Next Article in Journal
Addressing Aircraft Maintenance Delays Using a DMAIC-FMEA Framework: Insights from a Commercial Aviation Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Blast Resistance Performance in Reinforced Concrete Slabs Using CONWEP-ALE Coupling Algorithm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/app152212165
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires—Metal Emission Hazard

by
Anna Rabajczyk
1,*,
Justyna Gniazdowska
1,
Maria Zielecka
1,
Damian Bąk
1,
Anna Dziechciarz
1,
Wojciech Klapsa
1 and
Magdalena N. Rabajczyk
2
1
Scientific and Research Centre for Fire Protection-National Research Institute, Nadwiślańska 213, 05-420 Józefów, Poland
2
Mechanical Engineering, Savonia University of Applied Sciences, Microkatu 1, 70210 Kuopio, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(22), 12165; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212165
Submission received: 14 October 2025 / Revised: 11 November 2025 / Accepted: 13 November 2025 / Published: 16 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Properties, Structures and Developments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Metals have a crucial impact on the environment and the economy. They constitute macro- and microelements essential for the proper functioning of living organisms. On the other hand, their excess can pose a life-threatening risk. Of particular economic importance are metals such as Co, Ni, Mn, Ti, Al, Cd, Fe, and Li, which are used, among other things, to build batteries in electric and hybrid cars. In the event of a cell fire, significant amounts of metals are rapidly released into the environment. The magnitude of emissions depends on the type of chemistry used in the battery and the type of extinguishing agent used to extinguish the fire. It should be noted that the available literature only provides information on the total amount or concentration of a given metal in the analyzed samples. However, there is no information on the speciation of metals, including their macro and nano forms, which is crucial for determining the toxicity and biological and chemical activity of a given element.

1. Introduction

Heavy metals are a key driver of economic development in many sectors. One such sector is the transportation industry, a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other hazardous pollutants worldwide. Climate change and environmental degradation resulting from it have become increasingly visible in recent decades [1], determining the direction of economic development, including the development of the global market for batteries for consumer electronics applications. Growing consumer interest in devices that rely on battery quality, such as portable devices (mobile phones, laptops, and cameras), generates significant annual revenues [2]. Battery-based technologies are also being used in the automotive industry, leading to the annual growth in the popularity of electric and hybrid cars (Figure 1). Additionally, users enjoy lower operating costs and reduced exhaust and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [3,4]. This is confirmed by the literature data [5], which indicate that the use of electric vehicles can result in a measurable 40% reduction in emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) generally emit less pollution than conventional vehicles, while all-electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions [6].
A lithium-ion battery is an electrochemical energy storage device in which chemical reactions must occur to produce energy. It is a battery in which lithium ions contained in an electrolyte move from the anode to the cathode and vice versa. The separator that allows the transport of these ions within the cell not only acts as a relay but also separates the anode from the cathode. It also blocks the flow of electrons within the battery [8]. During charging and discharging, electrochemical reactions occur, defining the form of the metal in a given reaction phase [4,8]:
Charging: LiCoO2 ↔ Li1−xCoO2 + xLi+ + xe−
Discharging: Cx + xLi+ + xe− ↔ CnLix
Charging and discharging in general: LiCoO2 + Cn + xe− ↔ Li1−xCoO2 + CnLix
These batteries can be constructed using not only lithium but also metal ions such as Ti, Mn, Al, Ni, Co, Fe, and Cd. This results in several types of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) available on the market, such as LCO (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) and NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) (Figure 2). A typical electric vehicle battery contains 0.05–0.37 kg of Co/kWh, 0.25–0.86 kg of Ni/kWh, and 0.46–0.9 kg of Li/kWh [9]. Depending on the composition, size, and therefore performance, the applications of individual batteries vary, with LTO (Lithium Titanate) batteries being the safest, characterized by a very good low-temperature performance [10].
Three main types of lithium-ion batteries are used in electric cars: LFP, NMC, and NCA. LFP batteries consist of non-toxic lithium gel phosphate (LiFePO4) as the cathode material and a graphite carbon electrode with a metallic substrate as the anode (Figure 3). It is worth noting that LFP is a polyanionic compound which contains more than one negatively charged element. Its atoms are arranged in a 3D crystalline lattice structure of lithium ions. The operation of LFP batteries is analogous to other lithium-ion batteries [12,13].
The main advantages of using LFP batteries are safety, longevity, and cost-effectiveness. The literature reports estimate that the global LFP battery market will grow from USD 20.96 billion in 2025 to USD 117.62 billion by 2037. This growth is driven not only by the increasing demand for electric vehicles but also by the integration of renewable energy and advances in battery technology [13].
Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC) batteries, on the other hand, incorporate cobalt in their cathode materials, which plays a key role in increasing thermal stability through structural integrity and battery safety under high-temperature conditions, thereby reducing the risk of thermal runaway. Cobalt also improves low-temperature performance, enabling operations at low temperatures, and increasing the initial discharge capacity, leading to a higher energy density, allowing for a longer use between charges [14].
Despite numerous advantages, such as reduced exhaust emissions and lower operating costs, the use of lithium-ion batteries also presents safety risks related to fire and the emission of toxic substances [15]. A significant concern with electric vehicles is that their lithium-ion battery fires have been observed to reignite hours, days, or even weeks after the fire initially being extinguished [16]. This persistent hazard severely escalates the risk of environmental contamination.
Therefore, when assessing the impact on the environment and living organisms, it is essential to analyze the individual stages of a battery’s life cycle in a given vehicle type and account for the individual substances composing the battery, as these materials may be emitted during breakdowns, disposal, or storage. So far, the main focus has been on emissions of carbon and nitrogen oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dioxins, furans, soot, and dust [17,18,19]. This analysis, however, is incomplete, as the quantity and diversity of metals used in battery production indicate the need to address this issue as well. It is also significant that the World Health Organization (WHO) has designated heavy metals as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Specifically, limits are set for Cd and Mn; the limits are 0.005 μg/m3 and 0.15 μg/m3, respectively. Furthermore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified As, Ni, Cd, Cr, and Be as Class 1 carcinogens [20]. Therefore, this article analyzes heavy metal emissions that occur during a fire—a situation involving a sudden and uncontrolled release under thermal conditions, which is further complicated by various extinguishing agents that are used, including metals and metal nanoparticles. The emissions of elements such as Co, Ni, Mn, Ti, Al, Fe, and Cd can significantly contribute to environmental degradation, posing a threat to living organisms both at the fire site and over longer distances.
The literature review was conducted using the following databases, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using keywords such as batteries, electric cars, hybrid cars, fire, and metal emissions. The results obtained included a maximum of 51 literature references (Google Scholar), with the vast majority of the literature relating to the use of metals in batteries, recycling options, and metal recovery. A small number of references addressed the emissions of compounds other than dust and organic substances during fires. Therefore, incident reports or laboratory analyses were the most relevant for analysis.

2. Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires

Electric vehicles (EVs) constitute a growing number of vehicles worldwide, and, like combustion engine vehicles, they are subject to breakdowns, including the risk of fires. Statistical data indicate that electric vehicle fires are relatively rare. For example, in Sweden during 2022, only 24 EV fires occurred, representing 0.004% of battery-powered cars. In the United States, 25 fires per 100,000 EVs sold were recorded in 2023 [21]. Similarly, Norway reported a rate of 33 per approximately 700,000 EVs in 2023. In contrast, Poland recorded 30 fires per 1000 registered vehicles in 2024, representing 0.31% of all vehicles [22]. Global data on HEV and PHEV fires indicate that these vehicles have a higher fire rate compared to electric vehicles (EVs) and combustion engine vehicles (ICEs). However, the total number of hybrid vehicle fires is relatively small due to their smaller market share. Detailed data for selected countries are presented in Table 1. This table includes the source data and their necessary conversion into percentages to ensure comparability.
It should be noted that any differences in the source data are the result of different research methodologies, the period of data analyzed, and the availability of information. A significant difference in data from the US compared to other countries is noteworthy. US data from an analysis conducted by AutoinsuranceEZ indicate that hybrid vehicles (HEVs/PHEVs) have the highest fire rate per 100,000 vehicles sold, at approximately 3475. Data for other countries were collected based on statistics collected by the fire department of the given country. In some countries, such as Norway, only aggregated data for vehicles are available, indicating the share of EVs and HEVs/PHEVs in fires at less than 7% of all vehicle fires. In the first half of 2025, Norwegian authorities recorded 403 vehicle fires. Of these, 359 involved combustion vehicles, 12 involved hybrids (HEVs/PHEVs), and only 30 were all-electric vehicles [30].
Compared to electric vehicles (EVs), HEVs/PHEVs have smaller batteries, which may suggest that they are easier to extinguish than electric vehicles with larger batteries [31]. However, higher fire rates are reported for HEVs/PHEVs compared to electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion engines (ICEs). This is likely due to the coexistence of two solutions, i.e., batteries and traditional fuel (gasoline, crude oil), which may also generate more complex emissions compared to traditional ICEs and EVs (Figure 4).
A car battery failure or damage leads to the release of hazardous gases, such as CO, HF, HCN, and POF3, and heavy metals, all of which pose a serious threat to the environment and living organisms. Additionally, the simultaneous release of flammable gases like hydrogen (H2) or methane (CH4) accelerates fire development, potentially leading to jet fires and even explosions [32]. Numerous studies indicate that lithium-ion battery failure often results in thermal runaway, characterized by an exponential increase in temperature inside the battery cell, where the rate of heat generation exceeds the rate of heat release. This causes an increase in pressure inside the battery. The elevated pressure can open relief devices or rupture cell casings, which then release flammable gases and cause a fire [19].
It should be emphasized that, in addition to the emission of toxic substances, an HEV/PHEV fire poses the risk of explosion. Cui et al. [33] studied the development and characteristics of PHEV fires using temperature data, heat flux records, and photographs. For their experiments, two types of vehicles were used, and the fires were ignited by inducing external short circuits in the battery. They found that the PHEV fires produced gas-phase explosions and were characterized by the emission of a large amount of white smoke that lasted approximately 60 min before flames appeared. The white smoke originated directly from the battery as it underwent thermal runaway. The main component of the smoke was flammable gases, which ignited upon encountering a spark or flame, resulting in an explosion. Flames appeared on the underbody surrounding the explosion. Under these experimental conditions, flames in the PHEV SUV chassis travelled to the front passenger compartment in 9 min and 11 s, while those in the PHEV sedan took 9 min and 56 s to reach the rear passenger compartment. Ultimately, the vehicle flames reached a maximum height of approximately 3 m. The molten components created an intensified fire environment which accelerated the propagation of the vehicle fire. The wheels involved in the fire were exposed to explosions. The PHEVs, upon entering the complete combustion phase, had a maximum external flame temperature of 843.6 °C and a maximum internal flame temperature of 696.8 °C. The vehicle type had a significant impact on the rate of development of the PHEV fires, as flames spread notably slower compared to the SUV. Because the fire experiments were conducted in an open area, the PHEV fires generated a maximum heat flux of 1.151 kW/m2. The maximum heat flux from the flames during the intense combustion period was recorded as 0.620 kW/m2 [33].
Such complex processes can lead to the emission of various substances, which may then participate in a variety of more- or less-complex reactions. These interactions can occur between metals, nonmetals, and organic compounds, and both macro- and nano-substances. These products result not only from the combustion process itself but also from reactions between the substances generated during fires and the fire extinguishing agents used on electric cars.

