The Impact of Electrolyte Composition on Parasitic Reactions in Lithium Ion Cells Charged to 4.7 V Determined Using Isothermal Microcalorimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to better the understanding of the high voltage degradation of electrolytes in lithium ion cells, this work presents isothermal microcalorimetry results on LiNi 0.42 Mn 0.42 Co 0.16 O 2 (NMC442)/graphite pouch cells up to 4.7 V. The voltage and time dependent parasitic heat flow was determined for cells containing several electrolyte compositions based on carbonate solvents with several additive combinations, as well as a fluorinated carbonate solvent system. We have demonstrated that cells containing fluorinated carbonate-based electrolyte (1M LiPF 6 in 3:7 fluoroethylene carbonate: di-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate) showed a significantly decreased parasitic heat flow at voltages >4.4 V compared to ethylene carbonate-based cells, but limited advantage <4.4 V. However all cells, regardless of electrolyte composition, exhibited very large parasitic heat flows, and therefore parasitic reaction rates, at high voltages (>4.35 V). The results presented here also show that high voltage (>4.5 V) cycling results in an increase in parasitic heat flow of the subsequent lower voltage cycles, and is indicative of a change in the dominant reaction pathway.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".