Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles

in China
Wei Liu a, Jing Sang a, b, Lujun Chen a, c, d, Jinping Tian a, *, Huatang Zhang e,
Grecia Olvera Palma a
a
School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Energy Foundation China, Beijing 100004, China
c
Department of Environment, Yangtze Delta Region Institute of Tsinghua University, Jiaxing 314006, China
d
Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Science and Technology, Jiaxing 314006, China
e
Office of Scientific Research and Development, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electric bikes (e-bikes) have developed faster than any other mode of transport in China, which has
Received 8 April 2015 stimulated the rapid growth of China's lead-acid battery (LAB) industry for more than a decade. This
Received in revised form research undertook a life cycle assessment (LCA) for LABs used in e-bikes in China. Its purpose was to
3 July 2015
identify the key materials and processes that contribute most to impacts on the environment and public
Accepted 5 July 2015
health within the life cycle of LABs, from materials extraction and processing, manufacture, trans-
Available online xxx
portation, use, and end-of-life. It also sought to find opportunities for improving the environmental
profile of LABs. The results indicate that LABs use, as well as materials extraction and processing, have the
Keywords:
Lead-acid battery
largest environmental impacts within the life cycle of LABs. The former is responsible for 84% of the
Electric bike primary energy use and contributes the highest potentials to energy-related impacts, including global
Life cycle assessment warming (86%) and acidification (69%). The latter, specifically the lead used in batteries, is the most
Lead emissions important driver of impacts such as ozone depletion, photochemical smog, eutrophication, and carci-
End-of-life nogenicity. Accordingly, battery reuse after refurbishment and recovery of materials in the end-of-life
stage could significantly mitigate most of the overall life cycle impacts by reducing the consumption
of virgin materials. However, currently, 95% of total lead emissions are released in the end-of-life stage
due to improper management of the spent LABs recycling market in China, and these emissions causes
90% of total human toxicity potential. Battery manufacture only accounts for 3% of total lead emissions
after the national cleanup action for heavy metal pollution. Moreover, sensitivity coefficients are
employed to evaluate the reliability and uncertainty of the LCA results. Based on the findings, there are
several substantial opportunities to further reduce the overall environmental impacts of LABs, such as
prolonging the lifetime of LABs, reducing the consumption of metals in LABs, and improving the tech-
nology and management in the recovery of spent LABs.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction dramatic increase of the number of electric bikes (e-bikes). From