3. Metal Emissions During EV and HEV/PHEV Car Fires

The emissions associated with fires in electric and hybrid vehicles may result from the combustion process, decomposition processes, or interactions between individual substances. A fire in a combustion engine vehicle, similar to conventional vehicles, releases substances such as carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins and furans, soot, and dust. The emissions from lithium-ion battery fires, where the electrolyte and electrode materials rapidly decompose during the thermal runway, also result in the release of toxic gases. These include hydrogen fluoride (HF), phosphates and fluorophosphates, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and metals and their oxides (e.g., nickel, cobalt, manganese, lithium, aluminum), which originate from the electrodes and supporting structures. It should be noted that a hybrid vehicle fire is a mixed phenomenon, releasing both classic combustion products from liquid fuels and vehicle construction materials, as well as additional, extremely dangerous emissions from a battery fire (Table 2).
While EV/PHEV fires are relatively rare compared to those in other vehicle types, including diesel engines, they are more difficult to extinguish and can release over 100 different chemical substances, including heavy metals [44].
Research findings presented at the International Fire Service Cancer Symposium (IFSC) confirmed that electric vehicle (EV) fires expose responders, such as firefighters, first responders, and the public, to carcinogens and toxic concentrations of heavy metals [44]. The research center at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology has prepared a report [45] demonstrating the chemical reactions occurring during a thermal runaway in the lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles. The analysis of residues after the combustion of such batteries indicates the presence of toxic concentrations of metals including Al, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Zn. The highest concentrations were found for Ni and Co (80,700 and 80,600 mg/kg d.m., respectively), followed by Al and Mn (78,600 and 72,400 mg/kg d.m., respectively), while Fe and Zn were present in the lowest concentrations (363 and 453 mg/kg d.m., respectively) [45].
During a fire, solid particles are emitted that consist of incomplete combustion products, on the surface of which metals combine. The following vehicles were tested [46]: a battery electric vehicle (BEV) and a fully electric vehicle with rechargeable batteries and no gasoline engine. The battery was removed and used as a reference test, and a complete BEV was used. Additionally, a separate battery fire test was conducted on the battery that had been removed from the analyzed BEV. The presence of metals such as Al, Cd, Co, Ni, Cr, Cu, Zn, As, Mn, and Li adsorbed on particulate matter confirms the findings of Hynynen et al. [46]. Soot samples collected in the exhaust duct using quartz filters in the large RISE fire hall in Borås (Figure 5) showed metal concentrations that often exceeded the permissible metal concentrations in the workplace established in Poland [47], Germany [48], and the USA [49]. This indicates that the air at the fire site poses a significant hazard to living organisms.
The results from another study by Hynynen et al. [50] also confirmed the presence of a large number of metals bound to particulate matter. Furthermore, the study indicates that the amount of metals adsorbed onto particulate matter is significantly higher for electric vehicles compared to ICEVs, particularly for the elements specific to LIBs, such as lithium, aluminum, cobalt, manganese, and nickel.
The results of the study by Held et al. [19] also indicate the emission of toxic concentrations of metals such as Co, Ni, and Mn. The post-fire deposits, which accumulated on the surfaces of collector plates and on firefighter clothing (used during an electric vehicle fire) placed near the battery, at distances of 1 and 3 m from the fire source, were analyzed. The concentrations of these metals were found to be approximately 150–400 μg/cm2, while the concentration of Li was approximately 30–70 μg/cm2. These values were much higher than typically found on uncontaminated surfaces: for Co and Ni, 2000–4000 times higher, for Mn, 500–700 times higher, and, for Li, 400–700 times higher. The water used to extinguish the fire also contained high concentrations of these heavy metals: about 36 mg/dm3 for Ni, Co, and Mn. These concentrations exceeded the permissible limits for drinking water in Switzerland (where the study was conducted) by 700–1800 times and for industrial wastewater discharged into the sewage system by 20–70 times [19].
The problem of wastewater generated during firefighting operations is significant due to the type and concentration of pollutants generated and their often heterogeneous mixture. The wastewater contains not only metals and the combustion products of plastics and the materials used in car and battery production, but also residues from the extinguishing agents used. Fire wastewater is a complex solution, often treated as chemical wastewater and requiring specialized treatment, for example, using activated carbon sorption, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis.
It should be noted that the available literature data on EV/HEV/PHEV fires provide general concentration values of individual metals without considering their speciation. However, the form in which a given metal occurs often determines its properties as well as its biological and chemical activity. Furthermore, the forms of occurrence may change, which may affect their ecotoxicity or the potential for accumulation in various parts of the environment. The analysis also did not include nanoparticles or metal–organic structures, whose reactivity varies greatly. Therefore, wastewater that is not captured remains in the environment, causes environmental degradation, and poses a significant problem.

