery, NMC
battery, and Li-FeS2 battery in descending order is 165.00 m3, 83.64 m3,
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

Fig.29. Comparison of Material Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit:USD2013 (a) Mineral resource scarcity (b) Fossil resource scarcity.

44.68 m3, 37.93 m3, and 36.53 m3. Compared with the results of the 1 kg
functional unit, the changes in battery water footprint and carbon
footprint are similar. The water footprint of LLZO battery is reduced to
the third place, and the impact of water footprint is similar to that of
NMC battery and Li-FeS2 battery. The water footprint of LTO battery
increases to the first place, almost four times that of LLZO battery. Li-
FeS2 batteries have the lowest water footprint and the most potential in
terms of water footprint. Compared to traditional batteries, the water
footprint of the two solid-state batteries is close and the average value is
lower, demonstrating higher potential for water footprint.
4.2. Comparative analysis of material footprint of various types of
batteries
4.2.1. Comparative analysis of battery material footprint (FU = 1 kg)
The material footprint of 5 types of batteries was analyzed in func­
tional units of 1 kg, and the results are as follows:
As shown in Fig. 29, a comprehensive analysis of the material foot­
print impact of different types of battery packs reveals that the mineral
resource depletion and fossil resource depletion index values of the
positive electrode materials in LFP, NMC, and LTO batteries rank first,

Fig.30. Comparison of Material Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit:USD2013 (a) Mineral resource scarcity (b) Fossil resource scarcity.

29
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.31. Comparison of Ecological Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit: m2 a (a) Carbon dioxide (b) Nuclear (c) Land occupation.
and the production process of the positive electrode produces the
highest material footprint value. Positive electrode active substances
such as LiFePO4 and NMC generate a large amount of mineral resources,
fossil resources, and energy consumption during the production process.
In the indicators of fossil resource depletion, the contribution of NMP
footprint is on par with that of positive electrode active substances, but
in the indicators of mineral resource depletion, it is far lower than that of
positive electrode active substances, indicating that NMP is more sen­
sitive to fossil resource depletion. In Li-FeS2 batteries, BMS contributes
the highest impact value of fossil resource depletion, so it is necessary to
reduce the energy consumption of such battery management systems as
soon as possible and replace them with cleaner technologies. In the
positive electrode materials of Li-FeS2 batteries, TiS2 and xylene
30
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
respectively contribute the highest indicators of mineral and fossil
resource depletion. The depletion indicators of mineral resources and
fossil resources generated by the solid electrolyte of LLZO batteries are
both the highest, which is mainly related to the mineral consumption
and energy demand related to the electrolyte manufacturing process.
The material footprint contribution of LiTFSI and LiFePO4 in the positive
electrode is relatively high.
In the negative electrodes of LFP, NMC, and LTO traditional batte­
ries, the contribution of each component’s material footprint has a
regularity. Taking LTO batteries as an example, the majority of negative
electrode quality is provided by copper sheets and LTO. Therefore,
copper sheets and LTO contribute over 97% of the mineral resource
depletion index, while in the fossil resource depletion index, NMP has a
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.32. Comparison of Ecological Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit: m2 a 4.4 Comparative analysis of Health Footprint of various types of batteries (a)
Carbon dioxide (b) Nuclear (c) Land occupation.
higher footprint value, which also confirms the conclusion that NMP is
more sensitive to fossil resource depletion. In the negative electrode of
solid-state batteries, the material footprint is mainly provided by the
metal lithium negative electrode.
4.2.2. Comparative analysis of battery material footprint (FU = 1kwh)
The material footprint of five types of batteries was analyzed in
functional units of 1kwh, and the results are as follows:
As shown in Fig. 30, compared to a functional unit of 1 kg, the overall
ranking of batteries in the Mineral resource scale has not changed much.
LLZO batteries still have the greatest impact, but traditional LTO bat­
teries have significantly increased their Mineral resource scale value to
second place due to their lower energy density. In the Fossil resource
31
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
scale, LTO batteries have the highest impact value, far higher than solid-
state batteries, while the rankings of solid-state batteries LLZO and Li-
FeS2 have both decreased.
In addition, fossil resource depletion is greater than mineral resource
depletion in LFP, NMC, LTO, Li-FeS2, and LLZO batteries. Mineral re­
sources are mainly obtained through mechanical mining, such as iron
ore, bauxite, other metals, and non-metallic minerals, while fossil re­
sources mainly refer to fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal. It can be
seen that in the production process of batteries, the contribution of the
material footprint generated by energy consumption is greater than that
generated by the extraction of mineral resources such as metals.