China has the largest lead-acid battery (LAB) industry in the
world after more than a decade of rapid development, taking a
share of more than 30% of the global LAB outputs (van der Kuijp
et al., 2013). The biggest market demand in China comes from the
* Corresponding author. Room 717, School of Environment, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China. Tel./fax: þ86 10 62794904.
E-mail addresses: wliu06@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (W. Liu), tianjp@tsinghua.edu.
cn (J. Tian).
1998 to 2013, Chinese e-bike production increased from 0.59 to
36.9 million, with an average annual growth rate of 54% (CNLIC,
2013). According to the estimation of China's e-bike committee
(2015), there are about 200 million e-bikes on the road in China,
and 95% of them use LABs due to cost considerations. If half of the e-
bikes were to change their batteries for new ones each year, there
would be a circulation of LABs with a total capacity of 80 million
kWh per year from that alone. This is more than one third of the
total LABs production in 2013.
E-bikes can be divided into three categories based on their
driving systems: (1) pedal e-bike, using a battery to supplement the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
2 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8
Nomenclature
ABS acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
ADP abiotic resource depletion potential
AGM absorbed glass mat
AP acidification potential
BOM bill of materials
CADP Chinese ADP
CLCD Chinese reference life cycle database
CTU Comparative toxic unit
DOD depth of discharge
ELCD European reference life cycle database
EOL end-of-life
EP eutrophication potential
power of the rider; (2) two-wheeled e-bike, propelled by both
human pedaling and a battery; and (3) electric scooters (e-
scooters), propelled only by the electricity provided by a battery.
Although there is a controversy over whether e-scooters should be
classified as motor vehicles in China, the term e-bike will include e-
scooters in this study. The core rechargeable battery technology for
e-bikes is the valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA) battery, which
consists of several 12 V modules for a total voltage of 36e60 V and
an energy capacity of 0.3e1.2 kWh (see Table S1 in Supporting
information).
E-bikes are popular because they serve as inexpensive and
convenient personal mobility vehicles and are thus an attractive
alternative to public transport or regular bicycles (Asian
Development Bank, 2009). However, the rapid development of
the LAB industry is accompanied by serious environmental prob-
lems in China. A statistical analysis revealed that, for the 50 cases of
lead poisoning revealed to the public in China during 2004e2012,
19 of them were related to lead smelting, followed by LAB
manufacturing (17) and LAB recycling (6) (Lv et al., 2013). From the
view of life cycle management, LABs are responsible for 84% of all
lead poisoning cases, and the batteries have become the primary
lead-based product and the most significant lead pollution source
in China, after prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in 2001.
China has been developing a sound environmental management
system on LAB industries for many years. A strict license policy for
LABs production was implemented in 2003; commitment to envi-
ronmental requirements is a prerequisite for getting a production
license (IPPLO, 2007). Between 2008 and 2009, the Ministry of
Environmental Protection of China (MEP) intensively promulgated
a series of standards for LAB manufacturing and recycling in-
dustries (MEP, 2008, 2009a,b). In addition, lead pollution control
technologies in LAB industries has become increasingly developed
and standardized. But even with these measures in place, the
contamination issues caused by LAB industries reached a peak in
2010 (Lv et al., 2013), mainly due to two reasons. On one hand, the
initial investment and operating costs of waste treatment facilities
were not a small expense for the enterprises. Thus many small
enterprises declined to comply with environmental standards. On
the other hand, the local government did not fulfill their regulatory
responsibilities. At one point there were more than 3000 LAB
manufacturers in China and most of the small manufacturers were
located in less developed areas (Wang, 2014), where economic
development took precedence over environmental concerns.
To combat the increasing number of heavy metal pollution
scandals, a nationwide cleanup action was carried out by the MEP
and eight other departments in 2011. No doubt, LAB industries were
the first to be affected due to their lead-intensiveness and bad
environmental performance. All LAB manufacturers and recyclers
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
-eq equivalent
ETP ecological toxicity potential
GWP global warming potential
HTP human toxicity potential
kWh kilowatt-hour
LAB lead-acid battery
LCA life cycle assessment
LCI life cycle inventory
LCIA life cycle impact assessment
ME&P materials extraction and processing
ODP ozone depletion potential
PCOP photochemical oxidation potential
PEU primary energy use
were required to upgrade their environmental facilities and suspend
production until passing an official inspection performed by local
environmental authorities (MEP, 2011b). At the end of 2011, 30% of
LAB manufacturers were banned, 53% were asked to further rectify
their problems, and only 13% met all the environmental re-
quirements and were licensed to continue operations (MEP, 2011a).
In 2012, the admittance requirements for LAB manufacturing and
recycling industries were officially issued, which list a serial of
detailed requirements for LAB manufacturers and recyclers,
including scale, technology, equipment, resources and energy effi-
ciency, environmental protection, health and occupational disease
prevention, and management (MIIT and MEP, 2012a,b).
It is necessarily needed to control the environmental issues of
LABs within their entire life cycle, to identify the key materials and
processes that contribute most to impacts on the environment and
public health. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a holistic approach that
can be used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a
product, process, or activity (UNEP, 2011). To date, nearly all LCA
studies on LABs have focused on the environmental performance
comparison between different kinds of traction batteries used in
electric vehicles (Matheys et al., 2009; Nanaki and Koroneos, 2013;
Sullivan and Gaines, 2012; Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Wu et al.,
2015), because the battery is crucial to develop electric vehicles, so
as to reduce tailpipe emissions. Very few studies also began to pay
close attention to the LABs used in energy storage systems because
of the rise of renewable energy industry (Spanos et al., 2015). LABs
for e-bikes belong to the category of traction battery and account
for more than 30% of the LABs market share in China (van der Kuijp
et al., 2013). However, there are even less LCA studies on e-bike
LABs. Cherry et al. (2009) assessed the environmental impacts of e-
bikes in China with early published emissions factors, mainly from
the study published by Mao et al. (2006), to calculate lead emis-
sions. Ji et al. (2012) compared the emissions of several atmo-
spheric pollutants and their health impacts from the use of e-bikes,
conventional vehicles, and electric vehicles, but did not take lead
emissions into consideration. These studies relied primarily on
secondary or modeling data for estimating impacts, while consid-
ering only a limited number of life cycle stages or impacts.
Given the intensive usage of LABs in e-bikes and the low envi-
ronmental performance of LABs industries, it is necessary to reas-
sess and update the life cycle impacts of LABs from a Chinese
standpoint, and identify opportunities to reduce the impacts
thereof. This study aims to conduct an LCA of LABs for e-bikes in
China based on a wide and in-depth investigation on LABs manu-
facturers, suppliers, users, and recyclers. Specifically, our objectives
are: (1) assessing the environmental and human health impacts of
LABs covering materials extraction and processing, battery manu-
facture, transportation, use, and end-of-life; (2) identifying the key
 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8
factors for the environmental and human health impacts of LABs
within their life cycle, and (3) analyzing reasonable opportunities
for reducing the life cycle environmental and human health im-
pacts of LABs.
2. Methodology
The LCA study was conducted consistent with the ISO 14040
series, including four phases: goal and scope definition, life-cycle
inventory (LCI), life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpre-
tation (ISO, 2006a,b).
2.1. Scope and boundaries
In an LCA, products are generally evaluated on a functionally
equivalent unit, which normalizes data based on equivalent use or
service to provide a reference for relating process inputs and out-
puts to the inventory, and impact assessment for the LCIA (EPA,
2013). LCA studies on battery usually have two alternatives for
functional unit, the battery captivity (equivalent use) or the dis-
tance driven (service of battery). In this study, the functional unit is
defined as 1 kWh captivity of LABs having an average service life
based on two considerations. First, this study focuses on LABs
instead of e-bikes, and the overall impacts of LABs from cradle to
grave are the target, instead of the environmental performance
comparison of different modes of transportation. Second, the dis-
tance of driving is affected by many factors, such as the type of e-
bike, motor efficiency, driving behavior, and the fact that different
e-bikes using the same type of battery drive different distances
under the same electricity consumption. Thus the inventory and
impacts in this study are presented in terms of battery capacity
(e.g., kg CO2-equivalent/kWh). It is important to note that this study
aims to assess the impacts from China's current e-bike LAB in-
dustry, not to compare impacts of LABs produced by different
technologies or enterprises.
The boundary for the study is shown in Fig. 1. The life cycle
stages of LABs include raw materials extraction and processing
(ME&P), LABs manufacture, LABs transportation, LABs use, and
end-of-life (EOL). ME&P refers to acquisition of natural resources,
processing natural resources for the LABs manufacturing, and
transporting materials to LABs manufacturers. LABs manufacture
includes components manufacture, battery manufacture and
packaging. LABs transportation only covers the transportation of
LABs from manufacturers to the users. LABs use refers to the use of
