A Systematic Study of the Concentration of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate (LiPF<sub>6</sub>) as a Salt for LiCoO<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Pouch Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF 6 ) concentration in the electrolyte of LiCoO 2 /graphite pouch cells was studied using the ultra high precision charger (UHPC) at Dalhousie University, an automated storage system, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), gas evolution measurements, and high rate cycling. LiCoO 2 /graphite pouch cells with higher LiPF 6 concentrations maintained their discharge capacity well during high C-rate discharge at all temperatures tested while those with 0.5 M LiPF 6 did not. The UPHC cycling data shows that coulombic efficiency (CE) and charge end point capacity slippage (charge slippage) both became worse as the LiPF 6 concentration increased for cells without 2% VC. When 2% VC was added, the CE and charge end point capacity slippage improved markedly for all LiPF 6 concentrations in this study. In addition, the CE and charge slippage were virtually independent of LiPF 6 concentration when 2% VC was added to the electrolyte. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy experiments were used to probe how LiPF 6 concentration affected cell impedance after storage experiments and after UHPC experiments. In the presence of 2% VC, there appear to be no issues associated with using large concentrations of LiPF 6 , at least at temperatures above 10°C. Researchers engaged in studies of the "solvent in salt" concept should therefore consider the inclusion of useful electrolyte additives like VC in their solutions,
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".