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

32
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.33. Comparison of Health Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit: (a) kg C2H3Cl eq; (b) kg C2H3Cl eq; (c) 10− 2 kg PM2.5 eq; (d) 102Bq C-14 eq; (e) 10− 6 kg
CFC-11 eq; (f) 10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Carcinogens (b) Non-carcinogens (d) Respiratory inorganics (d) Ionizing radiation (e) Ozone layer depletion (f) Respira­
tory organics.
4.3. Comparative analysis of ecological footprint of various types of
batteries
4.3.1. Comparative analysis of battery ecological footprint (FU = 1 kg)
The ecological footprint of five types of batteries was analyzed in
functional units of 1kwh, and the results are as follows:
As shown in Fig. 31, a comprehensive analysis of the ecological
footprint impact of different types of battery packs reveals that in LFP
batteries, the ecological footprint generated by BMS ranks first, due to its
high carbon dioxide index and nuclear energy use, followed by the
positive electrode. In both NMC and LTO batteries, the positive electrode
is the component that contributes the highest ecological footprint of the
battery. Based on the list, it can be found that the BMS of LFP batteries is
not significantly different from that of NMC batteries in terms of mass
composition. Therefore, choosing the BMS design in NMC batteries will
help reduce the ecological footprint of LFP. LTO batteries have a lower
ecological footprint due to the slightly lower quality of BMS, while Li-
FeS2 batteries have a higher ecological footprint due to the design of
BMS. In LLZO batteries, the ecological footprint of solid electrolytes is
much higher than that of other components, similar to other footprint
indicators, due to the high resource consumption and energy demand
associated with electrolyte manufacturing processes.
In the positive electrodes of LFP and LTO batteries, the footprint
intensity is mainly provided by positive electrode active substances such
as LiFePO4 and NCM at the level of land occupation indicators. At the
level of nuclear energy indicators, footprint intensity is provided by
positive electrode active substances and NMP. At the level of carbon
dioxide indicators, aluminum foil also contributes a significant amount
of footprint intensity. The NMC in the positive electrode of NMC bat­
teries is the component with the highest contribution among the three
indicators. Therefore, in the production process of NMC batteries, more
attention should be paid to the research and development of relevant
emission reduction technologies for positive electrode active substances.
In the traditional negative electrodes of LFP, NMC, and LTO batte­
ries, the contribution of each component’s ecological footprint has a
regularity, with copper electrode plates and NMP solvents contributing
the vast majority of the ecological footprint values. Among the three
types of solid-state batteries, the ecological footprint of the negative
electrode is higher than that of the positive electrode. In addition,
among the five types of batteries, the contribution of carbon dioxide
index to ecological footprint is higher than that of nuclear energy and
land occupation.
4.3.2. Comparative analysis of battery ecological footprint (FU = 1kwh)
The ecological footprint of five types of batteries was analyzed in
functional units of 1kwh, and the results are as follows:
Fig. 32 shows a comparison of ecological footprint values for various
types of batteries. Due to the low energy density, LTO batteries have a
significant impact on all three indicators. In the carbon dioxide index,
the footprint impact values of LTO battery, LFP battery, LLZO battery,
Li-FeS2 and NMC battery decrease sequentially. In the nuclear energy
indicators, the pattern is basically similar, with only the order of LFP
batteries changing, which is related to the preference of negative elec­
trode lithium materials for nuclear energy indicators in batteries. In the
land occupation indicators, there is a significant change in the order of
battery footprint values, with the footprint impact values of LTO bat­
teries, LLZO batteries, NMC batteries, LFP batteries, and Li-FeS2 batte­
ries decreasing in sequence. Among them, the production process of the
positive electrode active substance NMC contributes a high degree of
impact intensity, resulting in NMC batteries ranking differently from the
other two indicators and having a significant impact on the
33
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
environment. Among all types of batteries, NMC batteries are more
environmentally friendly for carbon dioxide and nuclear energy use,
while Li-FeS2 batteries are more environmentally friendly for land use.
4.3.3. Comparative analysis of battery health footprint (FU = 1 kg)
As shown in Fig. 33, the health footprint can reflect the impact of
battery pack production process on human health and ecological health,
and is often overlooked as an indicator of the degree of health impact. A
comprehensive analysis of the impact of different types of battery packs
on health footprints reveals that the BMS components of NMC batteries
produce lower health footprints, while the BMS components of LFP
batteries, LTO batteries, and Li-FeS2 batteries produce higher health
footprints, indicating that the BMS design of NMC batteries is more
environmentally friendly and more protective of human health. Like
other footprint patterns, the solid-state electrolyte in LLZO batteries still
contributes the highest proportion of health footprint impact values.