4. Metals in the Environment After Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires

Metal emissions during fires have significant environmental impacts. Thermal decomposition and the use of extinguishing agents generate wastewater containing heavy metals and electrolytes, posing a risk of environmental contamination, particularly in water and soil. However, metal contamination is not as well understood or discussed as the emission of toxic gases. It is important to recognize that a significant percentage of the total battery mass consists of cathode metals, including heavy metal nanoparticles. These cathode materials typically contain nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, aluminum, and other metals with known toxicity profiles and very low exposure limits, as defined by OSHA/NIOSH for industrial workplaces [51].
Battery fire testing with PPE conducted by the Texas A&M Engineering Extension [52] confirmed that high concentrations of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper were detected during all thermal decomposition events of lithium-ion batteries, with lithium being the most prevalent. Regardless of the cleaning method used, various metals, such as cobalt, manganese, and lithium, remained on the gears [52]. Metals present in such quantities correspond to tens of kilograms of materials in electric vehicle batteries that could potentially be released into the environment during fires or, if improperly disposed of, pose a risk to human health and the environment [17]. Other inorganic contaminants, in addition to the main metals used in battery production, may also be present at lower concentrations (e.g., arsenic, chromium, and antimony) and therefore warrant evaluation in the context of environmental cleanup options as defined by the United States Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) [9].
Water used to extinguish electric vehicle fires contains higher concentrations of nickel, cobalt, lithium, manganese, lead, copper, zinc, and antimony compared to firefighting water samples collected from conventional vehicle fires [17,53]. Firefighting operations can result in the discharge of these contaminants into stormwater or sewer systems or onto surface and groundwater, where they may be deposited and directly impact soil, causing environmental contamination and degradation. The results of soil sample analysis taken from the fire site as reported in the literature [9] showed metal contamination at levels exceeding the clean-up limits specified by the MTCA, particularly for Co and As, as well as exceeding the average values of metal concentrations in soil [54], the Finnish soil guideline values (MEF) [55], and the limits set by the EC Directive 86/278/EEC [56] (Figure 6).
In the event of an electric or hybrid vehicle fire in open areas, it is impossible to collect and treat the resulting wastewater, leading to significant environmental contamination. Using containers capable of extinguishing EV and PHEV/HEV fires can help minimize emissions and environmental contamination. However, the appropriate subsequent treatment of the resulting wastewater, which is classified as industrial wastewater, is required. For example, precipitation processes are necessary to eliminate metals from the solution.
Analyzing the amounts of metals present at the fire site also requires a consideration of the extinguishing agents used to extinguish EV and HEV/PHEV fires. Water is the most commonly used agent, but cooling the battery and extinguishing a single electric vehicle fire can often require up to 10,000 dm3 of water [57]. For small fires, fire extinguishers can also be used, preferably dry powder or foam, while maintaining the distance specified on the extinguisher label for extinguishing electrical equipment. Extinguishing with compressed air foam (CAFS) or dry powder is used for more advanced fires [58]. However, the composition of these agents includes alkali metal salts and alkali metal nanoparticles such as Na, K, Mg, and Ca. Common additives in extinguishing agents also include silica [59] (flame or precipitated), metal stearates, talc, and TiO2 nanoparticles, which are used in foam extinguishing agents to improve foam stability [60]. The presence of these compounds may affect the processes occurring during a fire or in the resulting wastewater. However, this aspect has not been studied in relation to EV and HEV/PEHV fires.
It should be noted that the proper management of wastewater generated during fires is also important due to the inherent toxicity of these solutions. Quant et al. [17] analyzed the toxicity of firefighting water from fire tests involving internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The results indicated that all tested water samples were highly toxic to Vibrio fisheri and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata after just 15 min of exposure. However, for crustaceans (Daphnia magna), water samples from ICEVs exhibited an acute toxicity, while the BEV test sample showed an intermediate toxicity. Quant et al. [17] found that the toxicity of water samples is caused by the presence of high concentrations of metals, which can cause various adverse health effects. However, there is no data on the specific forms of individual metals, which prevents unambiguous information about the type of toxic agent. The form of a metal often determines its toxicity or inertness. For example, the systemic health effects of cobalt are characterized by a complex clinical syndrome, primarily involving neurological disorders (e.g., hearing and vision impairment), cardiovascular deficiencies, and endocrine deficiencies [61]. Elevated cobalt exposure can affect the heart, thyroid, liver, and kidneys. Repeated exposure to cobalt dust can cause lung scarring (fibrosis), even in the absence of symptoms. Similar to cobalt, nickel is another known sensitizer that causes respiratory problems, including asthma-like allergic reactions. Nickel and its compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens [62]. Furthermore, aluminum compounds have been linked to asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and adverse neurological conditions [9,62].
An awareness of toxic metal emissions and their impact on human health allows for appropriate action to be taken during fires involving electric and hybrid vehicles to minimize the risk to organisms. However, there is a lack of information on the forms of individual metals which would allow for an unambiguous identification of the toxic agent. The form of a metal often determines its toxicity or inertness [63], with fire and environmental conditions determining this form. In the case of battery and electric and hybrid vehicle fires, the pH is neutral or alkaline, which can significantly affect metal speciation. For example, iron can occur as a divalent or trivalent compound. However, depending on the oxygen conditions, Eh potential, and pH value of the aquatic environment, trivalent iron can occur as either the free Fe3+ ion or various complexes: FeOH2+, Fe(OH)2+, Fe(OH)4−, [FeCl]2+ and [FeCl2]+, [FeHPO4]+, and [FeH2PO4]2+. In addition to these macro forms, iron nanoparticles may also occur as a product of combustion and deposition in the environment in the form of, for example, FeO, α-Fe2O3, β-Fe2O3, γ-Fe2O3 oxides, or mixed oxides (e.g., NiZnOFe). This speciation depends on the fire conditions and the emitted substances, or on substances already present in the environment that favor the formation of a given metal form [64,65].
Aluminum, also used in battery construction and therefore emitted in large quantities during a fire, can occur in three simple forms depending on the pH of the environment: soluble Al3+ in acidic conditions, insoluble Al(OH)3 in a neutral environment, and Al(OH)4− in an alkaline environment. In the case of water formed during the extinguishing of a battery fire, amphoteric Al(OH)3 and the Al(OH)4− complex will be present. In the presence of sulphates, various forms of aluminum-sulphate complexes are formed, such as AlSO4+ and Al(SO4)2−. The presence of fluoride ions, which are characteristic of water after battery fires, results in the formation of fluoride and fluoroaluminate complexes [66,67]. These metal forms are characterized by variable mobility in the environment, which causes them to affect living organisms in different ways. Free ions are absorbed most rapidly by plants, while complex ions are released by substances actively secreted by plant roots. Therefore, information on the total content of a given metal is insufficient to assess the risk to humans and the environment.
It should be noted that the selection of analytical techniques for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of metal occurrence in the environment depends on many factors, including the type of sample being analyzed (water, air, soil, plant) and the metal being analyzed and its form (e.g., nano/macro size, soluble form, insoluble form). Appreciation analysis is often based, especially in the analysis of nanostructures, on very expensive techniques and methods requiring advanced analytical equipment [68,69,70,71], such as the following:
-
Flow fractionation in a gravity or centrifugal field (FFF),
-
Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) or hydrodynamic chromatography (HDC),
-
Laser-induced emission spectroscopy (LIBS/LIBD),
-
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), or scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM),
-
X-ray diffraction (XRD) or X-ray fluorescence (XRF),
-
Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS).
It should be noted that qualitative and quantitative analysis in real samples can prove problematic, especially when speciation is involved, for example, when it is necessary to determine the bioavailability of a given compound [72,73].

