MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2302627090 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-02/5/292

Study of the Impact of Electrolyte Additives on High Voltage LiNi<sub>0.4</sub>Mn<sub>0.4</sub>Co<sub>0.2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Cells by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

2014· article· en· W2302627090 on OpenAlexaff
Rémi Petibon, Lin Ma, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteGraphiteMaterials scienceDielectric spectroscopyElectrochemistryChemical engineeringEthylene carbonateOpen-circuit voltageAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectrodeChemistryVoltageComposite materialOrganic chemistryElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Materials such as LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 have been proposed as good candidates for high energy density cells. Even though these types of materials show reversible cycling up to 4.7 V, the stability of typical carbonate based electrolytes towards such high voltage proves to be a problem. Electrolyte additives can improve capacity retention at high voltage, however very little is known about how these additives work. The effect of three additive combinations on the cycling of LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2/graphite cells cycled to different upper voltage cut-offs has been studied using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Experimental Dry pouch LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2/graphite cells balanced for 4.7 V with a nominal capacity of 240 mAh were obtained from a reputable cell manufacturer. The pouch cells were filled with ~0.9 g of 1M LiPF6 EC:EMC (3:7) based electrolyte with different additive combinations. The additive combinations tested were 2% vinylene carbonate (VC), 2% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (PES), and 2% VC + 1% Methylene Methanedisulfonate (MMDS) + 1% additive A. Cells were vacuum sealed in an argon-filled glove box. The cells then underwent a formation protocol during which they were opened and re-vacuum sealed at 3.5 V and 4.5 V to remove any gas generated during the first charge. Cells were then moved to a charger to be cycled at 40°C to various upper potential cut-offs. After a period of 400 – 500 h of cycling, the impedance of the cells was measured at 3.8 V and at 10°C. Results and discussion Figure 1 shows the discharge capacity as a function of time for cells containing various additive combinations and cycled to various upper voltage cut-offs. Figure 1 shows that all cells exhibit capacity loss when cycled to potentials above 4.4V. Cells containing 2% VC + 1% MMDS + 1% A have encouraging cycling performance at both 4.4 and 4.5 V. Figure 1 also shows that cells containing any of the additive combinations show substantial capacity fade when cycled at to 4.5 V and above. Figure 2 shows the Nyquist representation of the impedance of LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2/graphite cells cycled for 400 - 500 h to different upper voltage cut-offs. Figure 2 shows that the additives have a dramatic impact on the impedance of cells cycled to high voltage. Figure 2 shows that the additive combination, 2% VC + 1% MMDS + 1% A, yields a very small impedance compared to other more conventional additives such as 2% VC. Figure 2 also shows that the shape of the EIS spectrum of cells containing any additive combination dramatically changes when increasing the higher voltage cut-off. Other measurements (not shown) showed that the EIS spectra of cells cycled to upper cut-offs of 4.0 V to 4.3 V are very similar. This seems to indicate the activation of various surface reactions when increasing the upper voltage to 4.4 V and above. These surface reactions seem to be dramatically hindered when the electrolyte additive ,2% VC + 1% MMDS + 1% A is used Conclusion The effect of different additive combinations on the cycling performance of LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2/graphite cells cycled to various upper voltage cut-offs and up to a maximum of 4.7 V has been evaluated. Results showed that 2% VC which is a very useful additive in 4.2 V cells yields very poor cycling performance for high voltage applications. Other additives combinations such as 2% VC + 1% MMDS + 1% A yield dramatically improved performance. This study also showed that the impedance spectra of cells cycled to 4.4 V and above dramatically change as the upper cutoff potential is increased.. Reference 1. J. C. Burns et al., J. Electrochem. Soc., 160, A1668–A1674 (2013).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→