Thermal Stability of 18650 Size Li-Ion Cells Containing LiBOB Electrolyte Salt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) has been proposed recently as an electrolyte salt for Li-ion batteries, however safety testing of full Li-ion cells incorporating this salt has not been reported. Earlier accelerating rate calorimetry (ARC) work demonstrated that the thermal reactivity between LiBOB ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate (EC/DEC) electrolyte and Li 0.81 C 6 was lower than that between LiPF 6 EC/DEC electrolyte and the same negative electrode material, suggesting that LiBOB may be an attractive salt choice for safer Li-ion cells. Here, we report ARC studies of the reactions between LiBOB EC/DEC electrolyte and Li 0.5 CoO 2 and compare them to the reactions between LiPF 6 EC/DEC and the same positive electrode material. Unfortunately, the reactivity of LiBOB electrolyte with the charged positive electrode initiates at a substantial rate at about 40°C lower in temperature than for LiPF 6 electrolyte. Oven exposure tests on charged (4.2 V) 18650 Li-ion cells made using the same electrolytes and electrode materials show that the heat caused by the reaction of the negative electrode with electrolyte is less for LiBOB electrolyte than for LiPF 6 electrolyte but that the opposite is true for the heat caused by the reaction of the positive electrode with electrolyte, as expected based on the ARC measurements. Using ARC tests on the individual electrode reactivity and oven exposure testing on 18650 Li-ion cells, the usefulness of electrolytes with mixed LiBOB / LiPF 6 salts is also explored. © 2004 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".