Is the Move from LFP to LMFP Simple?

The move from LFP to LMFP feels like a sensible and simple one on the face of it. But are the gains that significant and what are the downsides?

Raw Materials

The obvious addition is Manganese.

despite being one of the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust, has been designated as a
critical raw material by numerous countries due to its irreplaceable role in modern applications. Manganese
demand is projected to rise due to the deployment of renewable energy technologies. However, its future supply
relative to projected demand has not been thoroughly considered

From abundant resource to critical commodity: Forecasting manganese supply and assessing its sustainability [2]

Material Processing

LMFP requires strict control of manganese levels and enhanced conductive coatings to overcome intrinsic poor conductivity and Mn dissolution, which can degrade performance. LMFP requires more advanced, eg dual-layer coatings compared to simple carbon-coated LFP to mitigate Mn dissolution, lower conductivity and structural cracking.

To mitigate slow lithium diffusion, LMFP needs smaller particle sizes than LFP. The smaller particles creates a challenge with agglomeration during slurry mixing. Hence, LMFP requires more precise, sometimes more complex synthesis to ensure homogenous distribution of Mn and Fe.

LMFP is not without its problems. The material has challenging ionic and electronic conductivity, meaning the cathode must be manufactured using very small particles of LMFP active material ​​to decrease diffusion distances. ​This leads to challenges with battery production.​

When you’re mixing ​a ​cathode ​slurry​, you want the particles to be well dispersed, so that the conductive and binding additives combine well with the LMFP across the cathode. But the small LMFP particles like to clump together in big ​agglomerates​, which is a problem for electrode performance.

Dr Gerard Bree, Assistant Professor at WMG [4]

This all increases CAPEX and operating costs.

Cell Production

In simple terms LMFP is a simple replacement for LFP with no changes to the production line. However, it is worth looking in detail at the cell manufacturing process:

1. Electrode Manufacturing
   • Mixing
     • Smaller particles in LMFP and clumping mean mixing can take longer and requires more steps.
   • Coating
   • Drying
   • Calendering
2. Cell Assembly
   • Slitting
   • Final Drying
   • Cutting
   • Winding or Stacking
   • Terminal Welding
   • Canning or Enclosing
3. Cell Finishing
   • Filling
   • Formation and Sealing
   • Ageing
   • Final Control Checks

Cost

It should be noted that there is a sweep of chemistries, similar to NMC, eg LMFP60 (60% Manganese, 40% Iron) and LMFP64 (64% Manganese, 36% Iron). Hence some variability in cost based on optimising chemistry vs performance.

The need for precise doping ratios between manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe) significantly increases material costs by 12%–17%.

Energy Density

The general view is that LMFP offers 15-20% higher energy density than LFP.

K-Tech produce LMFP and LFP in the same format and size, this gave us a good opportunity to compare the two chemistries.

	LFP (15 Ah)	LMFP (14 Ah)
Energy Density	369 Wh/litre 155 Wh/kg	398 Wh/litre 158 Wh/kg

LMFP has a higher nominal voltage of 3.7 V vs LFP at 3.2 V

Lifetime

Chak et al [1] showed that after roughly 275 cycles at C/3 and 40 °C, the LFP/graphite cells retained 91% of their initial capacity, while LMFP/graphite cells retained 89%, indicating slightly better electrochemical stability for LFP cells. Although this relative comparison is useful these are one off laboratory cells and these do not perform as well over cycling compared to production cells.

The K-Tech cells are not the most advanced LFP or LMFP cells on the market, but from the same supplier and in the same format gives perhaps a better comparison:

	LFP (15 Ah)	LMFP (14 Ah)
Cycle Life	3500 to 70% SoH 0.5C charge / 1C discharge	2000 to 70% SoH 0.5C charge / 0.5C discharge
Energy Throughput over Life	142.8 kWh	88.06 kWh

In terms of cycle life LFP has a clear advantage. If the discharge rate of the LFP cell was reduced to match that of the LMFP cell we would expect the LFP to last beyond 4000 cycles.

Thermal Stability

Chak et al [1] showed that exothermic reactions in LMFP cells initiated around 125 °C, compared to 140 °C for LFP. Despite this, both cell types exhibited similar self-heating rates below 0.1 °C min⁻¹.

Overall

Overall LFP performs better than LMFP. However, LMFP research and development has a long way to go to catch up with LFP.

The Gotion L600 Astroinno claims energy density figures far exceeding those of K-Tech or the leading LFP cells.

Also, the cost base of LMFP will improve with advancements in processing and with development of the supply chain.

References

1. Chanmonirath (Michael) Chak, Vadim Shipitsyn and Lin Ma, Thermal Stability Comparison of LiFePO₄/Graphite and LiMn_0.6Fe_0.4PO₄/Graphite Pouch Cells using Accelerating Rate Calorimetry, 2025 J. Electrochem. Soc. 172 090532
2. Irina Sokolova, Glen T. Nwaila, Mbuyu G. Ntunka, Sergii Klochkov, Simon Michaux, Emanuela Moscardini, Luigi Toro, Yousef Ghorbani, From abundant resource to critical commodity: Forecasting manganese supply and assessing its sustainability, Sustainable Materials and Technologies, Volume 44, 2025
3. Toxicological Profile for Manganese, National Library of Medicine
4. AI unlocks the manufacturing secrets of LMFP, The Faraday Institution
5. Gerard Bree, Veronika Majherova, Eleni Fiamegkou, Sanghamitra Moharana and Louis F. J. Piper, Fast-Charging Lithium-Ion Battery Protocols: LMFP Pouch Cells as a Rate Capability Case Study, 2025 J. Electrochem. Soc. 172 020526
6. LMFP Market Size, Share, Growth, and Industry Analysis, By Type (Solid Phase Method, Liquid Phase Method, Semi-solid Semi-liquid Method), By Application (Electric Vehicles (EVs), Two-wheeled Vehicles, Other), Regional Insights and Forecast to 2035, Industry Research