Surface-Mediated Solvent Decomposition in Li–Air Batteries: Impact of Peroxide and Superoxide Surface Terminations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A viable Li/O 2 battery will require the development of stable electrolytes that do not continuously decompose during cell operation. Recent experiments suggest that reactions occurring at the interface between the liquid electrolyte and the solid lithium peroxide (Li 2 O 2 ) discharge phase are a major contributor to these instabilities. To clarify the mechanisms associated with these reactions, a variety of atomistic simulation techniques, classical Monte Carlo, van der Waals-augmented density functional theory, ab initio molecular dynamics, and various solvation models, are used to study the initial decomposition of the common electrolyte solvent, dimethoxyethane (DME), on surfaces of Li 2 O 2 . Comparisons are made between the two predominant Li 2 O 2 surface charge states by calculating decomposition pathways on peroxide-terminated (O 2 2– ) and superoxide-terminated (O 2 1– ) facets. For both terminations, DME decomposition proceeds exothermically via a two-step process comprised of hydrogen abstraction (H-abstraction) followed by nucleophilic attack. In the first step, abstracted H dissociates a surface O 2 dimer, and combines with a dissociated oxygen to form a hydroxide ion (OH – ). The remaining surface oxygen then attacks the DME, resulting in a DME fragment that is strongly bound to the Li 2 O 2 surface. DME decomposition is predicted to be more exothermic on the peroxide facet; nevertheless, the rate of DME decomposition is faster on the superoxide termination. The impact of solvation (explicit vs implicit) and an applied electric field on the reaction energetics are investigated. Our calculations suggest that surface-mediated electrolyte decomposition should out-pace liquid-phase processes such as solvent auto-oxidation by dissolved O 2 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".