In traditional battery positive electrodes, active substances such as
LiFePO4, NMC, and NCM contribute the most footprint impact values,
and their production process poses higher risks to environmental and
human health. TiS2 has a significant impact on Li-FeS2 solid-state bat­
teries, as sulfur-containing metal compounds release toxic gases during
the smelting process, causing environmental pollution. The contribution
of LiTFSI in LLZO cathode is relatively large, with a more prominent
proportion in respiratory inorganic matter, ionizing radiation, and
ozone depletion.
Due to the higher requirements for the detection of carcinogenic
indicators on the types and toxic concentrations of substances produced
during product production, the impact value of non carcinogenic
toxicity is generally higher than that of carcinogenic toxicity in all
battery types. The impact value of respiratory inorganic substances is
generally higher than that of respiratory organic substances, so inor­
ganic dust such as PM2.5 poses a higher risk to human health during
battery production.
4.3.4. Comparative analysis of battery health footprint (FU = 1kwh)
Fig. 34 shows a comparison of health footprint values for various
types of batteries. The footprint impact values of various battery packs
have similar variation patterns in ionizing radiation and ozone depletion
indicators. The footprint values of LTO batteries, LLZO batteries, LFP
batteries, Li-FeS2 batteries, and NMC batteries decrease sequentially. In
terms of respiratory inorganic and organic indicators, the footprint
impact values of various battery packs are similar, with LTO batteries
emitting the most respiratory pollutants, while LFP and LLZO batteries
emit similar amounts of respiratory pollutants during production. At the
level of carcinogenic and non carcinogenic indicators, the footprint
values of each battery pack vary greatly, with Li-FeS2 batteries being
more environmentally friendly towards carcinogens and LLZO batteries
being more environmentally friendly towards non carcinogens. In
addition, LTO batteries rank first among the six indicators and are least
environmentally friendly. Li-FeS2 batteries rank in the middle and lower
reaches of all six indicators, indicating potential for development.
5. Conclusion
In the three traditional batteries of LFP, NMC, and LTO, the positive
electrode materials all contribute the highest carbon footprint, water
footprint, and material footprint. In addition, in the ecological footprint,
the positive electrodes of NMC and LTO batteries also contribute the
highest footprint value. This phenomenon is first related to the generally
high quality of battery positive electrodes, and secondly, positive elec­
trode active substances such as LiFePO4, NMC, NCM, and NMP solvents
Z. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452

34
Z. Liu et al.
Fig.34. Comparison of Health Footprint Values of Various Batteries Unit: (a) kg C2H3Cl eq; (b) kg C2H3Cl eq; (c) 10− 2 kg PM2.5 eq; (d) 102Bq C-14 eq; (e) 10− 6 kg
CFC-11 eq; (f) 10− 2 kg C2H4 eq (a) Carcinogens (b) Non-carcinogens (c) Respiratory inorganics (d) Ionizing radiation (e) Ozone layer depletion (f) Respira­
tory organics.
generate a large amount of carbon emissions, water resources, mineral
resources, fossil resources, and energy consumption during the pro­
duction process. Therefore, it is necessary to develop more environ­
mentally friendly electrode active material production technologies as
soon as possible, replace materials with higher energy density and
cleaner ones, and use cleaner solvents without damaging battery
properties.
In the results measured in functional units of 1 kg, NMC batteries
have lower comprehensive impact values on carbon footprint, water
footprint, ecological footprint, and material footprint. In terms of ma­
terial footprint, LFP batteries have greater potential for mineral resource
protection, while NMC batteries have greater potential for fossil
resource protection. In the ecological footprint, NMC batteries are more
environmentally friendly for carbon dioxide and nuclear energy use,
while LFP batteries are more environmentally friendly for land occu­
pation. In the health footprint, there are significant differences in the
footprint values of various types of batteries under various indicators.
NMC batteries have the lowest impact values on carcinogens, ionizing
radiation, and ozone depletion indicators, Li-FeS2 batteries have the
lowest impact values on non carcinogens, and LFP batteries produce the
least amount of respiratory pollutants during production. In most foot­
print indicators such as carbon footprint, material footprint, ecological
footprint, and health footprint, the footprint values of solid-state bat­
teries such as LLZO and Li-FeS2 are greater than those of traditional
batteries such as NMC and LFP. Solid state batteries use lithium with a
higher theoretical capacity as the negative electrode material, resulting
in metallic lithium contributing more footprint impact intensity, and the
unit mass footprint intensity of metallic lithium is also higher. The
contribution of solid-state electrolytes in LLZO batteries to various
footprint indicators is the highest, mainly depending on the high energy
demand (such as electricity consumption for sintering) and high
resource consumption related to the electrolyte manufacturing process.
