Dramatic Effects of Low Salt Concentrations on Li-Ion Cells Containing EC-Free Electrolytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different concentrations of LiPF 6 (0.3 M–2 M) in ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) electrolyte and ethylene carbonate (EC)-based electrolyte were studied in LiNi 0.4 Mn 0.4 Co 0.2 O 2 (NMC442)/graphite pouch cells. Fresh cells containing 0.3 M LiPF 6 in EMC electrolyte showed extremely large charge transfer resistance while those with 0.3 M LiPF 6 in EC/EMC electrolyte did not. Impedance spectra taken on symmetric cells and ionic conductivity measurements suggest this difference is due to difficulty in dissociating and desolvating Li + ions from the EMC-based electrolyte to intercalate into both the electrodes. After elevated temperature storage experiments at 4.5 V, cells with 0.3 M LiPF 6 in EC/EMC showed a large increase in positive electrode charge transfer impedance, presumably caused by electrolyte oxidation. With salt concentrations greater than 1 M, charge transfer resistance was much smaller in EMC-based electrolytes and was stable during storage for both electrolyte types. Conductivity and cycle testing measurements suggest that 1.5 M LiPF 6 should be used in EC-free EMC-based electrolytes to optimize cell performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".