Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Criticality assessment of minerals associated with China’s

battery technologies
Yawei Huang a, 1, Peng Wang b, 1, Yao Wang a, **, Heming Wang a, c, *, Yue Zhang a, Xiaozhu Xu a,
Chao Wang d, Qiang Yue a, Tao Du a, Wei-Qiang Chen b
a
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China
b
Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, China
c
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, Australia
d
Research Base of Beijing Modern Manufacturing Development, College of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China

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

Handling Editor: Prof. Salonitis Konstantinos Power batteries require mineral resources such as nickel, cobalt, lithium, iron, graphite, and manganese.
However, the analysis of the key mineral criticality scores related to China’s battery industry is limited. To
Keywords: provide a reference for the research and development as well as the design of battery technologies from a
Battery technologies criticality assessment perspective, this study employs indicators such as Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, World
Battery-related materials
Governance Indicators, the innovation factors, and others to construct a criticality assessment framework for
Criticality assessment
evaluating the critical situations of nine minerals and eighteen battery technologies in China. The key findings
China
include: LiFePO4 exhibited the lowest criticality score among lithium-ion batteries. Considering energy density,
some sodium-ion batteries posed higher criticality scores compared to lithium batteries. To reduce criticality
scores from the perspective of battery materials, at least two other high-score materials required attention, apart
from lithium-sulfur batteries. Supply concentration was the most crucial indicator among the five criticality
indicators for lithium and cobalt, showing an overall increasing trend. Economic importance consistently
remained at 100 for nickel, iron, aluminum, and manganese.

1. Introduction clearly stipulates the obligation of battery operators to conduct due

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) and post-lithium-ion batteries (PLIBs)
are important electrochemical energy storage technologies (Hannan
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022). Their applications range from electronic
devices, laptops, and smartphones to electric tools, electric vehicles
(EVs), and grid energy storage systems. With the vision of achieving
carbon neutrality, the installed capacity of grid energy storage and
electric vehicles is expected to grow rapidly. However, the use of
graphite and other non-renewable metals in batteries faces significant
supply risk. Therefore, many countries have proposed a series of policies
to ensure the secure supply of battery materials and the safe develop­
ment of the battery industry chain. For instance, the 100-day supply
chain review report released by the United States in 2021 conducted a
comprehensive assessment of high-capacity batteries (Biden, 2021), and
the new Battery Regulation introduced by the European Union in 2020
diligence on the battery material supply chain (European Commission E,
2020). To ensure the secure supply of relevant battery materials in China
and establish appropriate risk management strategies and measures is of
utmost importance.
Criticality assessment is mainly divided into the global and national
levels. In 2011, Graedel and colleagues developed a criticality assess­
ment methodology that operates at the global, national, and enterprise
levels in response to the impact of sudden conflicts in certain countries
on product production, policy perception, mining capacity, recycling
rates, and some social and environment policies. This criticality assess­
ment includes supply risk, vulnerability to supply restriction, and
environmental impact (Graedel et al., 2012). This methodology laid the
foundation for multi-indicator critical analysis and its subsequent
application at both global and American scales (Graedel et al., 2015).
Subsequently, this method has been applied by studies to assess the