batteries in e-bikes. EOL applies to the recovery of LABs at the end
of their useful life, including reuse of batteries after refurbishment
and materials recycling (secondary lead and plastic).
2.2. LCI methodology and data sources
The LCI tallies the material and energy inputs, products gener-
ated, and environmental releases throughout the life cycles of LABs.
Electrode
LABs manufacture
Raw material Paste
extraction
T A
and
Electrolyte
processing
Container
Fig. 1. System boundary of the life-cycle assessment for lead-acid batteries.
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
3
LCI data were collected for all stages in the LAB life cycles. Primary
data were directly accessible, measured, or collected from the on-
site investigation of plants in the LAB supply chain of China dur-
ing 2012e2014. Additional secondary data were also taken into
consideration to supplement the data gap, particularly for the
ME&P and transportation stages. A Chinese local LCA software,
eBalance, was used to process the LCI data.
2.2.1. Materials extraction and processing (ME&P)
The ME&P stage is the upstream of the LABs manufacture stage.
We constructed the bill of materials (BOM) for LABs based on the
information from 56 LAB manufacturers and their suppliers. These
included several large-scale and top e-bike-LAB manufacturers in
China, such as Tianneng and Chaowei. Generally, we could obtain
data on the consumption of primary materials (i.e., lead, sulfuric
acid, and plastic) from investigation. However, almost all plants
refused to offer the detailed information for certain ancillary ma-
terials because it was strictly confidential as the technological core
for battery manufacturers. For example, the formula of additives
used in the electrode paste is usually only known by the chief
technical director. Therefore, secondary data from literature were
incorporated to complete the BOM (Table 1).
Based on the BOM, LCI data for the ME&P stage were collected to
assess the impacts of the upstream stage, which included databases
installed in the eBalance LCA software, as well as some published
studies (see Tables S2eS4 in Supporting information). eBalance is a
commercial LCA software developed by the IKE Environmental
Technology Co. Ltd. in China and has a built-in database, the Chi-
nese reference life cycle database (CLCD), which covers more than
400 materials in China (IEK, 2015). Meanwhile, two other data-
bases, the ELCD (European reference life cycle database) and the
Ecoinvent database were also imported into the software as a
supplement. The CLCD was preferred in this study to get a local and
up-to-date inventory for the extraction and processing of most
materials in China. Other databases were only used for the few
materials in case of no record in the CLCD.
2.2.2. Manufacture
There are two main technologies for LABs manufacturing: tank
formation and container formation. This study did not try to
compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two technolo-
gies. But their performances and market shares were the necessary
information to calculate the average performance of LABs
manufacturing technologies. LABs manufacturing generally follows
three key steps, including: (i) manufacture of the battery compo-
nents (such as lead grid, paste, and container); (ii) battery assembly
and formation in the container formation process, or plate forma-
tion and battery assembly in the tank formation process; and (iii)
battery packaging. LCI data for the manufacturing stage were ob-
tained by using a combination of primary and secondary data,
including primary and ancillary material inputs, utility inputs (e.g.,
electricity, fuels, and water), waste outputs, and product outputs.
LABs reuse
after refurbishment
Lead-acid
Use End of life
batteries Transportation T
(LABs) (in E-bikes) (EOL)
T-transport
A-assemble
lead and plastic recycling
4 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8
Table 1
Bill of materials for 1 kWh of lead-acid batteries (total mass: 35 kg).
Material Mass/kg Components
Lead 24.20 paste, grids
Calcium 0.023 grid
Tin 0.176 grid
Sulfuric acid (98%) 4.10 electrolyte, paste
ABS 2.80 container, cover
AGM 0.65 separator
Notes: ABS e acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, AGM e absorbed glass mat, 4BS e tetrabasic lead sulfate.
2.2.3. Use
Although the study focused on LABs, given the fact that the
purpose of LABs is to provide energy for transportation, the study
also included an assessment of impacts resulting from electricity
consumption by charging LABs during e-bike usage. The electricity
consumption is determined by the charging efficiency and the cycle
life of the battery. According to the Chinese product standard, the
cycle life of LABs for e-bikes has to achieve at least 350 cycles at a
70% depth of discharge (DOD) in fast testing (CEEIA, 2008). Many
manufacturers declare their products' cycle life stands somewhere
between 400 and 550 cycles in commercial publicity. However, the
cycle life of LABs in practical use is less than that in testing due to
the traffic conditions and users' habits (users often overdischarge
the battery). In this study, we assumed that the cycle life was 300
cycles at an 80% DOD in an average service life of 1.5 years, and that
the battery charging efficiency was 82.5% (Sullivan and Gaines,
2012). Based on those conditions, 291 kWh of electricity would
be consumed during the use stage of LABs. This translates to the
power for driving an e-bike (4  12 V  20 Ah) for a distance of
14,500 km (approximately 2 kWh for 100 km). In calculation of the
inventory in use stage, all the life cycle emission factors of elec-
tricity were taken from the CLCD.
2.2.4. End-of-life (EOL)
Nearly all spent LABs are recycled in China because they are
high-value recyclable items. There are three main recycling pro-
cesses employed after spent LABs collection. Our investigation
indicated that 85% of all recovered spent LABs were used to recover
lead and plastic by hydrometallurgical or pyro-metallurgical pro-
cesses. The average rates of recovery for lead and plastic were 92%
and 93% respectively. Only 15% of spent LABs with good conditions
were selected for refurbishing. Ideally, 85% of the refurbished bat-
teries could almost meet the national standard for new LABs, ac-
cording to the basic quality testing by LABs recyclers. However, the
feedback from the users showed that the lifetime of refurbished
LABs was only 70e85% as that of a new one. In this study, we
assumed that a capacity of 1 kWh of refurbished LABs was equiv-
alent to 0.75 kWh of new LABs in reuse. Most of the data on the
inputs (materials and energy) and the environmental releases were
obtained from eight LABs recyclers in China. For special pollutants
like dioxin, which is produced in the pyro-metallurgical process,
the published emission factor was used due to lack of actual
monitoring data (CRAES, 2008). Following the same processing
method as in the manufacturing stage, we did not compare the
performances of different technologies in battery refurbishing and
materials recycling, or formal and informal enterprises, but such
information laid a basis to get the average performance of the EOL
of LABs.
2.2.5. Transportation
In order to estimate the impacts of transportation, some as-
sumptions were made for transportation throughout the supply
chain. Overall, we assumed that all materials and products would
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
Material Mass/kg Components
Sb, Al, Cu 11.4 grid
Barium sulfate 51.0 paste
Humic acid 31.5 paste
4BS 40.7 paste
Graphite (battery grade) 8.8 paste
Short fibers 6.8 paste
come from domestic suppliers. In addition, materials and products
would be transported by mass, at an average distance of 181 km in a
medium or heavy-duty diesel truck. The distance estimate is based
on the statistical data published by the Ministry of Transport of
China (MOT, 2013). The transportation data for diesel trucks were
already available in eBalance. The battery transportation (from
manufactures to user) was separated as a single stage and other
transportations (for materials and wastes) were incorporated into
their respective stages.
2.2.6. Life-cycle lead emissions
As the most important pollutant in LABs, lead emissions were
presented in the LCI sector. We defined these emissions as the total
amount of lead released into the environment from waste gas and
water. The overall life-cycle lead emissions for 1 kWh capacity of
LABs are 32.0 g, 2% of which come from materials extraction and
processing, 3% from battery manufacturing, 85% from materials
recycling, and 10% from refurbishing of batteries for reuse (see
Table S6 in Supporting information). Our investigation found that
the national cleanup actions in 2011 have obviously improved the
environmental performance of LAB industries. Compared to the
manufacturing industry, the recycling industry still needs
improvement. This is due to the fact that 60% of the spent LABs are
taken into illegal small-scale recycling centers, which produce 41%
of the secondary lead in China (Tian et al., 2014). These dispersed
and hidden small LAB recyclers always have a lower recovery rate of
materials and higher pollution intensity than certified recyclers. As
for LABs refurbishing, it is rapidly rising with the increase of LAB
consumption and the advance of refurbishing technologies. How-
ever it is still an underground business without technical standards
nor environmental supervision. Unlike manufacturers or conven-
tional recyclers for secondary materials, they usually have no
environmental facility and discharge the waste electrolytes directly
into the environment during the refurbishing of spent LABs.
2.3. LCIA impact categories
The LCIA phase involves translating the environmental burdens
identified in the LCI into environmental impacts with the help of an
impact assessment method. There are many well-established
methods and models in LCIA, such as Eco-Indicator 99 (Goedkoop
and Spriensma, 2000), CML 2002 (Guine
e et al., 2002), and USE-
tox™ model (Rosenbaum et al., 2008). With these assessment
methodologies, impacts may be assessed at the midpoint or
endpoint level (European Union, 2011).
In this study, twelve impact categories were selected to evaluate
LABs. Both primary energy and materials use were drivers of
environmental impacts. As a result, we first presented an aggre-
gated assessment of the energy and materials inputs in the in-
ventory. Three impact categories, primary energy use (PEU), abiotic
resource depletion potential (ADP), and Chinese abiotic resource
depletion potential (CADP), were the measures of energy and re-
sources inputs in the inventory. Then, five impact categories were
 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8 5

