MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404019133 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-02/5/473

Study of the Consumption of Vinylene Carbonate in LiNi<sub>0.3</sub>Mn<sub>0.3</sub>Co<sub>0.3</sub>O<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Cells By Gas Chromatography Coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)

2014· article· en· W2404019133 on OpenAlexaff
Rémi Petibon, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDichloromethaneChemistryElectrolyteMass spectrometryChromatographyGraphiteAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Gas chromatography–mass spectrometryGas chromatographyAccelerator mass spectrometryDistilled waterElectrodeOrganic chemistrySolvent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The fate of VC during the first charge of LiNi 0.33 Mn 0.33 Co 0.33 O 2 /graphite cells was investigated using GC-MS measurements made on the electrolyte following a procedure described by Petibon et al. 1 . Experiments were also made to determine at which electrode VC reacts subsequent to the formation cycle. Experimental In order to measure the composition of the electrolyte at selected states of charge, the cells were first discharged to an open circuit potential near 0 V, and opened outside the glove box. The jelly roll was then put in a vial containing 10 mL of dichloromethane and shaken for 15 min. The supernatant was then filtered using a syringe filter. A few drops of the filtrate were added to a vial containing 10.0 mL of dichloromethane and 0.5 mL of distilled water, shaken for 5 min and set aside for another 5 min. The organic layer was then injected in the GC-MS for analysis. This procedure is described in detail in reference [1]. Results and discussion Figure 1 shows the amount of VC left in cells initially containing 2% VC charged to different voltage cut-off during the first charge (formation cycle), alongside the potential versus capacity curve. Figure 1 shows that while an important portion of the initial VC present in the cell reacts early on during the first charge (before a cell potential of 3.0 V), there is still a substantial amount of VC that reacts later on. This means that looking at the reduction peaks in the differential capacity versus voltage plots of the first few mAh of the first charge does not give a complete picture about the reactivity of additives. Figure 2 shows the amount of VC consumed in cells initially containing 2.2% VC or 4.6% VC and held at either 3.9 V or 4.2 V for 200 h at 40°C. At cell potentials of 3.9 V and 4.2 V, the graphite electrode is at the same potential (~80 mV vs Li/Li + ). This means that any difference in the amount of VC consumed between cells held at 3.9 V or 4.2 V is due to the positive electrode. Figure 2 shows that there is no real statistical difference between the amount of VC consumed whether cells are held at 3.9 V or 4.2 V. This indicates that there is no detectable amount of VC that is consumed (oxidized) at the positive electrode and that the negative electrode is responsible for the consumption of VC. This does not mean that VC cannot affect the positive electrode, however. Conclusion The fate of VC during cycling has been measured by GC-MS. The consumption of VC at different states of charge during the formation cycle showed that while a great amount reacts at the negative electrode early on (cell potential smaller than 3.0 V), there is still a substantial portion that is consumed afterward. In addition, measurements of the amount of VC consumed in cells held at different potentials suggested that there was no measurable amount of VC consumed at the positive electrode. Reference 1. R. Petibon, et al., “Study of major electrolyte components in Li ion cells using liquid-liquid extraction and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry” , submitted to J. Electrochem. Soc., Feb. 2014 *

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 AbstractsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207