Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 44 min ago
PreprintCC BYChemRxiv

Environmental benefits and trade-offs of dry coating for battery electrode production

  • Martina Serra1
  • Edouard Quérel2
  • Eleonora Crenna1,3
  • Stefan Reimann4
  • Martin K. Vollmer4
  • Zhanyun Wang1,5
  • Corsin Battaglia2,6,7
  • Roland Hischier1
7 affiliations
  1. 1Technology & Society Laboratory, Empa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 9014
  2. 2Materials for Energy Conversion, Empa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Ueberlandstrasse 129, Dübendorf, Switzerland, 8600
  3. 3HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Rue de l'Industrie 23, Sion, 1950
  4. 4Laboratory for Air Pollution/Environmental Technology, Empa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Ueberlandstrasse 129, Dübendorf, 8600
  5. 5Department of Green Technology & Danish Institute for Advanced Study (DIAS), University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230
  6. 6Department of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, ETH Zurich, Gloriastrasse 35, Zurich, 8007
  7. 7School of Engineering, Institute of Materials, EPFL, Station 12, Lausanne, 1015
Open at sourcePDFDOICite

Abstract

Dry coating is an emerging, scalable alternative to traditional slurry coating for manufacturing lithium-ion battery electrodes. It offers significant energy savings, eliminates the need for toxic solvents, and is consequently often regarded as an environmentally more benign process. Dry coating exploits the fibrillating properties of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), substituting the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binder employed in slurry coating. As replacing slurry coating with dry coating involves different production processes and materials, a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study was performed for an accurate comparison of the environmental impacts. The results of our LCA show that dry coating has the potential to reduce environmental impacts across all assessed impact categories except for the ozone depletion potential, which increases by a factor of 1.8 when PVDF is replaced by an equal mass of PTFE. For LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O₂ (NMC811) cathodes, dry coating typically enables a reduction in binder content by a factor of two, which offsets the higher ozone depletion potential of PTFE with respect to PVDF and results in a comparable impact at cell level. For LiFePO 4 (LFP) cathodes and graphite anodes, state-of-the-art processing relies on aqueous, non-fluorinated binders, typically a combination of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR). Dry coating therefore introduces PTFE into a process that is currently free of fluorinated materials, lowering CO 2 emissions but increasing ozone depleting emissions. We also highlight knowledge and data gaps associated with the polymerization of PVDF and PTFE, which currently prevent a robust comparison of toxicity-related impact categories, and discuss the potential of non-fluorinated binders for dry coating. Overall, our study provides a foundation for understanding environmental benefits, trade-offs, and remaining data gaps identified for dry coating technologies, supporting informed decisions on their future development and scalable implementation in lithium-ion battery manufacturing.

Related

  1. Electrode Architectures in Biophotoelectrochemical Systems for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Applications
    Indra J Budiarso, Masaki Umetsu, Yuta Nakayasu +1
    ChemSusChemPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEnvironmental science & pollutionEurope PMCEurope PMCPMC
  2. How can prospective life cycle assessment support the eco-design of an innovative battery-grade lithium carbonate production process?
    Gyslain Ngadi Sakatadi, Antoine Beylot, Frédéric Lai +3
    Resources, Conservation and RecyclingPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEnvironmental science & pollutionHAL
  3. Turned to ashes: the environmental costs of using fire in slash-and-burn agriculture outweigh its benefits
    Jakelyne S. Bezerra, Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez, Jorge A. Meave
    Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textClimate scienceDOAJ
  4. Climate change and interprovincial trade move grain production and environmental burdens northwards in China
    Chen Wang, Xiuming Zhang, Chenchen Ren +5
    Nature FoodPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull text6 citedEnvironmental science & pollutionOpenAlex
  5. Regionally Divergent Relationships Between Microbial Communities and Environmental Gradients in Potato Production Systems.
    Shan Shan, Isabelle George, Linda L Kinkel +1
    Environmental microbiology reportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textHydrology & soilsEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@misc{serra2026environmental,
  title = {{Environmental benefits and trade-offs of dry coating for battery electrode production}},
  author = {Martina Serra and Edouard Quérel and Eleonora Crenna and Stefan Reimann and Martin K. Vollmer and Zhanyun Wang and Corsin Battaglia and Roland Hischier},
  howpublished = {ChemRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.26434/chemrxiv.15008600/v1},
  url = {https://chemrxiv.org/doi/full/10.26434/chemrxiv.15008600/v1},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Environmental benefits and trade-offs of dry coating for battery electrode production
AU  - Martina Serra
AU  - Edouard Quérel
AU  - Eleonora Crenna
AU  - Stefan Reimann
AU  - Martin K. Vollmer
AU  - Zhanyun Wang
AU  - Corsin Battaglia
AU  - Roland Hischier
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/09
PB  - ChemRxiv
DO  - 10.26434/chemrxiv.15008600/v1
UR  - https://chemrxiv.org/doi/full/10.26434/chemrxiv.15008600/v1
AB  - Dry coating is an emerging, scalable alternative to traditional slurry coating for manufacturing lithium-ion battery electrodes. It offers significant energy savings, eliminates the need for toxic solvents, and is consequently often regarded as an environmentally more benign process. Dry coating exploits the fibrillating properties of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), substituting the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binder employed in slurry coating. As replacing slurry coating with dry coating involves different production processes and materials, a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study was performed for an accurate comparison of the environmental impacts. The results of our LCA show that dry coating has the potential to reduce environmental impacts across all assessed impact categories except for the ozone depletion potential, which increases by a factor of 1.8 when PVDF is replaced by an equal mass of PTFE. For LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O₂ (NMC811) cathodes, dry coating typically enables a reduction in binder content by a factor of two, which offsets the higher ozone depletion potential of PTFE with respect to PVDF and results in a comparable impact at cell level. For LiFePO 4 (LFP) cathodes and graphite anodes, state-of-the-art processing relies on aqueous, non-fluorinated binders, typically a combination of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR). Dry coating therefore introduces PTFE into a process that is currently free of fluorinated materials, lowering CO 2 emissions but increasing ozone depleting emissions. We also highlight knowledge and data gaps associated with the polymerization of PVDF and PTFE, which currently prevent a robust comparison of toxicity-related impact categories, and discuss the potential of non-fluorinated binders for dry coating. Overall, our study provides a foundation for understanding environmental benefits, trade-offs, and remaining data gaps identified for dry coating technologies, supporting informed decisions on their future development and scalable implementation in lithium-ion battery manufacturing.
ER  -