The Global PFAS-Free Battery Market 2026-2036: Technologies, Regulation, Companies and Forecasts - Advanced and Emerging Technology Market Research

cover

Published: May 2026
Pages: 215
Tables: 20
Figures: 39

The global PFAS-free battery market sits at the intersection of three converging forces: European regulation, US state and federal action, and procurement-led commitments from automotive and consumer-electronics offtakers. Lithium-ion battery manufacturing is among the most fluorochemistry-dependent of all modern industrial processes — a typical NMC pouch cell contains poly(vinylidene fluoride) as cathode binder, lithium hexafluorophosphate as the principal salt, fluoroethylene carbonate and other fluorinated additives, and increasingly PTFE in dry-electrode processing, with fluoropolymer coatings extending into separators, current-collector tabs, gaskets and pack-level fire-protection layers. Across an EV-grade NMC cell, total PFAS content typically falls between 1.5% and 3% by weight.

The European Chemicals Agency's universal REACH restriction proposal, submitted by five Member States in January 2023, advanced decisively in March 2026 with the Risk Assessment Committee's final opinion and the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee's draft opinion. Final committee opinions are expected by end-2026, European Commission adoption in Q3 2027, restriction entry into force in 2028, and sector-specific derogations running 6.5 to 13.5 years thereafter. In parallel, US TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting obligations apply through October 2026, and state-level laws in Minnesota, Maine and California increasingly capture battery materials by reference. Apple, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Renault, Volvo and Tesla have all written PFAS reduction into supplier specifications ahead of any regulatory deadline.

The Global PFAS-Free Battery Market 2026-2036: Technologies, Regulation, Companies and Forecasts provides a comprehensive analysis of the global PFAS-free battery materials, cells and packs market over 2026–2036, addressing the technologies, regulatory drivers, market sizing, and competitive landscape that will define this decade-long transition.

Report contents include:

Technical analysis of PFAS-bearing components in lithium-ion cells, including cathode and anode binders, electrolyte salts and additives, separator coatings, current-collector coatings, sealants, pouch laminates and pack-level fire-protection materials
Detailed regulatory analysis of EU REACH, US TSCA, US state-level laws, China, Japan, South Korea and other jurisdictions, including likely derogation timelines for battery applications
Material substitution pathways across PFAS-free binders, electrolytes, separators, sealants and pack-level materials, with performance benchmarking against incumbent fluoropolymer chemistries
Manufacturing process implications including NMP elimination, aqueous slurry conversion, dry-electrode trade-offs and gigafactory capex and opex implications
PFAS substitution analysis by chemistry — LFP, LMFP, NMC, NCA, LCO, sodium-ion, solid-state, lithium-sulfur, redox flow, lead-acid and NiMH
Application-level analysis across passenger BEVs, commercial vehicles and buses, grid-scale stationary energy storage, behind-the-meter storage, consumer electronics, and industrial, marine, aviation and defence applications
Three-scenario market forecasts (Slow, Base, Fast) covering materials segments, regions and cell production volumes
Competitive landscape assessment with strategic positioning matrices for materials suppliers and cell makers
Risk and bottleneck analysis covering regulatory, technical and commercial dimensions
Profiles of 94 companies across the PFAS-free battery materials, cells, processes and pack-level systems value chain. Companies profiled include Addionics, Advano, Anthro Energy, APB Corporation, Altex Technologies, Altris, Ateios Systems, BASF, Blue Current, Blue Solutions (Bolloré LMP), BroadBit Batteries, BYD, Capchem, CarbonScape, CATL, CBAK Energy Technology, CellCube, Chemix, CMBlu Energy, Customcells / Cellforce, ENTEK, Eos Energy Enterprises, ESS Inc., EVE Energy, Factorial Energy, Farasis Energy, FDK Corporation, Flint, Forge Nano, Form Energy, Gotion High Tech, Group14 Technologies, Hansol Chemical and more....