In the results based on a functional unit of 1kwh, the NMC battery of
traditional batteries still remains in the lower middle position in mul­
tiple environmental impact indicators, with higher potential. However,
due to its low energy density, LTO batteries rank first in terms of water
footprint, carbon footprint, ecological footprint, and health footprint,
and have a significant gap compared to other batteries, making them less
environmentally friendly. Correspondingly, solid-state batteries LLZO
and Li-FeS2 have a relatively high energy density, which has led to a
decrease in their ranking. However, the ranking of their material foot­
print has not changed much and they are still in a relatively high
position.
Therefore, generally speaking, when the functional unit is 1 kg, the
footprint family impact value of the solid-state battery production stage
in the article is higher, and the degree of environmental pollution is
greater. Considering the energy density of the battery, with a functional
unit of 1kWh, the high energy density of solid-state batteries signifi­
cantly reduces their environmental impact, while traditional battery
LTO increases its environmental impact due to the lower battery energy
density. However, in the material footprint, both functional units of
solid-state batteries have a significant impact. In Li-FeS2 batteries, BMS
contributes the highest fossil resource depletion impact value, while in
Li-FeS2 battery cathode materials, TiS2 and xylene respectively
contribute the highest mineral and fossil resource depletion indicators.
The solid electrolyte of LLZO batteries produces the highest indicators of
mineral and fossil resource depletion, which is mainly related to the
mineral consumption and energy demand related to the electrolyte
manufacturing process. However, due to the limited number and types
of batteries selected in the article, the conclusions drawn are limited to
the results of the batteries in the article. The high energy density of solid-
35
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
state batteries still holds great development prospects, and cleaner
technology and energy, as well as higher energy density, remain the
direction of battery development.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ziyi Liu: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Data curation. Xi Li:
Software, Resources, Investigation. Hongliang Zhang: Validation,
Formal analysis. Kai Huang: Supervision, Conceptualization. Yajuan
Yu: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Methodology,
Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Yajuan Yu reports travel was provided by National Natural Science
Foundation of China. If there are other authors, they declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express appreciation to the following
contributors: (1) the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
52074037); (2) National Key R&D Program of China
(2022YFB3305400).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141452.
References
Artz, J., Müller, T.E., Thenert, K., et al., 2018. Sustainable conversion of carbon dioxide:
an integrated review of catalysis and life cycle assessment. Chem. Rev. 118 (2),
434–504.
Fang, K., 2015. Footprint family: concept, classification, theoretical framework and
integrated pattern. Acta Ecol. Sin. 35 (6), 1647–1659.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., et al., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle
assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1), 1–21.
Galli, A., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., et al., 2013. A footprint family extended MRIO
model to support Europe’s transition to a one planet economy. Sci. Total Environ.
461–462 (1), 813–818.
Giljum, S., Hinterberger, F., Lutter, S., 2008. Measuring natural resource use: context,
indicators and EU policy processes. Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI)
Background paper 14 (4), 231–239.
Gong Mengze. Over 380000 vehicles were recalled in July, accounting for nearly 30% of
new energy vehicles[N]. Securities Daily, 2022-08-06(A03)..
Hong, Yueqiong, Hong, Haishan, Li, Lianbao, et al., 2023. Research and development
status of solid state batteries. Small Internal Combustion Engines and Vehicle
Technology 52 (3), 80–85.
Keshavarzmohammadian, A., Cook, S.M., Milford, J.B., 2018. Cradle-to-gate
environmental impacts of sulfur-based solid-state lithium batteries for electric
vehicle applications. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 770–778.
Konar, M., Marston, L., 2020. The water footprint of the United States. Water 12 (11),
3286.
Kravchyk, K.V., Karabay, D.T., Kovalenko, M.V., 2022. On the feasibility of all-solid-state
batteries with LLZO as a single electrolyte. Sci. Rep. 12 (1), 1–10.
Lastoskie, C.M., Dai, Q., 2015. Comparative life cycle assessment of laminated and
vacuum vapordeposited thin film solid-state batteries. J. Clean. Prod. 91 (15),
158–169.