5. Conclusions

Metals such as Co, Ni, Mn, Ti, Al, Cd, and Fe are essential for economic development. They are used in the production of many goods, including cars. Since transportation is key aspect of global economic development, the growth of the electric and hybrid vehicle market requires knowledge not only regarding operational safety but also the environmental impact of individual vehicle components throughout their entire life cycle.
To date, research has mainly focused on determining greenhouse gas emissions and toxic hydrocarbons. Only recently has the analysis been extended to include metals such as Co, Ni, Mn, Ti, Al, Cd, and Fe, which are components of batteries used in EVs and HEVs/PEHVs. Research findings indicate the emission of toxic amounts of heavy metals, often exceeding environmental background levels and posing a threat to both life and environmental quality. However, it should be noted that extinguishing fires in HEVs/PHEVs is more complex than in EVs.
The emissions from conventional fuels and systems specific to combustion vehicles must also be taken into account. It is worth emphasizing that the available literature provides insufficient information on metal emissions depending on the battery type, charge level, and operating conditions. Data on the quantitative emissions of metals, the forms in which these metals occur in wastewater after firefighting, and the forms of metal occurrence are also limited and superficial. However, such data are essential for developing appropriate fire extinguishing methods and for neutralizing the contaminants present in wastewater, as well as in the environment, water, and soil.
Considering the above, it is necessary to undertake work and analyses covering BEV and HEV/PEHV fire situations, including the following:
-
Emission levels, including not only greenhouse gases but also all toxic organic and inorganic substances during a fire,
-
The impact of extinguishing agents on the emission levels of individual substances,
-
The quality of air, water, and soil at the site of fires,
-
A speciation of pollutants in the context of vehicle type,
-
A determination of the impact of generated pollutants on living organisms,
-
A determination of the actions to minimize contamination and neutralize pollutants, including legal guidelines and technologies that can be applied on-site.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.; methodology, A.R., J.G., and M.Z.; formal analysis, A.R., J.G., and M.Z.; investigation, A.R., J.G., M.Z., and M.N.R.; resources, A.R., J.G., M.Z., and M.N.R.; data curation, A.R., J.G., M.Z., and M.N.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R., J.G., M.Z., and M.N.R.; writing—review and editing, A.R., J.G., M.Z., D.B., A.D., W.K., and M.N.R.; visualization A.R., J.G., M.Z., and M.N.R.; supervision, A.R.; project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition, D.B., A.D., and W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education as part of a granted subsidy for maintaining research potential in CNBOP-PIB—research work No. 089/CNBOP-PIB/MNISW Research and assessment of risks during the life cycle of rechargeable energy storage systems (REESS).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AFMAtomic Force Microscopy
BEVBattery Electric Vehicles
CAFSCompressed Air Foam Systems
EVElectric Vehicles
FFFFlow Fractionation in a Gravity or Centrifugal Field
GHGGreenhouse Gases
HDCHydrodynamic Chromatography
HEVHybrid Electric Vehicle
ICEInternal Combustion Engine
LCOLithium Cobalt Oxide Batteries
LFPLithium Iron Phosphate Batteries
LIBLithium-Ion Battery
LIBS/LIBDLaser-Induced Emission Spectroscopy
LTOLithium Titanate Batteries
NCALithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide Batteries
NMCNickel Manganese Cobalt Batteries
PAHPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PFASPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PHEVPlug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PPEPersonal Protective Equipment
SECSize Exclusion Chromatography
SEMScanning Electron Microscopy
SIMSSecondary Ion Mass Spectrometry
STEMScanning Transmission Electron Microscopy
TEMTransmission Electron Microscopy
XRDX-ray Diffraction
XRFX-ray Fluorescence