* Corresponding author. State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wangyao_2018@hotmail.com (Y. Wang), wangheming2006@gmail.com (H. Wang).
1
These authors contributed equally: Yawei Huang, Peng Wang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141577
Received 19 October 2023; Received in revised form 24 January 2024; Accepted 28 February 2024
Available online 4 March 2024
0959-6526/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Huang et al.
supply risk of products and critical materials in the fields of photovoltaic
systems (Helbig et al., 2016) and lithium-ion batteries (Helbig et al.,
2018), and assess the vulnerabilities of automobiles (Knobloch et al.,
2018).
According to the criticality framework proposed by Graedel, many
scholars have extended various methods. For example, Bach and col­
leagues developed the ESSENZ method for resource assessment effi­
ciency and utilized this method to conduct a comprehensive analysis of
product supply risks and supply vulnerability (Bach et al., 2016).
Manjong utilized the ESSENZ method to assess the criticality of the
lithium battery materials value chain, thereby identifying potential
supply risks within the value chain (Manjong et al., 2023). The Eco­
nomic Scarcity Potential (ESP) method, proposed by Schneider et al.
(2014), was subsequently utilized by researchers to conduct criticality
assessments on silicon (Abdelbaky et al., 2022) and rare earth elements
(Pell et al., 2019).
At the national level, some scholars have conducted criticality as­
sessments on electric mobility. The main methods employed include the
interdisciplinary Methodology of Metal Criticality Determination
(MMCD) (Bongartz et al., 2021), ESSENZ (Sun et al., 2021), GeoPolRisk
(Gemechu et al., 2016), and some independently established indicators
(Greenwood et al., 2021a; Kim et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2020). For
example, Bongartz et al. used the MMCD to assess the cumulative metal
demand and multidimensional criticality evaluation of lithium batteries
in the German market by 2050 (Bongartz et al., 2021). Sun et al. (2021)
utilized the ESSENZ method to assess the criticality and environmental
impact (Integrate the results of life cycle assessment) of internal com­
bustion engine vehicles (ICEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) from
both global and Chinese perspectives. Gemechu et al. (2016) developed
the GeoPolRisk method, which evaluates geopolitical supply risks for
specific countries based on import situations. Yan et al. assessed the
supply risk of lithium batteries in China using a composite index of
Material Supply (MS), Economic Fluctuation (EF), and Material Supply
Elasticity in China (Yan et al., 2020). Kim (Kim et al., 2019) proposed a
criticality assessment model based on weights obtained through fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process and examined the impact of weight changes
on criticality variations. Greenwood et al. designed a method to quantify
regional criticality, setting indicators such as supply risk and supply
vulnerability at the national level (Greenwood et al., 2021b).
In conclusion, the existing research in this field is continuously
expanding in terms of its comprehensiveness and completeness at a
global scale. The increasing number of studies not only enhances overall
understanding of this field but also provides decision-makers and
stakeholders with more references and evidence. However, there is
relatively limited research on the criticality assessment of battery ma­
terials and battery technologies in China, the largest producer of power
batteries in the world.
Based on the above issues, this study proposes a criticality assess­
ment framework for materials in Chinese batteries, drawing insights
from Graedel’s criticality assessment method (Graedel et al., 2012),
ESSENZ (Bach et al., 2016) and ESP (Schneider et al., 2014). Utilizing
this framework, the study assesses the criticality scores of battery
technologies in China from 2010 to 2020, encompassing conventional
percentage and weight scenario (Calculation solution for the battery
technology criticality score. Refer to section 2.3 for details) that account
for battery energy density. The main purpose of this study is to quan­
titatively assess the criticality scores associated with battery materials
and battery technology in China, providing insights into the criticality
indicators for battery materials. Firstly, we provide crucial information
regarding the criticality situation in China’s battery industry for relevant
decision-makers and stakeholders, thereby supporting and guiding
future development and planning. Secondly, this study offers key in­
formation on the battery material supply chain and technological
development for Chinese research and development institutions and
companies, aiding them in formulating appropriate strategies and de­
cisions to cope with the ever-changing risk environment.
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
2. Methods and data
2.1. Technologies studied
As shown in Fig. 1, a complete battery criticality assessment mainly
includes the identification of sources of risk in criticality assessment,
criticality scores quantification of critical minerals, criticality scores
quantification of battery technologies, and purpose of criticality
assessment.
This research mainly studies mature battery technologies and some
promising battery technologies (Hannan et al., 2017; Wentker et al.,
2019), including Na3V2 (PO4)3 (NVP), NaTi2 (PO4) 3 (NTP), Na2FePO4F
(NFPF), Na2/3Ni1/3Mn7/12Fe1/12O2 (NNMO), Lithium-sulfur, Lith­
ium-air, LiCoO2 (LCO), LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (LNMO), LiFePO4 (LFP),
LiMn2O4 (LMO), xLi2MnO3*(1-x)-LiMO2 (M = Co, Ni, Mn, etc.)
(LR-NMC), LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (NCA), LiNi0.9Co0.05Al0.05O2
(NCA-955), LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 (NMC-442), LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2
(NMC-811), LiNi0.6 Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC-622), LiNi0.5 Mn0.3Co0.2O2
(NMC-532) and LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 (NMC-111) (Table S1 of Sup­
porting Information). In conclusion, this article, taking into account key
mineral lists related to batteries published by countries such as the
United States, China, and Japan, selects lithium, aluminum, titanium,
vanadium, manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel as the research subjects,
abbreviated as Li, Al, Ti, V, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni. Due to graphite (Gr)
being classified as a critical mineral by several countries (Thorson,
2022), this study incorporates graphite as a key material for
investigation.
2.2. Indicators of criticality assessment
Fig. 2 illustrates the dimensions and indicators used for assessing the
criticality score associated with battery materials. The calculation
methods and data sources are detailed in Table 1. The dimension of
China’s criticality assessment includes two aspects: Supply Restriction
Probability (SRP) assesses the likelihood of supply restrictions occur­
ring, including supply concentration and political risk. Supply Restric­