assigned to common environmental impacts, using equivalency
factors to translate relevant inventory flows into impacts, such as
acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), global
warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), and
photochemical oxidation potential (PCOP). Given the importance of
toxicity in the impacts produced by LABs, four impact categories
referred to toxicity potential, including total human toxicity po-
tential (HTP), carcinogenic HTP, non-carcinogenic HTP, and
ecological toxicity potential (ETP). Each impact is calculated for
each life cycle stage and the entire life cycle.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Life cycle impact assessment
Table 2 summarizes the LCIA results for 1 kWh capacity of LABs
used in e-bikes, with an average battery service life (300 life cycles
at an 80% DOD in 1.5 years).
Energy and resource use. Overall, primary energy use (PEU) totals
4635 MJ for 1 kWh capacity of LABs throughout the life cycle, 84% of
which is contributed by electricity consumption in the use stage.
Among all the fuels, hard coal, natural gas, and crude oil account for
90%, 2%, and 1% of the PEU, respectively. The average Chinese power
grid was comprised by approximately 70% coal-derived power, 22%
hydropower and 3% natural gas-derived power in 2012, explaining
most of the energy consumption structure in PEU (CPP, 2013). Be-
side the use stage, PEU is driven by the ME&P (19%), mainly due to
the production of lead and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).
LABs manufacturing also accounts for 14% of the PEU. The EOL stage
can save 17% of the total PEU with materials recycling (14%) and
refurbishing of spent batteries (3%).
As a way of measuring the potential for non-renewable resource
depletion (materials and primary energy), ADP shows a similar
pattern as PEU, mainly due to the electricity consumption in the use
stage (83%) and the materials extraction for LABs (23%). However,
Chinese ADP (CADP) shows that the ME&P stage consumes most of
the resources. The reason is that ADP is determined by both the
amount of resources consumed and the abundance of resources.
The difference in the abundance of resources in China compared
with the rest of the world causes the inconsistency between ADP
and CADP, both in the value and the distribution in individual stage.
Compared with coal and other primary energy sources, metals are
much rare and have bigger factors of ADP in China (see Table S7 in
Supporting information). Lead extracted from lead ore is the largest
mass input (up to 71% of batteries) and responsible for 1514% of the
CAD. It is primarily used for battery plate production. Accordingly,
recovery of materials and reuse of batteries in the EOL stage will
reduce the overall CAPD by 1558% and 176% respectively.
Environmental impact. Because of their more substantial use of
resources, the use stage and the ME&P stage of LABs are also main
contributors of several environmental impacts. The use stage re-
sults in 86% of GWP, 78% of EP, 69% of AP, 62% of PCOP, and 52% of
ODP. Meanwhile, the ME&P stage generates 137% of ODP, 114% of
PCOP, 105% of EP, 43% of AP, and 18% of GWP. Although lead is still
the key material for most impacts, other materials are non-
negligible for certain impacts. For example, ABS, which is the
main material in battery containers, contributes 17% of PCOP.
Absorbed glass mat (AGM), used for separators in LABs, is respon-
sible for 15% of PCOP and 11% of ODP. The manufacture of LABs
accounts for 12e23% of these environmental impacts. Nevertheless,
the LABs transportation has a negligible effect on most environ-
mental impacts, excepting a contribution of 5% to the ODP. The EOL
stage also shows a much lower contribution to all the impacts
mentioned above, compared with the ME&P stage.
Human and ecological toxicity. USEtox™ calculates the human
toxicity potential (HTP) for carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic
impacts, and total impacts for chemicals, as well as the freshwater
ecological toxicity potential (ETP). The results show that all of the
life-cycle toxicity potentials of LABs are mainly caused by the heavy
metal pollutants, especially the total lead emissions to atmosphere,
contributing 87.4% of carcinogenic HTP, 99.6% of non-carcinogenic
HTP, and 59.7% of ETP (see Fig. S1 in Supporting information).
Although lead emissions far exceed other heavy metals in most
process, the carcinogenic potential of lead is much lower (EPA,
2006), resulting in different distributions of toxicity potentials.
Both of carcinogenic-HTP and ETP mainly happen in ME&P stage
due to heavy metal pollutants in lead production. Cr(VI) emissions
to water body account for 186% of carcinogenic HTP, and Zn emis-
sions to atmosphere account for 110% of ETP (see Fig. S2 in Sup-
porting information). However, the materials recycling and reuse of
spent batteries counteract these contributions and result in a
substantial reduction of carcinogenic-HTP and ETP. Lead emissions
to atmosphere are the largest contributors to the non-carcinogenic
HTP (2.70E-04 CTU/kWh), which is nearly equal to the total HTP
(2.71E-04 CTU/kWh). Therefore, non-carcinogenic and conse-
quently total HTP primarily result from the EOL stage, in which 95%
of lead emissions are released. HTP, non-carcinogenic HTP, and lead
emission have similar distributions in different stages.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity coefficients are employed to evaluate the reliability
of the results, and they express how small changes in input data
will propagate into changes in output results. These coefficients can
be used to identify sensitive processes and parameters, the so-
called “vital issues” for refined data collection and uncertainty