References

  1. Ioakimidis, C.S.; Murillo-Marrodán, A.; Bagheri, A.; Thomas, D.; Genikomsakis, K.N. Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) Electric Vehicle Battery in Second Life Application Scenarios. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Global Market Insights (GMI). Consumer Electronics Market Size; Report ID: GMI2383; Global Market Insights: Selbyville, DE, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/consumer-electronics-market (accessed on 29 August 2025).
  3. Akyildiz, A.; Ergun, B.E.; Uzun, E.; Zehir, M.A.; Kucuktezcan, C.F.; Kocaarslan, I.; Gulbahce, M.O. Optimum Selection of Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Cells for Electric Vehicles. IEEE Access 2025, 13, 55070–55080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Celadon, A.; Sun, H.; Sun, S.; Zhang, G. Batteries for electric vehicles: Technical advancements, environmental challenges, and market perspectives. SusMat 2024, 4, e234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andersen, P.H.; Mathews, J.A.; Rask, M. Integrating private transport into renewable energy policy: The strategy of creating intelligent recharging grids for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2481–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. U.S. Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center. Emissions from Electric Vehicles. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  7. Carlier, M. Number of Electric Vehicles in Use by Type 2010–2024. Statista. 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101415/number-of-electric-vehicles-by-type/ (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  8. Sanker, S.B.; Baby, R. Phase change material based thermal management of lithium ion batteries: A review on thermal performance of various thermal conductivity enhancers. J. Energy Storage 2022, 50, 104606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Washington State Patrol State Fire Marshal’s Office, Electric Vehicle Fire Study. 2025. Available online: https://wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Electric-Vehicle-Fires-Study_SSB-5812.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2025).
  10. Battery University. BU-205: Types of Lithium-Ion. 2023. Available online: https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-205-types-of-lithium-ion (accessed on 8 October 2025).
  11. Murden, D. What Are the Different Types of Lithium Batteries? Eco Tree Lithium. 2022. Available online: https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lithium-batteries-types/ (accessed on 8 October 2025).
  12. Frith, L. A Closer Look at Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries, Tesla’s New Choice of Battery. All About CIRCUITS. 2021. Available online: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/a-closer-look-at-lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries-teslas-new-choice-of-battery/ (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  13. First Phosphate. How the LFP Battery Works. Available online: https://firstphosphate.com/phosphate-industry/about-the-lfp-battery/ (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  14. Koech, A.K.; Mwandila, G.; Mulolani, F.; Mwaanga, P. Lithium-ion battery fundamentals and exploration of cathode materials: A review. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2024, 50, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Menye, J.S.; Camara, M.-B.; Dakyo, B. Lithium Battery Degradation and Failure Mechanisms: A State-of-the-Art Review. Energies 2025, 18, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. National Transportation Safety Board. Safety Risks to Emergency Responders from Lithium-Ion Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles; Safety Report NTSB/SR-20/01 PB2020-101011; National Transportation Safety Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SR2001.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  17. Quant, M.; Willstrand, O.; Mallin, T.; Hynynen, J. Ecotoxicity Evaluation of Fire-Extinguishing Water from Large-Scale Battery and Battery Electric Vehicle Fire Tests. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 4821–4830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Willstrand, O.; Quant, M.; Hynynen, J. Contaminations from Lithium-Ion Battery Fires—Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Soot. Fire Technol. 2025, 61, 2889–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Held, M.; Tuchschmid, M.; Zennegg, M.; Figi, R.; Schreiner, C.; Mellert, L.D.; Welte, U.; Kompatscher, M.; Hermann, M.; Nachef, L. Thermal runaway and fire of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery and contamination of infrastructure facility. Renew. Sust. Energ. 2022, 165, 112474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kang, S.W.; Lee, S.; Kwoun, J.; Lee, T.J.; Jo, Y.M. Analysis of Harmful Heavy Metals and Carbonaceous Components in Urban School PM2.5. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2023, 23, 220335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, W.D. Extinguishing the EV Battery Fire Hype. The Numbers don’t Support Persistent Fears of Lithium-Ion Conflagrations. 2023. Available online: https://spectrum.ieee.org/lithium-ion-battery-fires? (accessed on 22 September 2025).
  22. Kania, A.; Mazur, M. Electric Car Fires—Facts vs Myths. New Report by PSP and PSNM. 2025. Available online: https://polandinsight.com/electric-car-fires-facts-vs-myths-new-report-by-psp-and-psnm-44897/ (accessed on 29 September 2025).
  23. How Common Are Electric Vehicle Fires? Not Very. 2024. Available online: https://motorweek.org/this-just-in/how-common-are-electric-vehicle-fires-not-very/?utm_source (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  24. Biscarri, E. Fires in Conventional and Electrified Vehicles: Theory, Prevention, and Analysis; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2024; Chapter 1.6; p. 272. Available online: https://books.google.pl/books?id=miczEQAAQBAJ (accessed on 29 September 2025).
  25. South Korean Network. Hybrid Vehicles Report Fewest Fire Incidents: Data. 2024. Available online: https://www.southkoreannetwork.com/2024/08/hybrid-vehicles-report-fewest-fire.html?utm (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  26. Sundin, M. Electric Cars Catch Fire Less Often than Fossil Fuel Cars. 2023. Available online: https://www.warpnews.org/transportation/electric-cars-catch-fire-less-often-than-fossil-fuel-cars/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  27. Czyżewski, R. Electric Cars Catch Fire Less Often Than Gas-Powered Vehicles, Despite Persistent Myths. 2025. Available online: https://polandinsight.com/electric-cars-catch-fire-less-often-than-gas-powered-vehicles-despite-persistent-myths-68253/ (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  28. Mazur, M. White Paper on battery fires. Fire safety of electric vehicles and battery systems. Report. Polish Alternative Fuels Association PSPA. F5A New Mobility Reearch & Consutling. Warsaw 2022. Available online: https://psnm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PSPA_Fire_Safety_of_EV_White_Paper_EN_online.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2025).