tion Vulnerability (SRV) evaluates the impact that arises from supply
restrictions, including economic importance, import reliance, and
innovation risk.
Areas characterized by political instability are prone to social up­
heavals, coups, corruption, and financial crises, resulting in heightened
political risks associated with trade. The Worldwide Governance In­
dicators (WGI) can serve as a tool to measure the extent of political risk
(Kaufmann et al., 2011). The risk of significant supply restrictions can
arise from relying on a single supplier, while diversifying the sources of
supply can mitigate the risk of supply restrictions. The risk of supply
restrictions can be measured using indicators such as global supply
concentration (GSC) and country supply concentration (CSC), which can
be calculated using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) (Graedel
et al., 2012; Helbig et al., 2018). The risk of supply concentration is
obtained by averaging the GSC and CSC (US Department of Justice, F.T.
C, 1993). The risk of innovation serves as an indicator of a country’s
capacity to respond to environmental changes, with regions exhibiting
high innovation capabilities being better positioned to adapt to the
impacts of supply restrictions. The Global Innovation Index (GII) offers a
means to assess the innovation risk of individual countries. The eco­
nomic importance is measured by the ratio of the value created by the
mineral resources of battery materials to the gross domestic product
(GDP) (Graedel et al., 2012). Import reliance is determined by the ratio
of net imports of resources to total resource consumption (Brown and
Huntington, 2015). A country that heavily relies on importing a specific
resource from other nations is more vulnerable to the effects of supply
restrictions.
This study collected import and export trade data for lithium,
aluminum, graphite, titanium, vanadium, manganese, iron, cobalt, and
nickel in China from 2010 to 2020, as well as WGI, domestic metal
Y. Huang et al.
Fig. 1. Research framework.
production and average metal price data, and China’s gross domestic
product (GDP) and global innovation index data. The specific data
collection and processing methods are as follows: Trade data for the
before-mentioned battery materials were collected based on the 6-digit
trade codes of HS 1996 (Table S2 of Supporting Information), and then
the missing values and outliers in the data were addressed (Chen et al.,
2022; Jiang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). The processed trade data
was used to calculate the metal import and export volumes and graphite
import and export quantities for each trade flow. The metal import and
export volume data, as well as the graphite import and export quantity
data, will be utilized to calculate the import percentage and apparent
consumption of battery materials as foundational data. WGI comprises
six indicators: voice and accountability (VA), political stability and
absence of violence/terrorism (PV), government effectiveness (GE),
regulatory quality (RQ), rule of law (RL), and control of corruption (CC).
This study employed the ESSENZ method to calculate the average of six
indicators and obtain the final WGI data (ESSENZ averages six in­
dicators, while ESP averages three indicators (voice and accountability,
political stability and absence of violence / terrorism, and government
effectiveness)). The political risk associated with battery materials was
determined by multiplying the WGI and import percentage data for each
country and summing the results (Bach et al., 2016). Additionally, the
world average value was used for countries without available WGI data
and missing data for specific years were estimated by taking the average
of the available data from known years. In order to assess the supply
concentration for china, this study initially calculated the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI*) at the country level using import
percentages.
2.3. Criticality assessment of key minerals and battery technologies
Based on a literature review, we identified two main approaches in
previous studies for determining the weights of various indicators. The
first approach, exemplified by Graedel (Graedel et al., 2012), assigns
equal weights to each indicator. The second approach involves assigning
different weights to individual indicators (Kim et al., 2019), determined
through surveys with experts, researchers, and relevant technical
personnel. However, the results of the second approach are not
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
consistently uniform across different scholars, given their diverse per­
spectives on the importance of various criticality indicators. In this
study, the reason for adopting equal weights is grounded in the belief
among scholars that all indicators have equal importance in assessing
the criticality score of batteries. This uniform weight approach is
considered more reflective of the overall criticality situation. Re­
searchers can, based on their understanding of the importance of each
criticality indicators, customize weights for individual indicators by
multiplying each criticality indicator by the corresponding coefficient.
This customization is easily implementable based on the foundations
established in this study.
Calculation method for criticality assessment of battery materials:
The SRP is derived by averaging the supply concentration and political
risk, and the SRV is obtained by averaging the import reliance, inno­
vation risk, and economic importance. Lastly, the criticality score of
materials is determined by calculating the average of SRV and SRP.
The percentage scenario involves normalizing all the battery mate­
rials required for each battery technology to 100, meaning that the sum
of the percentages of all materials for each battery technology is 100. For
example, in NMC-811, the proportions of Co, Mn, Li, Ni, and graphite are
approximately 4.4%, 4.2%, 4.4%, 42.8%, and 44.2%, respectively, with
the sum of percentages totaling 100. The criticality score for battery
technologies under the percentage scenario is calculated by multiplying
the percentage of each battery material by its criticality score (Table S3
of Supporting Information). Nevertheless, this approach overlooks the
consideration of battery energy density, thus potentially leading to an
underestimation of criticality score for certain battery technologies. The
weight scenario involves assessing the criticality score based on the
weight of the battery materials required to produce 1 kW h of battery,
considering energy density. For example, in the case of NMC-811, the
weights of Ni, Mn, and Co required for a 1 kW h battery capacity are
0.87 kg, 0.9 kg, and 0.9 kg, respectively, with a total weight of 2.67 kg.
The criticality score for battery technologies under the weight scenario
is calculated by multiplying the weight of each battery material by its
criticality score (Table S4 of Supporting Information). The results are
calculated using Eq. (1) to give the data a score between 0 and 100.
Y. Huang et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577