Table 2
Life cycle impact assessment results for 1 kWh lead acid batteries used in e-bikes with an average service life.

LCIA impact Value Percentage by stage

Materials extraction Manufacture Transportation Use EOL-battery reuse EOL-materials recycling

and processing

PEU 4635 MJ 19% 14% 0% 84% 3% 14%

ADP 59.2 kg Sb-eq 23% 15% 0% 83% 3% 18%
CADP 0.022 kg Sb-eq 1657% 176% 0% 1% 176% 1558%
AP 2.23 g SO2 43% 12% 0% 69% 4% 21%
EP 0.13 mg PO3
4 -eq 105% 20% 1% 78% 11% 92%
GWP 338 kg CO2-eq 18% 12% 0% 86% 2% 14%
ODP 0.871 mg CFC-11-eq 137% 23% 5% 62% 14% 113%
PCOP 1.59 g formed ozone 114% 19% 3% 62% 12% 86%
Carcinogenic-HTP 8.56E-07 CTU 194% 25% 0% 8% 21% 106%
Non-carcinogenic-HTP 2.70E-04 CTU 5% 4% 0% 0% 1% 92%
Total-HTP 2.71E-04 CTU 6% 4% 0% 0% 1% 91%
ETP 8.12 CTU 304% 36% 0% 9% 18% 232%

