Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

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

Marques, Pedro, Garcia, Rita, Kulay, Luiz, Freire, Fausto·2019·Journal of Cleaner Production

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 164

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.