Fig. 2. Criticality assessment methodology.

Table 1
Research methods.
Dimension Risk Criteria Calculation of Individual Scores Method source Data Source
∑
Supply Restriction Political Risk S1 = [20 * (2.5 - WGI) * Country share]; Based on (Bach et al., World bank (The World Bank, 2022)
Probability WGI = 2016; Helbig et al.,
WGI − VA + WGI − PV + WGI − GE + WGI − RQ 2018)
;
+WGI − RL + WGI − CC6
Supply CSC + GSC Based on (Helbig UN Comtrade (Chen et al., 2022 ; Chen et al., 2022;
S2 = ;
Concentration 2 et al., 2018; Graedel Jiang et al., 2022; UN Comtrade, 2022; Zhang et al.,
CSC = 21.64 * ln (HHI*) - 99.31; et al., 2012) 2022)
GSC = 17.5 * ln (HHI*) - 61.18;
Supply Restriction Innovation Risk 350 50 Based on (Graedel Global Innovation Index (Global Innovation Index,
2010 : S3 = - ∗ GII;
Vulnerability 3 3 et al., 2012) 2020)
2011–2020: S3 = 100 - GII;
Economic Apparent consumption ∗ ∗ Based on (Graedel UN Comtrade (UN Comtrade, 2022), BGS (British
S4 = ∗ 100000;
Importance GDP et al., 2012) Geological Survey, 2020), and National Bureau of
Statistics (National Bureau of Statistics, 2022)
Import Reliance Imports-Exports + Stock changes Based on (Graedel UN Comtrade (UN Comtrade, 2022) and BGS (British
S5 = ∗ 100;
Apparent consumption et al., 2012) Geological Survey, 2020)
∑
Note: HHI* = Herfindahl − Hirschman Index = Country share^2 *10000; Apparent consumption** = (Production + Imports – Exports + Stock changes)* Product price.

100 ∗ (X–Xmin ) scenario.

Xnorm =
Xmax –Xmin
where Xnorm is the revised criticality score for battery technology. X is
the criticality score of battery technology under the weight scenario.
Xmin is the minim criticality score of all scores under the weight scenario.
Xmax is the maximum criticality score of all scores under the weight
(1)
2.4. Data source
The data for this study are sourced as indicated in Table 2, primarily
composed of primary and secondary data. Primary data are derived from
official and relevant company disclosures of mineral data, encompassing

4
Y. Huang et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577

Table 2 government-published data, company annual reports, and publicly

Data source. available information from company websites. Secondary data primarily
Data type Data source originate from: (1) Individual or institutional research outputs, such as
literature and securities reports; (2) News reports or conference pre­
Trade data and UN comtrade, Literatures，China Statistical Yearbook,
China’s GDP China Customs Statistical Yearbook sentations by relevant researchers. To ensure data accuracy, this study
Mineral content data Literatures primarily selects primary data. For products lacking primary data, a
Energy density data Literature, Research calculation comparative analysis of data from various sources for the same product
Other data Official website announcement is conducted, involving mutual validation, proportion allocation, etc.,
thereby selecting the latest and more reliable data.

