The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles addressing capacity fade
Abstract
Abstract Lithium-ion batteries are currently used in electric vehicles (EVs) with many advantages; however, batteries contribute significantly to the life cycle environmental impacts of these vehicles. This article presents a comparative life cycle assessment of two types of batteries – lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) and lithium ion phosphate (LiFePO4) – frequently used in EVs, addressing real-life operational conditions and battery capacity fade. The influence of the location of battery manufacturing and vehicle charging (electricity mix) was also assessed. A life cycle model of batteries in an EV with a service life of 200 000 km (functional unit) was implemented to assess Primary Fossil Energy, Global Warming, Acidification, and Eutrophication impacts. Moreover, the environmental performance of EVs considering both battery types was evaluated. The LiFePO4 battery had better operational performance than the LiMn2O4 one and fewer batteries were needed over the EV service life. Conversely, the life cycle impacts of the LiFePO4 batteries were higher than the LiMn2O4 ones mainly due to higher manufacturing impacts. In countries with a mix based on renewable electricity, the battery production is the most important contributor to impacts, while in countries with electricity mostly from fossil sources, the use phase is the most important. For both battery types and most impact categories, the environmental impacts of EVs were highly dependent on the usage scenario and the electricity mix used for charging.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau‐Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x · Cited by 1,670
Online estimation of model parameters and state-of-charge of LiFePO4 batteries in electric vehicles
He, H., Xiong, R., & Guo, H. (2012) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.005 · Cited by 388
Weng, C., Feng, X., Sun, J., & Peng, H. (2016) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.126 · Cited by 324
Cited by
Lai, X., Chen, Q., Tang, X., Zhou, Y., Gao, F., Guo, Y., Bhagat, R., & Zheng, Y. (2022) · eTransportation · doi:10.1016/j.etran.2022.100169 · Cited by 566
Wang, S., Takyi-Aninakwa, P., Jin, S., Yu, C., Fernandez, C., & Stroe, D.-I. (2022) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.124224 · Cited by 355
Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review
Arshad, F., Lin, J., Manurkar, N., Fan, E., Ahmad, A., Tariq, M.-U.-N., Wu, F., Chen, R., & Li, L. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106164 · Cited by 304
Degen, F., & Schütte, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129798 · Cited by 179
Strategies and sustainability in fast charging station deployment for electric vehicles
Mohammed, A., Saif, O., Abo-Adma, M., Fahmy, A., & Elazab, R. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-50825-7 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- Marques, P., Garcia, R., Kulay, L., & Freire, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 229
- Pages
- 787-794
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2944578053
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles addressing capacity fade. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026
- The paper
- Marques, P., Garcia, R., Kulay, L., & Freire, F. (2019). Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles addressing capacity fade. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.