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17

1.1 Why PFAS-free batteries, and why now 17
1.2 Key findings 18
1.3 The regulatory timeline at a glance 19
1.4 Global market forecasts, 2026–2036 20
1.5 Strategic implications 22
- 1.5.1 For battery cell manufacturers 22
- 1.5.2 For materials suppliers 22
- 1.5.3 For automakers and energy-storage integrators 23

2 PFAS IN BATTERIES: WHERE, WHY AND HOW MUCH 23

2.1 Definition and classification 23
2.2 PFAS-bearing components of a lithium-ion cell 23
2.3 Why PFAS have been hard to replace 25
2.4 Health and environmental concerns 25
2.5 Quantifying the PFAS footprint of the global battery industry 26

3 THE REGULATORYLANDSCAPE, 2023–2030 28

3.1 European Union: REACH universal PFAS restriction 28
- 3.1.1 Procedural timeline 28
- 3.1.2 RAC and SEAC positions 29
- 3.1.3 Likely derogations for batteries 29
- 3.1.4 Interaction with the EU Batteries Regulation (2023/1542) 30
3.2 United States 30
- 3.2.1 Federal: TSCA Section 8(a)(7) 30
- 3.2.2 State actions 30
3.3 China 31
3.4 Japan and South Korea 31
3.5 Other jurisdictions 31
3.6 Voluntary and procurement-driven phase-outs 31

4 PFAS-FREE BINDERS 33

4.1 Function and requirements of a battery binder 33
4.2 PVDF and its variants: the incumbent 33
4.3 Anode binders: largely already PFAS-free 34
4.4 Cathode binder alternatives 34
- 4.4.1 Acrylate-based aqueous binders (SA, PAA, PAA-Li) 35
- 4.4.2 Aromatic polyamide (aramid) binders 35
- 4.4.3 Bio-based polymers: lignin, alginate, cellulose derivatives 36
- 4.4.4 Thermoplastic elastomers 36
- 4.4.5 Dry-process PFAS-free binders 36
4.5 Performance comparison 36
4.6 SWOT — PFAS-free cathode binders 39
4.7 PFAS-free cathode binder market forecast 39

5 PFAS-FREE EELCTROLYTES 41

5.1 The electrolyte system: salt, solvent, additives 41
5.2 The lithium salt 41
- 5.2.1 LiPF₆: the incumbent (and its regulatory status) 41
- 5.2.2 LiFSI and LiTFSI: fluorinated sulfonimide salts 41
- 5.2.3 Fluorine-free salts 41
5.3 PFAS-bearing solvents and additives 43
5.4 Solid and semi-solid electrolytes as a PFAS-free path 43
5.5 SWOT — PFAS-free electrolytes 44
5.6 Market forecast: PFAS-free electrolyte salts and additives 44

6 PFAS-FREE SEPARATORS 46

6.1 Separator basics 46
6.2 Ceramic-coated separators and PVDF binders 46
6.3 Aramid and non-woven alternatives 46

7 CURRENT COLLECTOR COATINGS, SEALANTS AND PACK MATERIALS 48

7.1 Aluminium and copper current-collector coatings 48
- 7.1.1 Function and incumbent chemistry 48
- 7.1.2 PFAS-free coating chemistries 48
- 7.1.3 Suppliers of carbon-coated current-collector foils 49
- 7.1.4 Strategic importance of carbon-coated foil supply 49
7.2 Tab welds, gaskets and hermetic seals 49
- 7.2.1 Function 49
- 7.2.2 Incumbent PFAS materials 50
- 7.2.3 PFAS-free alternatives 50
- 7.2.4 Suppliers of PFAS-free sealants and gaskets 51
- 7.2.5 Tab-weld interface materials 51
7.3 Pouch laminates and prismatic can liners 51
- 7.3.1 Pouch cell laminate construction 51
- 7.3.2 Major pouch laminate suppliers 51
7.4 Targray — distribution of multiple pouch film grades 52
- 7.4.1 Prismatic and cylindrical can liners 52
7.5 Pack-level structural materials 52
- 7.5.1 Structural adhesives and bonding 52
- 7.5.2 Dielectric and electrical-insulation coatings 53
- 7.5.3 Thermal interface materials (TIMs) 53
- 7.5.4 Vibration damping and structural foams 54
- 7.5.5 Cell-to-cell isolation pads (compressible thermal-runaway barriers) 54
7.6 Pack material substitution summary 54
7.7 Strategic implications 55