Fig. 3. Detailed criticality situation of battery technology under weight scenario.

(a) Supply restriction probability and supply restriction vulnerability of 18 battery technologies in 2020. (b) Criticality indicator score for Chinese battery technology
in 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Note: The size of the circles in the picture represents the magnitude of criticality indicator scores. The larger the circle, the higher the criticality indicator score.

5
Y. Huang et al.
3. Results
3.1. Indicator score and element score of battery technologies
This section provides a detailed analysis of the criticality situation of
battery technologies from the perspectives of supply restriction proba­
bility and supply restriction vulnerability (Fig. 3(a)). Supply restriction
probability scores were greater than supply restriction vulnerability.
These are similar to percentage scenarios (Fig. S1, Fig. S2, and Fig. S4 in
Supporting Information). For example, the SRP scores for LFP in 2010,
2015, and 2020 were 37, 47, and 37, respectively, while the SRV scores
were 31, 20, and 20. The SRP scores for NCA-955 were 41, 50, and 40,
and the SRV scores were 34, 25, and 23. The SRP scores for NMC-811
were 52, 61, and 50, and the SRV scores were 44, 33, and 31. The
SRP scores for LMO were 55, 65, and 55, while the SRV scores were 49,
42, and 46.
From the perspective of criticality indicators (Fig. 3(b)), it is found
Fig. 4. Element decomposition of criticality scores of 18 battery technologies under the weight scenario in 2020.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
that supply concentration of lithium-related batteries was the highest
criticality indicator in 2015 and 2020, followed by political risk. In SRV,
the indicators of innovation risk, import reliance, and economic
importance of NMC, NCA, LCO, and NCA-955 were ranked 3rd, 4th, and
5th. In 2010, supply concentration was regarded as the riskiest indica­
tor, but the second and third were economic importance and innovation
risk, which were slightly higher than political risk. Taking 2020 as an
example, the supply concentration scores of LFP, NCA, NMC-811, LMO,
Li-Sulfur, and NVP were 42, 49, 59, 67, 6, and 61, and the political risk
scores were 31, 35, 41, 47, 3, and 46. Innovation risk scores of LFP, NCA,
NMC-811, LMO, Li-Sulfur, and NVP were 20, 30, 36, 44, 9, and 75;
import reliance scores were 17, 24, 34, 35, 1, and 3; economic reliance
scores were 25, 16, 25, 59, 0, and 4. In conclusion, to reduce the score of
supply disruption, more attention should be paid to reducing supply
concentration.
Comparing Fig. 4, Fig. S10, and Fig. S11, this research observes that
there is little variation in the proportion of criticality score for each
Y. Huang et al.
element in the weight scenario across the years 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Overall, except for NMC-111, NMC-442, NNMO, and LNMO, the
remaining battery criticality scores were mainly contributed by graphite
and another metal material. Using 2020 as an illustrative example, the
criticality scores of iron and graphite in LFP were 14 and 12, respec­
tively, contributing to 93% of the overall score. Consequently, the levels
of iron and graphite were decisive factors in determining the potential
for reducing the battery technology criticality score. Subsequently, we
analyzed other lithium batteries. The scores contributed by cobalt and
graphite in LCO were 25 and 10 scores, and the proportions of cobalt and
graphite in the total score were 68% and 27%, respectively. The ease of
reducing cobalt element criticality score will directly impact the safe
development of LCO. As the proportion of nickel increases, the criticality
scores of ternary battery series became more concentrated on nickel. The
fewer elements to focus on when reducing technical criticality score. For
example, NMC-111 required attention to nickel, cobalt, and graphite,
while NMC-811 only required attention to nickel and graphite. The
Fig. 5. The criticality scores of battery materials during 2010–2020.
Note: Referring to the research of Yale University and general motors (Smith et al., 2010), this research classifies the criticality score into five levels: high score
([100~80)), medium-high score ([80~60)), medium score ([60~40)), medium-low score ([40~20)), and low score ([0–20)).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
proportions of metal in NVP, NTP, NFPF, and Li-Air were 53%, 32%,
48%, and 29%, respectively. The proportions of graphite in NVP, NTP,
NFPF, and Li-Air were 35%, 32%, 44%, and 71%, respectively. In
conclusion, to reduce the criticality scores of batteries, lithium-sulfur
batteries should focus on lithium metal, while other batteries need to
concentrate on at least two types of battery materials.
3.2. Battery-related key mineral criticality scores
The criticality scores of nine key element materials for batteries from
2010 to 2020 are shown in Fig. 5. The materials are categorized into
lithium batteries, sodium-ion batteries, and graphite for criticality
analysis.
Firstly, within lithium batteries, nickel and cobalt were the two el­
ements with the highest criticality scores. The criticality scores for co­
balt and nickel had undergone a series of changes between 2010 and
2020. Over the past decade, the criticality scores for cobalt and nickel
Y. Huang et al.
had fluctuated significantly, with cobalt ranging from 67 to 75 and
nickel ranging from 64 to 76. The high criticality score of nickel and
cobalt elements has led to the elevated score of NMC (Fig. S3 of Sup­
porting Information). In ternary batteries, the criticality score for
aluminum in NCA and NCA-955 ranged from 57 to 67. In comparison,
the criticality score for aluminum was relatively lower than that of
nickel and cobalt elements in NMC. Aluminum, as an important con­
stituent element in power batteries, had shown relatively stable and
sustainable supply chain (the secure and sustainable development of
batteries) based on the fluctuation of its criticality score over the past
decade. The criticality score for iron in LFP ranged from 56 to 60, which
was lower than nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum. This indi­
cated a relatively stable and sustainable supply of iron resources. From
2010 to 2020, the criticality score of the lithium element ranged from 41
to 50, significantly lower than other metallic materials in lithium bat­
teries. The criticality score for vanadium in sodium-ion batteries ranged
from 39 to 50, with a score level closest to that of lithium metal. Tita­
nium in sodium-ion batteries had a higher criticality score compared to
vanadium, ranging from 52 to 61. Lastly, the criticality score associated
with graphite ranged from 36 to 51, exhibiting a decreasing trend and a
score level closest to that of lithium metal. Comparing with the per­
centage scenario results (Fig. S2, Fig. S6, and Fig. S7 of Supporting In­
formation), this study found that due to the lower energy density of
sodium-ion batteries, they require a larger amount of materials, thus
increasing the criticality scores associated with titanium, vanadium, and
manganese contributing to the battery capacity.
From a trend perspective, criticality score changes could be classified
into four categories: Slow increase, decrease followed by increase,
fluctuation, and slow decrease. Over the past decade, the criticality
score for iron increased by 2 points, while the criticality score for
manganese increased by 6 points. Further research and monitoring will
help to grasp the dynamic changes in the criticality scores of battery
materials, enabling better management and response to the changing
scores of criticality indicators associated with supply chain environ­
mental variations related to these elements. The criticality scores for
aluminum, cobalt, and nickel exhibited a trend of decrease followed by
increase in this study. Specifically, the criticality score for aluminum
decreased by 9 points in 2011, followed by 6 points increase between
2016 and 2020. The criticality score for cobalt decreased by 8 points
starting from 2010, followed by 4 points increase between 2016 and
2020. The criticality score for nickel decreased by 11 points from 2010
to 2018, then increased by 1 point in 2019. Battery materials with
Fig. 6. Criticality indicator scores per element with underlying colour gradient for criticality scores in 2010, 2015, and 2020. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
fluctuating values include vanadium and lithium elements, with vana­
dium showing relatively large fluctuations but minimal changes in
criticality values over the past decade, with criticality score fluctuating
around 40 from 2010 to 2020. Similarly, lithium exhibited significant
criticality fluctuations. For example, the criticality score was 42 in 2019
and suddenly increased to 47 in 2020, but there were no substantial
changes in criticality values over the ten-year period. Due to the sig­
nificant criticality fluctuations, further efforts were needed to
strengthen criticality score control and monitoring, ensuring their
appropriate use and handling. Titanium and graphite are battery ma­
terials that exhibited a slow decrease in criticality score, with titanium
showing 7 points decrease over the past decade and graphite showing 13
points decrease criticality score.
To explain the criticality indicators and sources of criticality score for
battery materials, Fig. 6 presents the relevant criticality indicator risks
for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020, and Fig. 7 illustrates the distribution
of China’s battery material imports in 2020.
Lithium batteries: In LFP, iron had relatively broad and stable import
sources. For example, the import proportions from Australia, Brazil,
India, and South Africa were 60%, 20%, 4%, and 4%, respectively.
Therefore, the supply concentration scores for iron in 2010, 2015, and
2020 were 73, 84, and 83, respectively. Since iron was widely used in
industries such as machinery, transportation, construction, and appli­
ances, its economic importance score was 100. For key materials in
NMC, NCA, and NCA-955, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and aluminum are
considered. The proportion of cobalt imported from Congo had
remained consistently above 90%, resulting in a supply concentration
score of over 95 throughout the years, with significant political risks.
Due to the limited use of cobalt elements in batteries, heat-resistant alloy
catalysts, and other small areas, the economic importance scores for
cobalt in 2015 and 2020 were 18 and 14, respectively. Nickel, manga­
nese, and aluminum are widely used in industries such as stainless steel
and alloys, playing important roles in social development, thus having
an economic importance score of 100. However, in 2020, the supply
concentration score for nickel reached 87. The main reason is that nickel
mainly came from the Philippines (70%), Indonesia (7%), and New
Caledonia (9%). As a result, the supply concentration and political risk
scores for iron were lower than those for cobalt, nickel, and lithium. The
supply concentration score for aluminum was 80 due to its dispersed
imports: Australia (33%), Indonesia (17%), and Guinea (47%). Manga­
nese had extensive import sources, with South Africa accounting for
44%, Australia 17%, and Gabon 15%, resulting in a supply
Y. Huang et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577

