Binder-Free Fabrication of Nanotitania/Carbon Lithium-Ion Intercalation Electrodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel fabrication method comprising screen-printing and sintering of nanotitania/carbon paste has been developed allowing the construction of binder-free electrodes with superior lithium-ion intercalation properties. As a model active material to demonstrate the advantages of the new fabrication process, commercial P25 nanotitania product was used. The newly fabricated electrodes were compared to those fabricated using the standard binder-based method. Physical characterization demonstrated that the novel binder-free paste provides for significant carbon dispersion due to smaller agglomerate size resulting in enhanced inter-particle (active-conducting) mixing and packing density than the standard one. Cyclic voltammetry and galvanostatic charge/discharge testing proved the novel method-built electrodes to exhibit dramatically improved performance over the standard electrode in terms of conductivity, specific charge capacity, and reversibility. Thus the specific charging (delithiation) capacity of the novel method electrode (92% TiO 2 /7.5% C) was 174 mA h g −1 , compared to 124 mA h g −1 for the standard method electrode (85% TiO 2 /7.5% C/7.5% PVDF), representing 103, and 74% of the theoretical capacity (corresponding to Li 0.5 TiO 2 ), respectively. At the same time after 10 cycles, the novel-built electrode exhibited 90–94% coulombic efficiency and more than 92% capacity retention while the corresponding values for the standard electrode were only 80–82% and 53% respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".