MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2736223571 · doi:10.1149/ma2017-02/1/42

(Battery Division Student Research Award Address) A Guide to Ethylene Carbonate-Free Electrolyte Making for Li-ion Cells

2017· article· en· W2736223571 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Ma, Rémi Petibon, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthylene carbonateElectrolyteDimethyl carbonateDielectric spectroscopyPassivationEnablingMaterials scienceCarbonateChemical engineeringChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectrochemistryNanotechnologyElectrodeChromatographyEngineeringOrganic chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The next generation of lithium ion cells for electric vehicles (EVs) requires longer lifetime and higher energy density. The use of electrolyte additives is one of the most effective ways of improving cell performance1–3. In this work, Li[Ni0.42Mn0.42Co0.16]O2 (NMC442)/graphite pouch cells demonstrate superb performance at high voltage when ethylene carbonate (EC)-free electrolytes, using a solvent mixture that is > 95% ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and between 2 and 5% of an “enabler”, are used. The “enablers”, required to passivate graphite during formation, can be vinylene carbonate (VC), methylene-ethylene carbonate (MEC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) or difluoro ethylene carbonate (DiFEC) among others. In order to optimize the amount of “enabler” added to EMC, gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used to track the consumption of “enabler” during the formation step. Storage tests, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), ultrahigh precision coulometry (UHPC), long-term cycling, differential voltage analysis and isothermal microcalorimetry were used to determine the optimum amount of enabler to add to the cells. It was found that the graphite negative electrode cannot be fully passivated when the amount of “enabler” is too low resulting in gas production and capacity fade. Using excess “enabler” can cause large impedance and gas production in most cases. The choice of “enabler” also impacts cell performance. Figures 1a and 1b show the amount of enabler left and the percentage of EMC trans-esterification as a function of the initial enabler content after the first cycle (formation) of cells at 40°C with a current of C/20 up to 4.4 V. The dashed blue line in Figure 1a is a line of slope 1. Comparing the data for cells with FEC in Figure 1a to the dashed blue line shows that only 2% FEC was consumed during formation even if the initial FEC content was 3, 4 or 5%. By contrast when MEC is used, the amount of MEC consumed increases with the initial MEC content, since only about 0.5% MEC is left when the initial MEC content was 5%. Figure 1b shows the percentage of EMC that underwent trans-esterification producing dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) 4, 5. The presence of lithium alkoxides caused by the reduction of linear alkyl carbonates results causes these trans-esterification reactions. Therefore, when trans-esterification of EMC occurs it is a signal that EMC was reduced at the graphite negative electrode during formation. References: 1. M. Nie, J. Xia, L. Ma, and J. R. Dahn, J. Electrochem. Soc., 162, A2066–A2074 (2015). 2. D. Aurbach, K. Gamolsky, B. Markovsky, Y. Gofer, M. Schmidt, and U. Heider, Electrochimica Acta, 47, 1423–1439 (2002). 3. K. Xu, Chem. Rev., 114, 11503–11618 (2014). 4. J.-Y. Eom, I.-H. Jung, and J.-H. Lee, J. Power Sources, 196, 9810–9814 (2011). 5. K. Kumai, H. Miyashiro, Y. Kobayashi, K. Takei, and R. Ishikawa, J. Power Sources, 81–82, 715–719 (1999). 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2510.289

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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