Fig. .7. The proportion of each country in China’s import of battery materials in 2020.
(a) Proportion of nickel import sources. (b) Proportion of cobalt import sources. (c) Proportion of lithium import sources. (d) Proportion of aluminum import sources.
(e) Proportion of manganese import sources. (f) Proportion of iron import sources. (g) Proportion of titanium import sources. (h) Proportion of vanadium import
sources. (i) Proportion of graphite import sources.

concentration score below 75. From trade data, it can be observed that the battery industry with a narrow application scope, its economic
in 2020, China imported 75% of its lithium from Chile, leading to a importance score was lower. Thus, the excessive supply concentration
supply concentration score exceeding 90. As lithium is primarily used in was the only significant concern for the lithium element.

9
Y. Huang et al.
Fig. .7. (continued).
Sodium-ion batteries: Titanium had an economic importance score of
100 in 2010, 2015, and 2020, indicating that titanium ‘s economic
significance in NTP far surpassed other sodium-ion batteries. This is
because titanium plays a vital role in aerospace, petrochemical, military,
and biomedical fields. However, titanium imports were relatively
extensive, with 30% coming from Mozambique, 13% from Australia,
and 14% from Vietnam. Therefore, the supply concentration score for
titanium in 2020 was only 54. Vanadium (V) exhibited the highest
criticality indicators in terms of supply concentration and political risk.
Graphite: In 2015, the supply concentration score for graphite
reached 92. Further analysis revealed that in 2019, the proportion of
graphite imported from the Republic of Mozambique skyrocketed to
65%, significantly increasing the score of supply concentration.
In summary, from the perspective of indicators, criticality indicator
scores can be identified for each element. For example, in 2010, the
fundamental reason for the higher criticality score of nickel was its
widespread application in the economy and the excessive concentration
of countries as import sources. In contrast, the fundamental reasons in
2020 were excessively high dependence on imports and the concentra­
tion of import sources. Cobalt’s fundamental reasons have consistently
been the excessive concentration of sources and a high dependence on
imports. The high criticality scores associated with aluminum, titanium,
manganese, and iron persist due to the excessive concentration of supply
and widespread application. The primary reason for the remaining ele­
ments is the excessive concentration of supply.
3.3. Battery technology criticality score evolution
The criticality scores for battery technologies under weight scenarios
are shown in Fig. 8. Analyzing the score trends, it can be observed that
all battery criticality scores, except for LMO, had shown a downward
trend. For instance, NCA and NCA-955 criticality scores decreased by 9
points. The criticality scores for NMC-811, NMC-622, NMC-532, NMC-
442, and NMC-111 decreased by 10, 9, 8, 7, and 7 points, respectively.
However, the criticality score for LMO still fluctuated around 53.
Analyzing the material criticality score trends, it can be observed that
the criticality score for graphite was decreasing, while the score for
nickel showed a downward trend, except in 2019. Since graphite con­
stitutes a significant proportion of batteries, the reduction in graphite
score is the main reason for the score reduction in ternary batteries
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
(NMC series), with the secondary reason being the decrease in nickel
element score. The criticality score reduction in other batteries is pri­
marily due to the decrease in graphite criticality score. However, the
criticality score for manganese had significantly increased, countering
the decrease in graphite criticality score and resulting in the fluctuating
criticality score for LMO.
From the perspective of criticality score magnitude, LMO exhibited
the highest score, with a stable score around 53. The criticality score for
LFP ranged from 29 to 36, lower than that of NMC, NCA, and NCA-955.
Except for NMC-442, the criticality scores of NMC decreased with an
increase in nickel content. For example, in 2010, the criticality scores for
NMC-111, NMC-442, NMC-532, NMC-622, and NMC-811 were 51, 47,
50, 50, and 48, respectively. By 2020, the criticality scores for NMC-111,
NMC-442, NMC-532, NMC-622, and NMC-811 had decreased to 45, 42,
44, 43, and 41, respectively. Analyzing the elemental criticality scores
reveals that the main reason for the lack of reduction in criticality score
in NMC-442 is the higher manganese content in NMC-442, and the
criticality score associated with manganese continues to increase. This
prevents NMC-442 from reducing their criticality score with an increase
in nickel content. This further confirms that the criticality score reduc­
tion in NMC batteries is closely related to the decrease in nickel element
criticality score. Considering energy density, the criticality scores of
NCA and NCA-955 were much lower than that of NMC series batteries,
with criticality scores ranging from 33 to 42 for NCA and 31 to 40 for
NCA-955. This is primarily due to the substitution of manganese with
aluminum as a key element in NCA and NCA-955, with aluminum car­
rying a lower criticality score compared to manganese. The criticality
scores for NVP, NTP, and NNMO in sodium-ion batteries ranged from 40
to 51, 37 to 47, and 43 to 47, respectively, higher than those of NCA,
NCA-955, and LFP. Analyzing the criticality scores associated with metal
materials, it is found that the higher criticality scores in sodium-ion
batteries are attributed to their lower energy density, which leads to
greater consumption of battery materials for the same installed capacity
and, consequently, higher criticality scores. The criticality scores for Li-
Air and Li-Sulfur metal batteries were much lower than those for lithium
and sodium batteries.
Y. Huang et al.
Fig. 8. The criticality scores of all 18 battery technologies under the weight scenario during 2010–2020.
4. Discussion
4.1. A comparative analysis of percentage scenarios and weight scenarios
The similarities and differences between the percentage scenario and
weight scenario in this study are outlined below.
Differences: Firstly, in the weight scenario, the criticality score
associated with sodium-ion batteries significantly increased, surpassing
that of LFP, LCO, and LNMO. This divergence from prior research is
primarily attributed to the lower energy density of sodium-ion batteries,
leading to heightened scores for other critical materials (such as man­
ganese), resulting in an elevated overall score for sodium-ion batteries.
Based on these results, relevant research and development professionals
should consider increasing the energy density of sodium-ion batteries to
mitigate criticality scores. Secondly, the decrease in criticality scores in
the percentage scenario was much more substantial than in the weight
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
scenario. This is due to the significant proportion of graphite in the
percentage scenario, and the criticality score for graphite experiences a
significant decline, resulting in a pronounced decrease in overall criti­
cality scores in the percentage scenario.
Similarities: On one hand, the proportional changes in criticality
scores for each element did not vary significantly in both percentage and
weight scenarios. For example, whether in the percentage or weight
scenario, the score percentage of nickel in LFP remained at 92%. On the
other hand, various indicators showed similar risk patterns, such as SRP
being greater than SRV. The indicator with the highest risk for lithium
batteries was the supply concentration.
4.2. Build a security system of critical minerals for China
One of the main contributions of this study is to quantify the criti­
cality score of battery technology and materials in China. The results
Y. Huang et al.