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
6 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8

analysis (Heijungs, 2010). Table 3 lists all of the high sensitivity
coefficients (no less than 10%), indicating a process or parameter
that has a substantial effect on the overall results. For example, the
sensitivity coefficient of lead input to the PEU is 12%, which means
1% of increase in the lead input for a functional battery unit will
increase the overall PEU by 12%. Most of these sensitive parameters
are materials and energy inputs as well as environmental releases
(based on battery capacity), which were mainly obtained from our
plant-by-plant investigation and had a sound data quality. Limita-
tions and uncertainties come from two assumptions: the lifetime of
LABs and the reuse rate of spent LABs, which were estimated based
on feedback from battery users, manufacturers, and recyclers. Then
a sensitivity analysis was undertaken for the two assumptions to
assess the sensitivity of all impact categories resulting from the
following variables: (1) the lifetime of LABs, which we halved from
300 to 150 cycles at an 80% DOD; and (2) a combination of six
different scenarios for batteries reuse and materials recycling in
EOL stage.
Halving the lifetime of batteries means it would take 2 kWh
capacity of LABs to provide the same power (or distance driven).
Using the sensitivity coefficients in Table 3, the sensitivity of the
lifetime to overall impacts were calculated and are shown in
Table 4. It is obvious that shortening the lifetime of batteries has a
significant effect on most impacts. As expected, impact categories
that are mainly driven by electricity consumption are less sensitive
to the halving of the battery lifetime, due to the overwhelming
influence of the use stage. These impact categories include PEU,
ADP, and GWP.
Six different scenarios were set in the EOL stage for a sensitivity
analysis: (1) no battery reuse; (2) battery reuse, with refurbishing of
30% of all spent LABs and the reused batteries having 80% lifetime of
the new ones; (3) lower recovery, a recovery rate of 88% for both lead
and ABS; (4) higher recovery, with a recovery rate of 95% for both
lead and ABS; (5) less pollution, pollution intensities reduced by 50%
in EOL stage because of stricter environmental standards; (6)
comprehensive measures, more reuse, higher recovery rate and less
emissions, i.e. (2)þ(4)þ(5). The scenarios analysis results are also
shown in Table 4. Scenario 1 and 2 indicate that a higher reuse rate of
LABs in EOL could save resources and reduce all impacts except for
those caused by lead emissions. As a new business without enough
regulations, some battery recyclers directly discharge the waste
electrolyte during LABs refurbishing, resulting in heavy pollution in
a highly-hallmarked “circular economy activity”. Although the re-
sults show that materials recovery and battery reuse in the EOL stage
do significantly mitigate impacts overall, scenario 3 and 4 show that
the impacts are not highly sensitive to the materials recovery rates
(within the ranges of 88e95%), with the exception of the ETP and, to
a lesser extent, non-carcinogenic HTP. Scenario 5 suggests that
stricter environmental supervision can substantially reduce pollu-
tion emissions and their toxicity potential. Scenario 6 simulates the
result influenced by an integration of more battery reuse, higher
materials recovery, and stricter environmental control in EOL. Under
this optimized scenario, most impact categories can be reduced
most, except for those mainly driven by electricity consumption
mentioned in the above paragraph.
3.3. Opportunities for improvement
In view of the results mentioned above, several opportunities
were proposed for improving the environmental profile of LABs for
e-bikes.
Increase the lifetime of LABs. Lifetime is a critical indicator of LABs
quality because it relates to users' long-term operating costs. LABs
in e-bike are often overcharged or over-discharged, which can
cause serious performance degradation. As shown in the sensitivity
analysis, halving the lifetime of LABs will result in notable increases
across all impact categories for LABs. Therefore, in order to reduce
overall impacts, future battery technology should focus on
increasing the lifetime of batteries, such as delicately controlling
the evenness of the size, thickness, and weight of electrode, care-
fully controlling the charging process during battery
manufacturing, and designing new electrolytes. In addition, more
intelligent designs could also benefit the lifespan of batteries, such
as a smart power system in e-bike to avoid overdischarge of bat-
teries, and a battery charger with a function for protection against
overcharging.
Reduce the percentage of lead and other heavy metals by mass.
Metals were found to be a key driver of environmental impacts,
especially for toxicity. Accordingly, reducing the use of metals or
replacing part of the toxic metals seems to be efficient ways to
reduce the toxicity potential of LABs. China's LAB industry has used
PbeCa alloy to substitute the traditional PbeCd alloy for the grids of
batteries at the request of the government in recent years. It is a
great progress in the cleaner production of China's LABs industry.
However, it is hard to further reduce the amount of lead. The
technology of LABs for e-bikes in China has already reached a high
level and the energy intensity by mass in LABs is one of the most
advanced in the world. In the short term, a widespread shift from
LABs to lithium batteries or other alternatives seems improbable for
e-bikes, mainly due to the cost premium rather than any perfor-
mance advantages or environmental concerns. Therefore manu-
factures still should focus their efforts on increasing the utilization
efficiency of lead and decreasing the defect rate of the batteries
produced.

Table 3
Overview of all the high sensitivity coefficients.

Stage Inventory PEU ADP AP EP GWP ODP PCOP Carcinogenic-HTP Non-carcinogenic-HTP Total-HTP ETP

Materials extraction Lead input 12% 14% 36% 96% 13% 117% 75% 187% 5% 5% 284%
and processing Tin input 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 14%
AGM input 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 15% 1% 0% 0% 2%
ABS input 5% 7% 1% 3% 3% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manufacturing Energy input 11% 11% 7% 8% 9% 8% 7% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Use Electricity input 84% 83% 69% 78% 86% 62% 62% 8% 0% 0% 9%
EOL-battery reuse Lead emissions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15%
Reuse amount 3% 4% 5% 12% 3% 15% 13% 21% 1% 1% 33%
EOL-materials Lead emissions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 87% 96% 96% 59%
recycling SO2 emissions 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ABS output 5% 7% 1% 3% 3% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Secondary lead 12% 14% 37% 99% 14% 120% 77% 193% 5% 5% 292%
output

Notes: AGM e absorbed glass mat, ABS e acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene.

The grey shade is used to make the high sensitivity coefficients(>10% or <10%).