8 PFAS-FREE BATTERY-PACK FIRE PROTECTION 56

8.1 Why fire protection is the largest near-term PFAS-free opportunity 56
8.2 The thermal-runaway protection challenge 57
- 8.2.1 What pack fire protection has to do 57
- 8.2.2 Why fluorochemistry was historically the default 58
- 8.2.3 The substitution paradox 58
8.3 Three sub-segment families 58
- 8.3.1 Intumescent coatings 58
- 8.3.2 Ceramic and aerogel thermal barriers 59
- 8.3.3 Cell-to-cell isolation pads 59
8.4 Market forecast and competitive landscape 60
8.5 Application and platform dynamics 61
- 8.5.1 EV battery packs 61
- 8.5.2 Commercial vehicles, buses, heavy-duty trucks 62
- 8.5.3 Grid-scale stationary storage 62
- 8.5.4 Consumer electronics 62
- 8.5.5 Defence and aerospace 62
8.6 Supplier landscape and competitive positioning 62
8.7 Strategic implications 64

9 MANUFACTURING PROCESS IMPLICATIONS 65

9.1 The end of NMP 65
- 9.1.1 NMP's role in conventional Li-ion manufacturing 65
- 9.1.2 What aqueous slurry processing eliminates 65
- 9.1.3 The brownfield-greenfield asymmetry 66
9.2 Aqueous slurry process changes 66
- 9.2.1 Carbon-coated aluminium foil 66
- 9.2.2 Surface treatment of cathode active material 66
- 9.2.3 Rheology, viscosity and mixing 67
- 9.2.4 Drying-oven profiles 67
- 9.2.5 Calendering and porosity 68
- 9.2.6 The cumulative qualification cost 68
9.3 Dry electrode processes 68
- 9.3.1 Why PTFE is hard to replace 68
- 9.3.2 The three architectural alternatives 69
- 9.3.3 Other dry-process equipment suppliers 69
- 9.3.4 The strategic dilemma for cell makers 70
9.4 The three competing manufacturing routes 70
9.5 Capex and opex implications 71
9.6 Quality control and process analytical technology 72
9.7 Process equipment vendors and the manufacturing ecosystem 73
9.8 Manufacturing-readiness summary by application 74
9.9 Strategic implications 75

10 PFAS CONSIDERATIONS BY BATTERY CHEMISTRY 76

10.1 LFP (lithium iron phosphate) 76
- 10.1.1 Why LFP is the easiest 76
- 10.1.2 Energy density and cost trajectory under PFAS substitution 76
- 10.1.3 Chinese LFP capacity and the structural PFAS-free position 76
- 10.1.4 European, US and Indian LFP capacity build-out 77
- 10.1.5 LMFP and the energy-density gap to NMC 77
- 10.1.6 Cell formats and integration architectures 78
- 10.1.7 LFP/LMFP recycling and end-of-life PFAS implications 78
- 10.1.8 LFP substitution timeline 78
10.2 NMC and NCA (nickel-rich layered oxides) 79
- 10.2.1 The compounding substitution challenge 79
- 10.2.2 NMC sub-chemistry detail 79
- 10.2.3 Cathode active material supply chain and surface treatments 79
- 10.2.4 Korean cell maker positioning in detail 80
- 10.2.5 European premium NMC players 80
- 10.2.6 Tesla 4680 and the dry-process question 81
- 10.2.7 Other major NMC/NCA cell makers 81
- 10.2.8 NMC cost trajectory under PFAS substitution 81
- 10.2.9 NMC timeline 81
10.3 LCO (lithium cobalt oxide) and other consumer-electronics chemistries 82
- 10.3.1 LCO and consumer-cell players 82
- 10.3.2 Specialty consumer chemistries 82
10.4 Sodium-ion batteries 82
- 10.4.1 Three Na-ion cathode families in detail 83
- 10.4.2 Hard carbon anode supply chain 83
- 10.4.3 Sodium-ion electrolytes 83
- 10.4.4 Chinese Na-ion cell makers 84
- 10.4.5 Western, Indian and other Na-ion players 84
- 10.4.6 Na-ion market trajectory 85
10.5 Solid-state batteries 85
- 10.5.1 Three solid electrolyte families 85
- 10.5.2 Cell maker landscape — sulfide-based 85
- 10.5.3 Cell maker landscape — oxide-based 86
- 10.5.4 Polymer-electrolyte and hybrid 86
- 10.5.5 Lithium-metal anode programmes 87
- 10.5.6 ASB substitution timeline 87
- 10.5.7 Li-S players 87
10.6 Redox flow batteries 88
- 10.6.1 Membrane alternatives 88
- 10.6.2 Vanadium flow players 88
10.7 Lead-acid, NiMH and primary cells 89