indicate that the excessive concentration of battery material supply is
the most significant criticality indicator. To address this problem, it is
necessary to establish a supply and recycling system to ensure the secure
supply of battery-related minerals in China. Relevant enterprises should
increase their investment in foreign mining projects and establish
comprehensive recycling systems (Shi, 2017). For instance, companies
should elevate the development of foreign mineral resources to a stra­
tegic level. Mining companies should increase investment in mining and
related research and development, strengthen acquisitions of controlling
mines, and sign long-term supply contracts to secure a stable supply
capability (Wang and Wang, 2023). Additionally, it is recommended to
establish a public recycling network for the upstream and downstream
of the recycled mineral chain (Yu et al., 2021). For energy storage bat­
teries subject to classification recycling, products with lower recycling
costs and relatively mature recycling technologies should be prioritized.
Products that are difficult to recycle should be collected centrally,
facilitating easier future recycling of materials that are currently chal­
lenging to recycle due to technological advancements. Furthermore,
design for recyclability, especially for batteries containing high-score
materials, is essential.
Establishing a robust assessment system and response measures:
Through the real-time updating of raw data, we aim to employ the
methodology proposed in this paper for the real-time quantification of
criticality scores. This approach enables us to stay informed about the
latest criticality scenarios, thereby achieving the objectives of risk
monitoring. In response to critical information derived from monitoring
the latest risk situations, we formulate corresponding measures, policies,
and optimization strategies. The ultimate goal is to prevent the occur­
rence of risks and mitigate the impact resulting from risk shocks.
4.3. Limitations and further research outlooks
Data acquisition poses challenges in this study. Firstly, trade data
suffer from issues such as data gaps and errors. The present study
addressed this by applying methods such as trade volume and average
commodity prices for data correction. While the accuracy of the data has
significantly improved, the use of global average prices introduces slight
deviations in trade valuation data (Chen et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022;
Jiang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Secondly, the metal content data
used in the calculations are derived from references that provide average
mineral grades for a country without specific differentiations for indi­
vidual mine ore grades. Thirdly, it was found that some countries lacked
World Governance Indicators (WGI) values, necessitating the use of
average values from available data as substitutes. Finally, this research
focused only on mature electrochemical energy storage technologies
such as lithium-ion batteries, sodium-ion batteries, and some promising
metal batteries. Less advanced energy storage battery technologies (e.g.
nickel-metal hydride batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, lead-acid
batteries) or technologies with significant technical issues or slow
development (e.g. zinc-halide batteries, sodium-sulfur batteries) were
not studied.
These methods have two primary limitations. On one hand, this
study primarily focuses on the risks associated with battery supply re­
striction and the resulting impacts after such restriction. Therefore, it
only considers the supply restriction probability and supply constraint
vulnerability in criticality assessment, without quantifying policy
perception, mining capacity, recycling rates and environmental impact
within this assessment. In the subsequent research, environmental
impact will be further quantified using life cycle assessment method. On
the other hand, this study employed equal weight for each indicator in
terms of weighting, similar to the approach used by Graedel in PNAS
(Graedel et al., 2015). Scholars have the flexibility to conduct expert
surveys or establish specific proportional weightings for different in­
dicators, and this can be easily calculated using the data provided in this
study.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
5. Conclusions
This research calculated the criticality scores of battery technologies
and battery-related materials under existing percentage and weight
scenarios in China. In general, there are four main conclusions as fol­
lows. In the weight scenario, this study multiplied the material criticality
scores by the material weight consumed 1 kW h to obtain the criticality
scores of batteries, taking into account the varying energy densities of
different batteries. The low density of sodium-ion batteries results in
higher criticality scores associated with Ti, V, and Mn, causing the
battery criticality scores of NVP, NTP, and NNMO to surpass those of
LCO, LFP, NCA, and NCA-955.
To reduce criticality scores from the perspective of battery materials,
apart from lithium-sulfur batteries, at least two categories of high-score
materials require attention. In terms of material criticality scores, the
supply concentration of Co, Li, and Ni deserves the most attention, fol­
lowed by the economic importance of Al, Mn, Ti, and Fe, and then
import reliance. Furthermore, the decrease in graphite criticality score is
the primary reason for the reduction in battery criticality score.
Key lithium battery-related materials (Li, Mn, Ni, Co, Al, Fe) have
major import source countries. For example, over 90% of cobalt imports
come from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and over 70% of nickel
imports come from the Philippines.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yawei Huang: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Peng Wang:
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Yao Wang: Formal analysis, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Heming Wang: Conceptu­
alization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Method­
ology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Yue Zhang:
Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Xiaozhu Xu: Visualization,
Writing – review & editing. Chao Wang: Investigation, Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Qiang Yue: Methodology, Writing – review
& editing. Tao Du: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Wei-
Qiang Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this research.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (52070034 and 41871204) and the Think Tank Project
of Liaoning Province (WSNZK201905). We appreciate the helpful
feedback from the editor and anonymous reviewers.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141577.
References
Abdelbaky, M., Peeters, J.R., Den Eynde, S. Van, Zaplana, I., Dewulf, W., 2022.
A comparative assessment of resource-use criticality in advanced lithium-ion battery
Y. Huang et al.
technologies. Procedia CIRP 105, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2022.02.002.
Bach, V., Berger, M., Henßler, M., Kirchner, M., Leiser, S., Mohr, L., Rother, E.,
Ruhland, K., Schneider, L., Tikana, L., Volkhausen, W., Walachowicz, F.,
Finkbeiner, M., 2016. Integrated method to assess resource efficiency – ESSENZ.
J. Clean. Prod. 137, 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.077.
Biden, J., 2021. 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order 14017. Federal Register.
Bongartz, L., Shammugam, S., Gervais, E., Schlegl, T., 2021. Multidimensional criticality
assessment of metal requirements for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles and
stationary storage applications in Germany by 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126056
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126056.
British Geological Survey, 2020. World Mineral Production 2016–2020. https://www.
metalary.com.
