Lithium-ion batteries, widely relied upon as building blocks of clean energy systems, are now linked to environmental releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the synthetic compounds known as “forever chemicals.” A peer-reviewed study published in Nature Communications identifies battery components as a source of bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides, a PFAS subclass called bis-FASIs, detected in air, water, snow, soil, and sediment near manufacturing plants in Minnesota, Kentucky, Belgium, and France. The findings expose a tension at the center of the global energy transition: the same technology driving decarbonization may be seeding persistent chemical contamination along its entire supply chain.
Forever Chemicals Found Near Battery Plants
The research, led in part by Jennifer Guelfo of Texas Tech University and Lee Ferguson of Duke University, traced bis-FASIs through three distinct pathways: manufacturing, disposal, and recycling. Researchers sampled multiple environmental media near facilities in four locations across two continents, finding detectable levels of the compounds in every medium tested. That geographic spread suggests the contamination is not isolated to a single plant or region but is instead tied to standard industrial processes used throughout the battery sector. The authors describe how these fluorinated salts used in electrolytes can migrate from production lines into nearby ecosystems, with the Nature Communications article documenting concentrations in communities that host battery and materials facilities.
What makes bis-FASIs especially concerning is their resistance to cleanup. Treatability testing showed that bis-FASIs did not break down during oxidation, a result consistent with the behavior of other well-known PFAS compounds such as PFOA and GenX. Oxidation is one of the most common water-treatment techniques used to neutralize organic pollutants, so the failure of bis-FASIs to degrade through that process raises direct questions about whether existing water infrastructure can protect communities near battery facilities. The study also notes that bis-FASIs were found far from direct discharge points, implying that airborne transport and atmospheric deposition can carry battery-related PFAS beyond factory fences.
Because these compounds are both mobile and persistent, they can accumulate over time in sediments and soils, making eventual remediation significantly more expensive and technically challenging. Communities that already face legacy PFAS from other industries may therefore experience layered exposures as battery manufacturing expands. The authors point out that current monitoring programs often target a narrow list of legacy PFAS, meaning bis-FASIs and related salts may go undetected unless laboratories specifically look for them.
Recycling May Spread, Not Solve, the Problem
Most public discussion about lithium-ion battery pollution focuses on mining raw materials or disposing of spent cells in landfills. The Nature Communications study shifts that frame by showing that recycling, often promoted as the environmental solution to battery waste, is itself a release pathway. When batteries are broken down for material recovery, the fluorinated compounds in electrolytes and additives can escape into surrounding air and water. As governments and private companies race to build recycling capacity to handle a coming wave of retired electric vehicle batteries, this finding complicates the assumption that recycling automatically reduces environmental harm.
A separate analytical chemistry study published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry adds another layer of concern. That research targeted two fluorinated lithium-ion battery additives, TPFPB and TPFPP, and identified transformation products that form when those additives break down. In plain terms, the original battery chemicals do not simply disappear; they convert into additional persistent fluorinated compounds. If recycling operations generate heat, mechanical stress, or chemical reactions that accelerate these transformations, scaling up recycling infrastructure could create new contamination hotspots faster than detection methods and remediation technologies can keep pace.
Recycling facilities are often sited in industrial corridors or near lower-income communities that already shoulder disproportionate environmental burdens. Without specific controls for PFAS, these plants could release complex mixtures of original battery salts and their degradation products into local waterways and air sheds. The Guelfo and Ferguson team found bis-FASIs in areas influenced by recycling activities, reinforcing the idea that end-of-life handling of batteries can be a significant source of PFAS releases, not just an afterthought in lifecycle analyses.
Because PFAS are used to improve battery performance, especially at high voltages and temperatures, industry faces a difficult tradeoff: removing or replacing fluorinated compounds may reduce environmental risks but could also affect energy density or cycle life. The current research does not prescribe specific engineering fixes, but it underscores that recycling policies and plant designs must account for PFAS emissions in addition to metals recovery rates.
Regulatory Reporting Begins to Catch Up
Federal regulators have started to acknowledge the connection between battery chemistry and PFAS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency added lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, commonly known as LiTFSI, to its Toxics Release Inventory PFAS list under the National Defense Authorization Act, with an effective reporting year of 2024. LiTFSI is a key electrolyte salt used in many lithium-ion battery formulations, so its inclusion on the TRI list means that facilities manufacturing or processing the compound above reporting thresholds must now disclose releases to the EPA.
The initial rulemaking that implemented these statutory additions was detailed in a Federal Register notice in May 2024, followed by a January 2025 update that further refined and expanded the list of covered substances. That later action, published as a separate Federal Register rule, added more PFAS compounds and clarified reporting expectations for facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use these chemicals. Together, the rules begin to capture a broader slice of the PFAS universe tied to advanced materials and energy technologies.
Yet reporting requirements alone do not cap emissions or mandate cleanup. No publicly available enforcement records or violation data tied to the new TRI additions have surfaced as of the latest available information, which means the practical impact of these disclosure rules on actual pollution levels remains unclear. The EPA maintains an online violation reporting tool that allows the public to submit concerns about suspected noncompliance, but whether communities near battery plants will see meaningful reductions in PFAS exposure depends on whether disclosure translates into accountability, enforcement, and investment in safer technologies.
Advocates argue that TRI data can still be powerful even without automatic emission limits. Publicly reported releases may influence investor decisions, local permitting debates, and corporate sustainability commitments. For PFAS associated with batteries, the first rounds of TRI reports will provide a baseline picture of where these chemicals are handled in large quantities, potentially guiding future rulemaking on discharge limits or technology standards.
The Clean Energy Paradox
Lithium-ion batteries are used globally as a key component of clean and sustainable energy infrastructure, as the underlying study itself notes. Electric vehicles, grid-scale storage systems, and portable electronics all depend on them. That dependence is growing rapidly, driven by climate policy, consumer demand, and falling cell costs. The paradox is straightforward: a technology essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions contains and releases chemicals that do not break down in the environment and resist standard water treatment.
Most coverage of PFAS contamination has centered on legacy sources like firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and semiconductor manufacturing. The emerging science around bis-FASIs and other battery-related PFAS suggests that the clean energy transition is creating a new generation of chemical risks that current regulations did not anticipate. Policymakers now face a dual mandate: accelerate decarbonization while preventing another wave of long-lived pollutants from embedding themselves in drinking water, soils, and food chains.
Experts involved in the recent research emphasize that recognizing the problem early offers an opportunity to design better solutions. That could mean incentivizing non-fluorinated electrolytes where technically feasible, tightening air and wastewater permits for battery and recycling plants, and expanding monitoring programs to include newer PFAS classes. It may also require revisiting how lifecycle assessments of clean technologies account for persistent chemical releases, ensuring that climate benefits are not overstated by ignoring hard-to-measure pollution streams.
The studies from Guelfo, Ferguson, and their collaborators do not argue against electrification or renewable energy. Instead, they highlight that the materials enabling those systems carry hidden costs that must be managed transparently. As lithium-ion production scales up worldwide, the choice is not between clean energy and clean water, but whether societies are willing to invest in the research, regulation, and industrial innovation needed to secure both.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