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8 7

Table 4
Sensitivity analysis on lifetime of batteries in-use and the six scenarios of EOL.

Impact Percent deviation in scenario Percent deviation in six scenarios of EOL

of 50% battery lifetime
1 2 3 4 5 6

PEU 16% 3% 3% 1% 0% 0% 3%

ADP 17% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 4%
AP 31% 4% 5% 2% 1% 7% 13%
EP 22% 11% 13% 5% 2% 0% 15%
GWP 14% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 3%
ODP 38% 15% 17% 6% 3% 0% 20%
PCOP 38% 12% 14% 5% 2% 0% 16%
Carcinogenic HTP 92% 21% 23% 10% 4% 44% 72%
Non-carcinogenic HTP 100% 1% 1% 0% 0% 49% 50%
Total HTP 100% 1% 1% 0% 0% 49% 50%
ETP 91% 18% 22% 16% 6% 38% 74%

Notes: scenario 1, no battery reuse; scenario 2, refurbishing rate ¼ 30%, 1 kWh of reused LABs ¼ 0.8 kWh of new LABs; scenario 3, materials recovery rate ¼ 88% (low level in
recyclers); scenario 4, materials recovery rate ¼ 95% (high level in recyclers); scenario 5, pollution intensities halved; scenario 6, refurbishing rate ¼ 30%, recovery rate ¼ 95%,
and pollution intensities halved.

Improve the technology and management in the EOL stage of
batteries. It is obvious that the refurbishing and reuse of batteries is
a good alternative in the EOL stage. This is equivalent to extending
the lifetime of batteries with the advantage of a much lower con-
sumption of resources. Government should encourage and
normalize this emerging business to stop the disorder and pollu-
tion caused by illegal small recyclers. Meanwhile, recycling mate-
rials to manufacture new batteries can offset a range of impacts
caused during the extraction of virgin materials. Under the strict
compliance of the national policy on heavy metals pollution con-
trol, the secondary lead industry has made some progress, but it is
still lagging far behind the LAB manufacturing industry. The sec-
ondary lead industry only accounted for 34% of China's lead con-
sumption in 2013 (Tian et al., 2014). In the future, the secondary
lead consumption in China will surpass and substitute the con-
sumption of the virgin mineral just like in developed countries. In
order to make the lead flow into a closed loop, battery recyclers
should continuously improve their technologies to increase the
recovery rate of materials and reduce pollution (Gomes et al., 2011).
4. Conclusions
With the increasing demand for e-bikes, production of lead-acid
batteries in China has increased rapidly in recent years. In order to
reduce the impacts to the environment and public health resulting
from the increasing use of LABs, we have documented the latest
progress of Chinese LAB industry and reassessed the life-cycle im-
pacts of LABs for e-bikes in China, based on large-scale sampling
and in-depth investigation. The study showed that the materials
extraction and processing, as well as battery use are the key
contributing factors for the overall environmental impacts in the
supply chain of LABs because most materials and energy are
consumed in these two stages. Most of the life-cycle impacts can be
mitigated by battery reuse and high rates of materials recovery in
the EOL stage. However, 95% of life-cycle lead emissions are emitted
in this stage due to lack of strict regulations in the recycling in-
dustry, particularly resulting in a 90% of HTP. The results will enrich
the database on LABs for e-bikes and improve the life cycle man-
agement of Chinese LAB industries.
This study provides a solid LCA result of LABs for e-bikes in
China, based on a large number of primary data (materials inputs,
waste outputs) investigation. As an exploratory study, we suggest
several areas for future research. First, further assessment of the
role of the electricity grid in the LCA result is needed. The Chinese
electricity grid continues reducing the proportion of coal-fired
power and improving its generation efficiency year by year,
which will substantially reduce most of the life cycle impacts of
LABs. Second, in the end of life stage, we only considered the
recycling of lead and plastics, but other metals and valuable ma-
terials might also be recyclable in certain large-scale recycling fa-
cilities. The recycling of these materials should also be considered
to get a more comprehensive result. Moreover, considering the
significant influence of the battery lifetime on our results, addi-
tional research should be carried out to assess the factors that will
affect the battery lifetime, such as different manufacturing tech-
nologies, use habits, and eco-design of e-bikes.
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the
National High-Tech R&D Program (2013AA065702) and the Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation Projects (41471468) by the
Ministry of Science & Technology, and the Specialized Research
Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China
(20130002110025) by the Ministry of Education in China for their
through and. We would also like to acknowledge all of the enter-
prises and experts for their assistance in interviews and data
collection. We also appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supporting information associated with this study includes: (1)
E-bikes categories and their batteries in China (Table S1), (2) data
sources for the life-cycle inventory (Tables S2eS4), (3) some results
of the life-cycle inventory (Tables S5 and S6), (4) the calculations of
abiotic resource depletion (ADP) and Chinese abiotic resource
depletion (CADP) (Equations S1eS4 and Table S7), and (5) the
analysis of the toxicity potentials of LABs (Figs. S1eS2). Supple-
mentary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026.
References
Asian Development Bank, 2009. Electric Bikes in the People's Republic of China e
Impact on the Environment and Prospects for Growth. Mandaluyong City,
Philippines.
CEEIA, 2008. Sealed Lead-acid Battery Used for Electric Moped. China Electrical
Equipment Industrial Association.
Cherry, C.R., Weinert, J.X., Xinmiao, Y., 2009. Comparative environmental impacts of
electric bikes in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 14, 281e290.
China's e-bike Committee, 2015. China's e-bikes Increases Tenfold in Ten Years Up
to 200 Million. http://www.cebike.com/news/html/201501/2015011910382241.
htm (accessed 20.03.15.).