Brown, S.P.A., Huntington, H.G., 2015. Evaluating U.S. oil security and import reliance.
Energy Pol. 79, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.001.
Chen, C., Jiang, Z., Li, N., Wang, H., Wang, P., Zhang, Z., Zhang, C., Ma, F., Huang, Y.,
Lu, X., Wei, J., Qi, J., Chen, W.Q., 2022. Advancing UN comtrade for physical trade
flow analysis: review of data quality issues and solutions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
186, 106526 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106526.
Chen, W.Q., Wang, H., Li, N., Wang, P., 2022. Advancing UN Comtrade for physical trade
flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 186, 106520 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2022.106520.
Commission E, 2020. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council Concerning Batteries and Waste Batteries, Repealing Directive 2006/66/EC
and Amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 (2020).
Gemechu, E.D., Helbig, C., Sonnemann, G., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., 2016. Import-based
indicator for the geopolitical supply risk of raw materials in life cycle sustainability
assessments. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12279.
Global Innovation Index, 2020. Global Innovation Index Database. https://www.
globalinnovationindex.org/about-gii#reports.
Graedel, T.E., Barr, R., Chandler, C., Chase, T., Choi, J., Christoffersen, L.,
Friedlander, E., Henly, C., Jun, C., Nassar, N.T., Schechner, D., Warren, S., Yang, M.
Y., Zhu, C., 2012. Methodology of metal criticality determination. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203534z.
Graedel, T.E., Harper, E.M., Nassar, N.T., Nuss, P., Reck, B.K., Turner, B.L., 2015.
Criticality of metals and metalloids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 4257–4262.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500415112.
Greenwood, M., Wentker, M., Leker, J., 2021a. A bottom-up performance and cost
assessment of lithium-ion battery pouch cells utilizing nickel-rich cathode active
materials and silicon-graphite composite anodes. J. Power Sources Adv. 9, 100055
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powera.2021.100055.
Greenwood, M., Wentker, M., Leker, J., 2021b. A region-specific raw material and
lithium-ion battery criticality methodology with an assessment of NMC cathode
technology. Appl. Energy 302, 117512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2021.117512.
Hannan, M.A., Hoque, M.M., Mohamed, A., Ayob, A., 2017. Review of energy storage
systems for electric vehicle applications: issues and challenges. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 69, 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.171.
Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A.M., Kolotzek, C., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., 2016. Supply risks
associated with CdTe and CIGS thin-film photovoltaics. Appl. Energy 178, 422–433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.102.
Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A.M., Wietschel, L., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., 2018. Supply risks
associated with lithium-ion battery materials. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 274–286. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.122.
Jiang, Z., Chen, C., Li, N., Wang, H., Wang, P., Zhang, C., Ma, F., Zhang, Z., Huang, Y.,
Qi, J., Chen, W.Q., 2022. Advancing UN comtrade for physical trade flow analysis:
addressing the issue of outliers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 186, 106524 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106524.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 448 (2024) 141577
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M., 2011. The Worldwide Governance Indicators:
Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague J. rule law 3, 220–246. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1876404511200046.
Kim, Juhan, Lee, J., Kim, B.C., Kim, Jinsoo, 2019. Raw material criticality assessment
with weighted indicators: an application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Resour.
Pol. 60, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.01.005.
Knobloch, V., Zimmermann, T., Gößling-Reisemann, S., 2018. From criticality to
vulnerability of resource supply: the case of the automobile industry. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 138, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.027.
Manjong, N.B., Bach, V., Usai, L., Marinova, S., Burheim, O.S., Finkbeiner, M.,
Strømman, A.H., 2023. A comparative assessment of value chain criticality of
lithium-ion battery cells. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
susmat.2023.e00614.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2022. China Statistical Yearbook. https://www.stats.gov.
cn/english/Statisticaldata/yearbook/.
Pell, R.S., Wall, F., Yan, X., Bailey, G., 2019. Applying and advancing the economic
resource scarcity potential (ESP) method for rare earth elements. Resour. Pol. 62,
472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.10.003.
Schneider, L., Berger, M., Schüler-Hainsch, E., Knöfel, S., Ruhland, K., Mosig, J., Bach, V.,
Finkbeiner, M., 2014. The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating
resource use based on life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 601–610.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0666-1.
Shi, J., 2017. Promoting Mining Production Capacity Cooperation between China and
Africa. China-Africa Dev. Fund. Extension.
Smith, R.C., Bossen, C., Kanstrup, A.M., 2010. Design in an era of constrained resources.
Mech. Eng. 132, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310466.
Sun, X., Bach, V., Finkbeiner, M., Yang, J., 2021. Criticality assessment of the life cycle of
passenger vehicles produced in China. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 1, 435–455. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s43615-021-00012-5.
The World Bank, 2022. The Worldwide Governance Indicators. http://info.worldbank.
org/governance/wgi/.
Thorson, R., 2022. 2022 final list of critical minerals. Fed. Regist 87, 50–51.
US Department of Justice, F.T.C, 1993. Department of justice and federal trade
commission: horizontal Merger Guidelines. Rev. Ind. Organ. 8, 231–256. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF01034180.
Wang, A., Wang, C., 2023. Challenges of international turmoil situation to China’s
energy resource security and coping strategies. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 38, 72–80.
https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20221102003.
Wang, P., Wang, H., Chen, W.Q., Pauliuk, S., 2022. Carbon neutrality needs a circular
metal-energy nexus. Fundam. Res. 2, 392–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fmre.2022.02.003.
Wentker, M., Greenwood, M., Asaba, M.C., Leker, J., 2019. A raw material criticality and
environmental impact assessment of state-of-the-art and post-lithium-ion cathode
technologies. J. Energy Storage 26, 101022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2019.101022.
Yan, W., Cao, H., Zhang, Y., Ning, P., Song, Q., Yang, J., Sun, Z., 2020. Rethinking
Chinese supply resilience of critical metals in lithium-ion batteries. J. Clean. Prod.
256, 120719 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120719.
Yu, S., Duan, H., Cheng, J., 2021. An evaluation of the supply risk for China’s strategic
metallic mineral resources. Resour. Pol. 70, 101891 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2020.101891.
Zhang, Z., Jiang, Z., Chen, C., Zhang, X., Wang, H., Li, N., Wang, P., Zhang, C., Ma, F.,
Huang, Y., Qi, J., Chen, W.Q., 2022. Advancing UN Comtrade for physical trade flow
analysis: addressing the issue of missing values. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 186,
106525 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106525.
UN Comtrade, 2022. International Trade Statistics Database. https://comtrade.un.org/
(accessed July 27; 2022).