11 APPLICATIONS 91

11.1 The application landscape, 2036 91
11.2 Passenger battery electric vehicles 92
- 11.2.1 Demand structure 92
- 11.2.2 What's driving PFAS-free conversion in BEVs 93
- 11.2.3 The cell supply structure 93
- 11.2.4 Forecast 93
11.3 Commercial vehicles, buses and trucks 93
- 11.3.1 Demand structure 94
- 11.3.2 What's driving PFAS-free conversion in commercial vehicles 94
- 11.3.3 Forecast 94
11.4 Grid-scale stationary energy storage 94
- 11.4.1 Demand structure 94
- 11.4.2 What's driving PFAS-free conversion in grid storage 95
- 11.4.3 System integrators and project developers 95
- 11.4.4 Forecast 95
11.5 Behind-the-meter storage (commercial, industrial, residential) 95
- 11.5.1 Demand structure 95
- 11.5.2 What's driving conversion 95
- 11.5.3 Forecast 96
11.6 Consumer electronics 96
- 11.6.1 Demand structure 96
- 11.6.2 What's driving conversion 96
- 11.6.3 Forecast 96
11.7 Industrial, marine, aviation and defence 96
- 11.7.1 Demand structure 97
- 11.7.2 Notable players 97
- 11.7.3 Forecast 97
11.8 Cross-application synthesis 97

12 GLOBAL MARKET FORECASTS 2026–2036 99

12.1 Methodology 99
- 12.1.1 Scenario definitions 99
12.2 Three-scenario total PFAS-free battery materials forecast 99
12.3 Forecast by region, 2036 (Base scenario) 101
- 12.3.1 Regional dynamics 101
12.4 PFAS-free Li-ion cell production forecast (GWh) 103

13 COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE 105

13.1 Materials suppliers — landscape overview 105
13.2 Strategic positioning matrix 105
13.3 Cell makers — public PFAS-free positions 107
13.4 Strategic positioning matrix visualisation 109

14 RISKS, BOTTLENECKS AND OPEN QUESTIONS 110

14.1 Regulatory risks 110
14.2 Technical risks 110
14.3 Commercial and supply-chain risks 111
14.4 Key open questions 111

15 COMPANY PROFILES 112 (96 company profiles)

16 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 210

16.1 Scope and approach 210
16.2 Data sources and validation 210
16.3 Forecast model architecture 210
16.4 Limitations 211

