MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2307417504 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-04/2/202

Metal Oxide Negative Electrodes for Na-Ion Cells

2014· article· en· W2307417504 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary Lee Brown, Stephanie Smith, M. N. Obrovac

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteOxideLithium (medication)ElectrodeSodiumMaterials scienceInorganic chemistryMetalIntercalation (chemistry)ElectrochemistryEnergy storageChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The desire for sustainable energy sources and energy storage materials has increased, in part, due to the increase in monetary and environmental cost for fossil fuels[1, 2]. Sodium ion batteries have the potential to fulfill these energy storage requirements on a large scale [1, 2]. Finding a suitable negative electrode material for sodium ion batteries is a challenge given that the most widely used negative electrode material for lithium ion batteries, graphite, does not intercalate sodium. Lithium reacts with simple metal oxides undergoing conversion reactions that deliver capacities of up to 1000 mAh/g [3, 4]. Analogous sodium reactions theoretically should react at lower potentials, making them promising candidates for negative electrode materials. In this work, several metal oxide materials undergoing possible conversion reactions were investigated by ex-situ and in-situ X-ray diffraction measurements of sodium cells. All of the oxides studied undergo conversion reactions in lithium cells. In sodium cells some underwent conversion reactions at low voltage, while some did not. Some oxides underwent conversion reactions at low voltages and have high volumetric capacities, making them interesting for use as negative electrodes in sodium cells. Experimental Electrodes comprised the active metal oxide, carbon black and polyimide binder in an 80/12/8 weight ratio. Electrodes were cycled in 2325 coin type cells with sodium or lithium metal counter/reference electrodes and 1M NaPF6 or LiPF6 in EC/DEC/FEC 3/6/1 electrolyte between 4.5 V - 2.5 V to 5 mV at rates C/10 and C/40 with a trickle discharge to C/20 and C/80, respectively. Results CuO is an example of an oxide that undergoes a conversion reaction with Na [5]. The voltage curve is reversible and occurs at a low average voltage with a reversible volumetric capacity of 1264 Ah/L. Figure 1 shows the voltage curve of a CuO/Na cell with ex-situ XRD measurements labelled along the first discharge. As the cell is discharged, the CuO peaks decrease as CuO is consumed and a broad peak appears around the most intense Cu metal peak at 43°. This suggests the following reaction with amorphous products, 2Na + CuO → Na2O + Cu Figure 2 shows the ex-situ measurements labelled along the first charge of the voltage curve. The Cu and Na2O peak intensity decreases with broad increase in the region containing the main CuO and Cu2O peaks between 35°- 40° as the cell is charged. The CuO influence could be from unreacted starting material. If this is true the following reaction could be occurring, Na2O + 2Cu → Cu2O + 2Na Figure 3 shows the ex-situ measurements labelled along the second discharge of the voltage curve. As the cell is discharged the broad Cu2O peak disappears and the broad Cu peak reappears. This suggests the amorphous reaction, 2Na + Cu2O → Na2O + 2Cu As suggested previously [5], the mechanism for the significant capacity found in the CuO/Na cell is difficult to determine due to formation of Cu2O. In this work, unexpected behaviour of metal oxides with sodium will be discussed. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support of this research by 3M Co. and NSERC. [1] Dunn B., Kamath H., Tarascon J.-M., Science, 334, 928 (2011). [2] Ellis B. L., Nazar L. F., Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science, 16, 168 (2012). [3] Poizot P., Laruelle S., Grugeon S., Dupont L., Tarascon J.-M., Nature (London), 407, 496 (2000). [4] Obrovac M. N., Dunlap R. A., Sanderson R. J., Dahn J. R., Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 148, A576 (2001). [5] Klein F., Birte J., Bhide A., Adelhelm P., Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 15, 15876 (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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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