MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2520874780 · doi:10.1149/ma2016-02/3/292

Comparative Study of Fluorinated and Non-Fluorinated Electrolytes in Li[Ni<sub>x</sub>Mn<sub>y</sub>Co<sub>z</sub>]O<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Pouch Cells

2016· article· en· W2520874780 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lin Ma, Jian Xia, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteEthylene carbonateGraphiteDielectric spectroscopyFaraday efficiencyElectrochemistryDiethyl carbonateMaterials scienceChemistryElectrodeOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fluorinated electrolyte system, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)/bis (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) carbonate (TFEC) (1/1 w/w), has shown promising performance when Li[Ni0.42Mn0.42Co0.16]O2(NMC442)/graphite pouch cells were operated at 4.5 V.1 Therefore Li[Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3]O2(NMC111), NMC442, Li[Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2]O2(NMC532), Li[Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2](NMC622), Al2O3 coated NMC532 and Al2O3 coated NMC622/graphite pouch cells were examined using the FEC/TFEC electrolyte system and compared to cells made with the traditional electrolyte solvent system: ethylene carbonate (EC)/ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (3/7 w/w). Both electrolyte systems contained 1M LiPF6 and 2% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (PES) plus 0.5% methylene methane disulfonate (MMDS) as electrolyte additives.2,3 This systematic study was performed using the ultra high precision charger (UHPC) at Dalhousie University, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), gas evolution measurements and long term cycling tests. A wide upper cut-off voltage window was explored during extensive UHPC testing (from 4.1 V to 4.6 V). The charge end-point capacity slippage, capacity fade, columbic efficiency (CE), impedance change during cycling and gas evolution were compared to measure the effects of different electrolyte solvents on different NMC/graphite pouch cells. Figures 1(a-d) show that the coulombic efficiency (CE) of the FEC/TFEC system is higher than that of the EC/EMC system for all uncoated NMC grades except for NMC622 when the upper cut-off voltage is 4.5 V. This suggests better long term cycling performance at high voltage when FEC/TFEC is used, except for NMC622. The reactions between charged NMC grades (4.5 V) and these two electrolyte systems at elevated temperatures were also investigated by accelerating rate calorimetry (ARC). Figures 1(g-h) show that FEC/TFEC does not affect the thermal performance of NMC532 and NMC622 compared to EC/EMC. However, the self-heating rate of charged NMC111 or charged NMC442 reaction with FEC/TFEC is higher than that of EC/EMC after a temperature greater than 150°C. This means that cell designers will need to may close attention to the impact of fluorinated solvents on cell safety. References: 1. J. Xia, M. Nie, J. C. Burns, A. Xiao, W. M. Lamanna, and J. R. Dahn, J. Power Sources. 307 (2016) 340–350. 2. K.J. Nelson, Jian Xia and J.R. Dahn, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 (2014) A1884-A1889. 3. J. Xia, N. N. Sinha, L. P. Chen, G. Y. Kim, D. J. Xiong and J. R. Dahn, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 (2014) A84-A88. 4. J. Xia, M. Nie, L. Ma and J. R. Dahn, J. Power Sources. 306 (2016) 233–240. Figure 1

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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