Z. Liu et al.
Li, S., Chen, H., Chen, F., et al., 2020. Examining the cooperative governance of
occupational safety and health from a "health footprint" perspective. Nat. Hazards
104 (2), 1859–1878.
Liu, S., Winter, M., Lewerenz, M., et al., 2019. Analysis of cyclic aging performance of
commercial Li4Ti5O12-based batteries at room temperature. Energy 173 (1),
1041–1053.
Liu, Ranran, He, Penglin, Wang, Xiaodong, 2022a. Analysis of the current status of
international standardization work for lithium-ion batteries. J] China
Standardization (2), 19–24.
Liu, Y., Zhou, X., Zhang, Q., et al., 2022b. Study on sustainable developments in
Guangdong Province from 2013 to 2018 based on an improved ecological footprint
model. Sci. Rep. 12, 2310 [90] Wackernagel M. Ecological footprint and
appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability [J]. 1994.
Lu, S., Zhang, X., Peng, H., et al., 2021. The energy-food-water nexus: water footprint of
Henan-Hubei-Hunan in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110417.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops
and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (5), 1577–1600.
Miaomiao, Mo, 2023. Research on the development of new energy vehicles in a low
carbon economy. Era Automotive (20), 130–132, 145.
Mylavarapu, S.K., Okudur, F.U., Yari, S., et al., 2021. Effect of TiOx surface modification
on the electrochemical performances of Ni-rich (NMC-622) cathode material for
lithium-ion batteries. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4 (10), 10493–10504.
Pan, Gongyu, Lei, Xue, 2022. Experimental study on thermal runaway of lithium
batteries under different states of charge. Power Technology 46 (10), 1132–1135.
Peña, C., Civit, B., Gallego, A., et al., 2021. Using life cycle assessment to achieve a
circular economy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26 (2), 215–220.
Rafique, M.Z., Nadeem, A.M., Xia, W., et al., 2021. Doeseconomic complexity matter for
environmental sustainability? Using ecological footprint as an indicator [J].
Environment, Development and Sustainability 24 (2), 4623–4640.
Randau, S., Weber, D.A., Kötz, O., et al., 2020. Benchmarking the performance of all-
solid-state lithium batteries. Nat. Energy 5 (3), 259–270.
36
Journal of Cleaner Production 447 (2024) 141452
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban
economics leaves out. J]. Environment and Urbanization 4 (2), 121–130.
Smith, L., Ibn-Mohammed, T., Astudillo, D., et al., 2021. The role of cycle life on the
environmental impact of Li6.4La3Zr1.4Ta0.6O12 based solid-state batteries.
Advanced Sustainable Systems 5 (2), 2000241.
Troy, S., Schreiber, A., Reppert, T., et al., 2016. Life cycle assessment and resource
analysis of all-solid-state batteries. Appl. Energy 169, 757–767.
Wang, S., Sun, Z., Yu, R., et al., 2023. Study on performance failure of ternary batteries
and lithium titanate batteries. Power Supply Technology 47 (6), 729–733.
Xie, Qinghua, Ling, Shixian, 2018. Review of Material Footprint Research [J] Journal of
Ecology and Rural Environment 34 (2), 97–103.
Yang, X.G., Liu, T., Wang, C.Y., 2021. Thermally modulated lithium iron phosphate
batteries for mass-market electric vehicles. Nat. Energy 6 (2), 176–185.
Yu, J., Yang, T., Ding, T., et al., 2021. “New normal” characteristics show in China’s
energy footprints and carbon footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 785, 147210.
Zhang, S., 2015. The redox mechanism of FeS2 in non-aqueous electrolytes for lithium
and sodium batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 3 (15), 7689–7694.
Zhang, J., Ke, X., Gu, Y., et al., 2022. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of all-solid-state
lithium-ion batteries for sustainable design and manufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 27 (2), 227–237.
Zhang, C., Ma, Y., Yi, Z., et al., 2023. Review of the development status of solid state
battery technology. Modern Automotive Power (4), 1–5+10.
Zheng, X., 2023. In October 2023, the installed capacity of power batteries in China was
39.2 GWh. Automotive Zongheng (12), 114–115.
Feng Zhenhua, Qiu Xiangyun, Zhang Tao, et al. Research progress on thermal safety of all
solid-state lithium batteries [J]. Fine Chem.: 1-14 [2023-10-17].
Zuo, Peiwen, Zhu, Peipei, Shao, Liqing, 2022. Analysis of the development characteristics
and trends of the new energy vehicle power battery industry. Automotive Digest 1,
1–7.