  29. E-Mobility Index—August 2025 PZPM. Available online: https://www.pzpm.org.pl/en/Electromobility/E-Mobility-Index/Year-2025 (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  30. Weil, G. Data Shows EVs are Less of a Fire Risk than Conventional Cars. 2024. Available online: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/climate-matters/EV-less-fire-risk (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  31. Linja-Aho, V. Perceived and Actual Fire Safety—Case of Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Fires in Finland 2015–2023. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2023, 19, 1313–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Szmytke, E.; Brzezińska, D.; Machnowski, W.; Kokot, S. Firefighters’ Clothing Contamination in Fires of Electric Vehicle Batteries and Photovoltaic Modules—Literature Review and Pilot Tests Results. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cui, Y.; Cong, B.; Liu, J.; Qiu, M.; Han, X. Characteristics and Hazards of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Fires Caused by Lithium-Ion Battery Packs with Thermal Runaway. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 878035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Larsson, F.; Andersson, P.; Blomqvist, P.; Mellander, B.-E. Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 10018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bugryniec, P.J.; Resendiz, E.G.; Nwophoke, S.M.; Khanna, S.; James, C.; Brown, S.F. Review of gas emissions from lithium-ion battery thermal runaway failure—Considering toxic and flammable compounds. J. Energy Storage 2024, 87, 111288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Truchot, B.; Fouillen, F.; Collet, S. An experimental evaluation of toxic gas emissions from vehicle fires. Fire Saf. J. 2018, 97, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sturm, P.; Fößleitner, P.; Fruhwirt, D.; Galler, R.; Wenighofer, R.; Franz Heindl, S.; Krausbar, S.; Heger, O. Fire tests with lithium-ion battery electric vehicles in road tunnels. Fire Saf. J. 2022, 134, 103695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dahlbom, S.; Bjarnemark, F.; Nguyen, B.; Petronis, S.; Mallin, T. Analysis of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) extraction from contaminated firefighting materials: Effects of cleaning agent, temperature, and chain-length dependencies. Emerging Contaminants. 2024, 10(3), 100335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rabajczyk, A.; Zielecka, M.; Hopke, P.; Porowski, R. Metal nanoparticles in the air—State of the art and future perspectives. Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 3233–3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Klippel, A.; Hofmann, A.; Gnutzmann, T.; Piechnik, K. Reaction-to-fire testing of bus interior materials: Assessing burning behaviour and smoke gas toxicity. Fire Mater 2023, 47, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jeevarajan, J.A.; Joshi, T.; Parhizi, M.; Rauhala, T.; Juarez-Robles, D. Battery Hazards for Large Energy Storage Systems. ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 2725–2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bordes, A.; Papin, A.; Marlair, G.; Claude, T.; El-Masri, A.; Durussel, T.; Bertrand, J.-P.; Truchot, B.; Lecocq, A. Assessment of Run-Off Waters Resulting from Lithium-Ion Battery Fire-Fighting Operations. Batteries 2024, 10, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Long, R.T.; Blum, A.; Hill, B. Best Practices for Emergency Response to Incidents Involving Electric and Hybrid Vehicles—Full-Scale Testing Results. Quincy, MA: Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPA). 2013. Available online: https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Resources/Research-Foundation/Research-Foundation-reports/Electric-vehicles/FPRF-ElectricHybridVehicles.ashx (accessed on 3 September 2025).
  44. Schmidt, L. Electric Vehicle Fires Raise Cancer Risk for Firefighters and Communities. 2025. Available online: https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/electric-vehicle-fires-raise-cancer-risk-firefighters-communities (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  45. Kunkelmann, J. Untersuchung des Brandverhaltens von Lithium-Ionen- und Lithium-Metall-Batterien in Verschiedenen Anwendungen und Ableitung einsatztaktischer Empfehlungen; Forschungsbericht Nr. 175; Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) Forschungsstelle für Brandschutztechnik: Karlsruhe, German, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hynynen, J.; Willstrand, O.; Blomqvist, P.; Quant, M. Investigation of extinguishing water and combustion gases from vehicle fires. In Fire And Safety Fire Safe Transport; RISE Report 2023:22; RISE Research Institutes of Sweden: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2023; Available online: https://ukeirespill.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ETOX2_final_report_0.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2025).
  47. Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych. Regulation of The Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy of 12 June 2018 on the Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Intensities of Factors Harmful to Health in the Work Environment; Sejm RP: Szymon Hołownia, Poland, 2018; p. 1286. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  48. Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA), Sankt Augustin. Occupational Exposure Limit Values (OELs); IFA Report 2/2024; IFA: Grenzwerteliste, WA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  49. Standard Number 1910.1000; Air Contaminants. Toxic and Hazardous Substances. Permissible Exposure Limits—Annotated Tables. Occupational Safety and Health Standards: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels/table-z-1 (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  50. Hynynen, J.; Willstrand, O.; Blomqvist, P.; Andersson, P. Analysis of combustion gases from large-scale electric vehicle fire tests. Fire Saf. J. 2023, 139, 103829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dursun, Y.; Eleşkirtli, A. Fire Safety Precautions and Fire Intervention Techniques for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Int. J. New Find. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2025, 3, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vaught, V. Electric Vehicle (EV) Safety for the First Responder. Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service. 2024. Available online: https://teex.org/news/teex-initiates-tests-on-first-responder-ppe-exposed-to-lithium-ion-battery-fires/ (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  53. Lönnermark, A.; Blomqvist, P. Emissions from an Automobile Fire. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 1043–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. UNEP. International Resource Panel of UNEP. Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles; UNEP: Paris, France, 2014; p. 234. ISBN 978-92-807-3266-5. Available online: https://www.wrforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Environmental-risks-and-challenges-of-anthropogenic-metals-flows-and-cycles-20138.-Environmental-Risks-and-Challenges-of-Anthropogenic-Metals-Flows-and-Cycles-1.pdf? (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  55. Ministry of the Environment, Finland. Government Decree on the Assessment of Soil Contamination and Remediation Needs; 214/2007; Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki, Finland, 2007; Available online: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/fin113198.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2007).
  56. European Union. Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on the Protection of the Environment, and in Particular of the Soil, When Sewage Sludge is Used in Agriculture (86/278/EEC); OJ L 181; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 1986; p. 6. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1986/278/2022-01-01 (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  57. LionCare GmbH. Extinguishing Fires in Electric Cars. Available online: https://www.lion-care.com/en/extinguishing-fires-in-electric-cars (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  58. Lesiak, P.; Pietrzela, D.; Mortka, P. Methods Used to Extinguish Fires in Electric Vehicles. SFT 2021, 58, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xie, J.; Zhang, J.; Ding, C.; Wang, X. Hydrophobic nano SiO2 as flow-enhancing additives and flame retardant synergizes with CaCO3 to suppress gas explosion. RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 4672–4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rabajczyk, A.; Zielecka, M.; Gniazdowska, J. Application of Nanotechnology in Extinguishing Agents. Materials 2022, 15, 8876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Leyssens, L.; Vinck, B.; Van Der Straeten, C.; Wuyts, F.; Maes, L. Cobalt toxicity in humans-A review of the potential sources and systemic health effects. Toxicology 2017, 387, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nordberg, G.F.; Fowler, B.A.; Nordberg, M. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals, 4th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; p. 1024. [Google Scholar]