17 REFERENCES 211

List of Tables

Table 1. PFAS-free battery materials market by segment, 2026–2036 (US$ billion, Base scenario) 20
Table 2. PFAS-free Li-ion cell production, 2026–2036 (GWh, Base scenario) 21
Table 3. PFAS-free battery materials demand by end application, 2036 (US$ billion, Base scenario) 22
Table 4. Typical PFAS content of a representative 75 kWh NMC811 EV cell pack 23
Table 5. Estimated PFAS use in Li-ion battery production, 2025–2036 (kilotonnes) 26
Table 6. Indicative regulatory deadlines for PFAS in batteries (Base scenario) 31
Table 7. Selected PFAS-free cathode binder performance vs PVDF benchmark 36
Table 8. Global PFAS-free cathode binder demand and value, 2026–2036 (Base scenario) 39
Table 9. Global PFAS-free electrolyte materials demand, 2026–2036 (US$ million, Base scenario) 44
Table 10. PFAS exposure and substitution status by pack-material category 54
Table 11. PFAS-free pack fire-protection coatings market, 2026–2036 (US$ billion, Base scenario) 60
Table 12. PFAS-free pack fire-protection suppliers 62
Table 13. Indicative gigafactory cost differential, PVDF/NMP vs PFAS-free aqueous (per GWh of capacity) 71
Table 14. PFAS-free manufacturing-readiness by application and 2026 status 74
Table 15. PFAS-free battery materials demand by application, 2026–2036 (US$ billion, Base scenario) 91
Table 16. PFAS-free battery materials market under three scenarios, 2026–2036 (US$ billion) 99
Table 17. PFAS-free battery materials value by region, 2036 (US$ billion, Base scenario) 101
Table 18. PFAS-free Li-ion cell production, 2026–2036 (GWh, Base scenario) 103
Table 19. Strategic positioning of materials suppliers 105
Table 20. Cell makers and their public PFAS positions 107

List of Figures

Figure 1. Where PFAS lives in a typical Li-ion EV battery cell 17
Figure 2. PFAS regulatory timeline, 2023–2042 20
Figure 3. PFAS-free battery materials market by segment, 2026–2036 21
Figure 4. PFAS mass distribution in a 75 kWh NMC811 EV pack (kg, mid-range estimate) 25
Figure 5. Annual PFAS use in Li-ion battery production, 2025–2036 (kilotonnes) 27
Figure 6. RAC versus SEAC positions on PFAS in batteries 29
Figure 7. PFAS-free cathode binder chemistry landscape 35
Figure 8. Voltage stability vs commercial maturity for PFAS-free cathode binders 38
Figure 9. SWOT — PFAS-free cathode binders 39
Figure 10. PFAS-free cathode binder consumption and market value, 2026–2036 40
Figure 11. Lithium electrolyte salt landscape by PFAS status 42
Figure 12. SWOT — PFAS-free electrolytes 44
Figure 13. PFAS-free electrolyte materials market, 2026–2036 45
Figure 14. PFAS-free separator substitution paths 47
Figure 15. Pack fire protection: the fastest-growing PFAS-free segment 57
Figure 16. PFAS-free pack fire-protection market by sub-segment, 2026–2036 61
Figure 17. Three cathode manufacturing routes and their PFAS exposure 71
Figure 18. Gigafactory capex differential at 50 GWh scale (US$ million, one-off) 72
Figure 19. PFAS substitution difficulty matrix by chemistry 90
Figure 20. PFAS-free battery materials demand by application, 2026–2036 92
Figure 21. PFAS-free battery materials demand by application, 2036 98
Figure 22. Three-scenario PFAS-free battery materials forecast, 2026–2036 100
Figure 23. PFAS-free battery materials demand by region, 2036 103
Figure 24. PFAS-free Li-ion cell production trajectory, 2026–2036 104
Figure 25. Materials supplier strategic positioning matrix 109
Figure 26. All-polymer battery schematic. 115
Figure 27. All Polymer Battery Module. 115
Figure 28. Resin current collector. 116
Figure 29. Ateios thin-film, printed battery. 118
Figure 30. Blue Solutions module. 121
Figure 31. Gelion Endure battery. 142
Figure 32. Schematic of Ion Storage Systems solid-state battery structure. 154
Figure 33. Lyten batteries. 162
Figure 34. Prieto Foam-Based 3D Battery. 174
Figure 35. ProLogium solid-state battery. 175
Figure 36. SES Apollo batteries. 181
Figure 37. Solid Power battery pouch cell. 187
Figure 38. Stora Enso lignin battery materials. 188
Figure 39. Zeta Energy 20 Ah cell. 209

Purchasers will receive the following:

PDF report download/by email.
Comprehensive Excel spreadsheet of all data.
Mid-year Update

The Global PFAS-Free Battery Market 2026-2036

PDF download.