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
8 W. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e8
CNLIC, 2013. Chinese Light Industry Yearbook (2010e2013). China National Light
Industry Association, Beijing, China.
CPP, 2013. China power Statistical Yearbook (2013). China Power Press, Beijing,
China.
CRAES, 2008. Emission Factors of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in China.
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Science.
EPA, 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (2006). Final Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA, 2013. Application of Life-cycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology: Lithium-
ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
European Union, 2011. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Handbook e Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the Euro-
pean Context. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxemburg.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2000. The Eco-indicator 99: a Damage Oriented
Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, Amersfoort,
Netherlands.
Gomes, G.M.F., Mendes, T.F., Wada, K., 2011. Reduction in toxicity and generation of
slag in secondary lead process. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1096e1103.
Guine
e, J.B., Gorre

e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A.d., Oers, L.v.,
Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., Bruijn, H.d., Duin, R.v.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide
to the ISO Standards. I: LCA in Perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational Annex. III:
Scientific Background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Heijungs, R., 2010. Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 15, 511e520.
IEK, 2015. Full-featured LCA Software and Database Package e eBalance. http://
www.ike-global.com/archives/1097.html (accessed 11.05.15.).
IPPLO, 2007. Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Lead-acid Battery Production
License, second ed. The National Industrial Products Production License Office.
ISO, 2006a. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements
and Guidelines. International Organization of Standardization.
ISO, 2006b. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and
Framework. International Organization of Standardization.
Ji, S., Cherry, C.R., J. Bechle, M., Wu, Y., Marshall, J.D., 2012. Electric vehicles in China:
emissions and health impacts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 2018e2024.
Lv, Y., Sun, T., Rang, W., 2013. Analysis of the popular characteristics of lead
poisoning cases in China from 2004e2012. Chin. Prev. Med. 14, 868e870.
Mao, J.S., Lu, Z.W., Yang, Z.F., 2006. The eco-efficiency of lead in China's lead-acid
battery system. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 185e197.
Matheys, J., Timmermans, J.M., Van Mierlo, J., Meyer, S., Van den Bossche, P., 2009.
Comparison of the environmental impact of five electric vehicle battery tech-
nologies using LCA. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 1, 318e329.
MEP, 2008. Cleaner Production Standard e Lead-acid Battery Industry. Ministry of
Environmental Protection.
MEP, 2009a. Cleaner Production Standard e Waste Lead-acid Battery Recycling
Industry. Ministry of Environmental Protection of China.
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, W., et al., Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in electric bicycles in China, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.026
MEP, 2009b. Technical Specifications of Pollution Control for Treatment of Lead-acid
Battery. Ministry of Environmental Protection.
MEP, 2011a. The List of Lead-acid Battery Enterprises of China. http://www.mep.gov.
cn/zhxx/hjyw/201108/t20110802_215645.htm (accessed 01.03.15.).
MEP, 2011b. Notification for the Special Environmental Action to Regulate Envi-
ronmental Illegal Enterprises to Ensure People's Health. http://www.mep.gov.
cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201104/t20110414_209192.htm (accessed 01.03.15.).
MIIT, MEP, 2012a. Access Conditions for Lead-acid Battery Industry. http://www.
miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11293832/n12845605/n13916898/14639131.html
(accessed 01.03.15.).
MIIT, MEP, 2012b. Access Conditions for Secondary Lead Industry. http://www.gov.
cn/gzdt/2012-09/06/content_2218214.htm (accessed 01.03.15.).
MOT, 2013. Statistical Bulletin of Transport Industry Development in 2013. http://
www.moc.gov.cn/zfxxgk/bnssj/zhghs/201405/t20140513_1618277.html
(accessed 01.03.15.).
Nanaki, E.A., Koroneos, C.J., 2013. Comparative economic and environmental anal-
ysis of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles e the case study of Greece.
J. Clean. Prod. 53, 261e266.
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
Ko€hler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
Schuhmacher, M., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K.,
Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R., Ko€hler, A.,
Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J., Schuhmacher, M., van
de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox e the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater eco-
toxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 532e546.
Spanos, C., Turney, D.E., Fthenakis, V., 2015. Life-cycle analysis of flow-assisted
nickel zinc-, manganese dioxide-, and valve-regulated lead-acid batteries
designed for demand-charge reduction. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 43, 478e494.
Sullivan, J.L., Gaines, L., 2012. Status of life cycle inventories for batteries. Energy
Convers. Manag. 58, 134e148.
Tian, X., Gong, Y., Wu, Y., Agyeiwaa, A., Zuo, T., 2014. Management of used lead acid
battery in China: secondary lead industry progress, policies and problems.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 75e84.
UNEP, 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making Informed
Choices on Products. United Nations Environment Programme.
Van den Bossche, P., Vergels, F., Van Mierlo, J., Matheys, J., Van Autenboer, W., 2006.
SUBAT: an assessment of sustainable battery technology. J. Power Sources 162,
913e919.
van der Kuijp, T.J., Huang, L., Cherry, C.R., 2013. Health hazards of China's lead-acid
battery industry: a review of its market drivers, production processes, and
health impacts. Environ. Health 12, 1e10.
Wang, F., 2014. Lead-acid battery market application and future prospects in China.
Storage Battery 171e175, 178 (in Chinese).
Wu, Z., Ma, Q., Li, C., 2015. Performance investigation and analysis of market-
oriented low-speed electric vehicles in China. J. Clean. Prod. 91, 305e312.