  63. Namieśnik, J.; Rabajczyk, A. The speciation and physico-chemical forms of metals in surface waters and sediments. CS&B 2010, 22, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rabajczyk, A.; Namieśnik, J. Speciation of iron in the aquatic environment. WER 2014, 86, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zhu, Y.; Hu, X.; Pan, D.; Han, H.; Lin, M.; Lu, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhu, R. Speciation determination of iron and its spatial and seasonal distribution in coastal river. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lou, C.; Zhang, W.; Gao, P.; Zhou, Y.; Zhi, Y.; Ye, F.; Yan, W.; Xu, S.; Wei, Y.; Liu, Z. Aluminum speciation identification reveals water interactions in silicoaluminophosphate zeolites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2025, 122, e2507802122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Namieśnik, J.; Rabajczyk, A. The Speciation of Aluminium in Environmental Samples. CRC 2010, 40, 68–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rabajczyk, A. Possibilities for analysis of selected nanometals in solid environmental samples. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 1598–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khan, I.; Saeed, K.; Khan, I. Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 908–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Prasad, R.D.; Prasad, R.S.; Prasad, R.B.; Prasad, S.R.; Singha, S.B.; Singha, D.; Prasad, R.J.; Sinha, P.; Saxena, S.; Vaidya, A.K. A review on modern characterization techniques for analysis of nanomaterials and biomaterials. ES Energy Environ. 2024, 23, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nadkarni, A.; Rana, D.; Desai, N.; Benival, D.; Joshi, V.; Salave, S.; Khunt, D. Advanced Characterization and Sample Preparation Strategies for Nanoformulations. J. Nanotheranostics 2024, 5, 104–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhu, Q.; Ji, J.; Tang, X.; Wang, C.; Sun, H. Bioavailability Assessment of Heavy Metals and Organic Pollutants in Water and Soil Using DGT: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Garman, E.R.; Meyer, J.S.; Bergeron, C.M.; Blewett, T.A.; Clements, W.H.; Elias, M.C.; Farley, K.J.; Gissi, F.; Ryan, A.C. Validation of Bioavailability-Based Toxicity Models for Metals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 39, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 12165 g001
Figure 1. Estimated number of electric vehicles of various types in use worldwide from 2010 to 2024 (source: own elaboration based on [7]).
Figure 1. Estimated number of electric vehicles of various types in use worldwide from 2010 to 2024 (source: own elaboration based on [7]).
Applsci 15 12165 g001
Applsci 15 12165 g002
Figure 2. Types and applications of lithium-ion batteries (where UPS—Uninterrupted Power Supply) (source: own elaboration based on [10,11]).
Figure 2. Types and applications of lithium-ion batteries (where UPS—Uninterrupted Power Supply) (source: own elaboration based on [10,11]).
Applsci 15 12165 g002
Applsci 15 12165 g003
Figure 3. Metal content in LFP batteries (source: own elaboration based on [12,13]).
Figure 3. Metal content in LFP batteries (source: own elaboration based on [12,13]).
Applsci 15 12165 g003
Applsci 15 12165 g004
Figure 4. Emissions of substances during a hybrid vehicle fire.
Figure 4. Emissions of substances during a hybrid vehicle fire.
Applsci 15 12165 g004
Applsci 15 12165 g005
Figure 5. Air emissions of selected metals during a battery fire; BEV in relation to reference test emissions and airborne limits according to Poland, ATSDR, and Regulatory Limits/OSHA PEL.
Figure 5. Air emissions of selected metals during a battery fire; BEV in relation to reference test emissions and airborne limits according to Poland, ATSDR, and Regulatory Limits/OSHA PEL.
Applsci 15 12165 g005
Applsci 15 12165 g006
Figure 6. Contamination of soil samples at the EV fire site in Mason County, Washington, in relation to selected soil quality guidelines (EC Directive, MEF Finland, Cleanup Threshold USA).
Figure 6. Contamination of soil samples at the EV fire site in Mason County, Washington, in relation to selected soil quality guidelines (EC Directive, MEF Finland, Cleanup Threshold USA).
Applsci 15 12165 g006
Table 1. Number of fires involving hybrid vehicles (HEVs/PHEVs) compared to the number of fires involving ICE vehicles in various types of EVs.
Table 1. Number of fires involving hybrid vehicles (HEVs/PHEVs) compared to the number of fires involving ICE vehicles in various types of EVs.
CountryYearsNumber of Vehicle FiresPercentage of Vehicle Fire [%]Ref
HEV/PHEVEVICEHEV/PHEVEVICE
USA/number per 100,000 sold20213474.525.11529.93.470.0251.52[23,24]
South Korea/number per 1.54 million registered vehicles2020–2025131NDND0.0020.013ND[25]
Sweden2020–2022 annually16–24 EV and HEV fires/611,000 vehicles3384/4.4 million vehicles0.0040.08[26]
Poland2020–June 20252228750 8330.430.1799.39[27,28,29]
ND—no data.
Table 2. Substances emitted during an EV and HEV/PHEV fire.
Table 2. Substances emitted during an EV and HEV/PHEV fire.
Emission SourceSubstanceNotesRef
Lithium-ion battery (LIB)HFVery toxic and corrosive, damages the respiratory tract and causes chemical burns[34,35]
HCNHighly toxic, disrupts oxygen transport in the body[36]
CO, CO2Products of electrolyte and organic material decomposition[36]
Fluorophosphates, phosphorus compoundsIrritating and toxic gases[37,38]
Metals (Ni, Co, Mn, Al, and Li)May settle in the environment, toxic to aquatic organisms and humans[18]
Combustion engine and fuel (in case of HEV/PHEV)COHighly toxic, binds to hemoglobin, leading to hypoxia[31]
CO2Greenhouse gas, displaces oxygen in high concentrations[31]
NOxIrritates respiratory tract, may create tropospheric ozone[31]
PAHStrong carcinogenic effect[31]
Heavy metals (macro and nano)Toxic substances, harmful to the respiratory system, threat to the health and life of organisms[39]
Soot and dustCarriers of toxic substances, harmful to the respiratory system[31]
Construction materials and interiorHClIrritating gas produced by burning PVC[40]
FormaldehydeToxic, carcinogenic, irritates mucous membranes[40]
Isocyanates (from the combustion of PUR foams)Irritating, sensitizing, may cause asthma[40]
Dioxins and furansProduced when burning plastics, very toxic and persistent in the environment[40]
Firefighting water after firesHeavy metals and fluoridesConcentrations hazardous to the environment, threat to the health and life of organisms, degradation of soil and water[41,42,43]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rabajczyk, A.; Gniazdowska, J.; Zielecka, M.; Bąk, D.; Dziechciarz, A.; Klapsa, W.; Rabajczyk, M.N. Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires—Metal Emission Hazard. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 12165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212165

AMA Style

Rabajczyk A, Gniazdowska J, Zielecka M, Bąk D, Dziechciarz A, Klapsa W, Rabajczyk MN. Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires—Metal Emission Hazard. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(22):12165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212165

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rabajczyk, Anna, Justyna Gniazdowska, Maria Zielecka, Damian Bąk, Anna Dziechciarz, Wojciech Klapsa, and Magdalena N. Rabajczyk. 2025. "Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires—Metal Emission Hazard" Applied Sciences 15, no. 22: 12165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212165

APA Style

Rabajczyk, A., Gniazdowska, J., Zielecka, M., Bąk, D., Dziechciarz, A., Klapsa, W., & Rabajczyk, M. N. (2025). Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Fires—Metal Emission Hazard. Applied Sciences, 15(22), 12165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212165

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop