MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2744629303 · doi:10.1149/ma2017-02/5/432

A Comparison of Thiospinel Mg Battery Cathode Materials: Mg<sub>x</sub>Ti<sub>2</sub>S<sub>4</sub> and Mg<sub>x</sub>Zr<sub>2</sub>S<sub>4</sub>

2017· article· en· W2744629303 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Bonnick, Xiaoqi Sun, Lauren Blanc, Linda F. Nazar

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercalation (chemistry)ElectrolyteBattery (electricity)CathodeMaterials scienceMetalAnodeOxideElectrodeTransition metalInorganic chemistryChemistryMetallurgyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search for batteries with higher volumetric energy densities than conventional Li-ion batteries has led to the pursuit of several new technologies including rechargeable Mg batteries. Mg metal is attractive as a negative electrode material because it has a higher volumetric capacity density (3833 mAh/mL) than Li metal (2062 mAh/mL), is the 8th most abundant element in the earth’s crust, is safe to handle in ambient atmosphere, and can be electrodeposited (charged) without the formation of dendrites.1 The seminal work by Aurbach et al. in 20002 established an electrolyte and a positive electrode material, the Chevrel phase (Mo6S8), that was paired with Mg metal to form the first rechargeable Mg battery. Mg2+ intercalation in host materials is more difficult than that of Li+ or Na+, displaying lower ion mobility in solid oxide hosts,3 a tendency toward conversion reactions,4 and a possibly higher desolvation energy penalty.5 In fact, the second material to reversibly intercalate Mg2+, without debilitating decomposition over more than 100 cycles, was only demonstrated last year: the thiospinel Ti2S4.6 Unfortunately, our attempts to insert (or remove) Mg2+ into other 1st row transition metal thiospinels were unsuccessful; however, Mg2+ can be reversibly intercalated from thiospinel Zr2S4, a 2nd row transition metal. Figure 1 shows the 1st discharge and charge of two coin cells using Mg foil anodes, Mg(CB11H12)2 in tetraglyme electrolyte and either a MgxTi2S4 or MgxZr2S4 electrode. We will present a comparison of the Mg intercalation into the Zr2S4 and Ti2S4 thiospinels, including Mg site occupancy, cell parameter variation, and Mg diffusion coefficients. In doing so, we will explore the crucial parameters that allow facile Mg2+ diffusion for consideration when designing new Mg2+ intercalation materials. References J. Muldoon, C. B. Bucur, and T. Gregory. Chem. Rev. 114, 11683-11720 (2014). D. Aurbach, Z. Lu, A. Schechter, Y. Gofer, H. Gizbar, R. Turgeman, Y. Cohen, M. Moshkovich and E. Levi. Nature 407, 724-727 (2000). E. Levi, Y. Gofer, and D. Aurbach. Chem. Mater. 22, 860-868 (2010). P. Canepa, G. Sai Gautam, D.C. Hannah, R. Malik, M. Liu, K.G. Gallagher, K.A. Persson and G. Ceder. Chem. Rev. 117, 4287-4341 (2017). L. F. Wan, B. R. Perdue, C. A. Apblett and D. Prendergast. Chem. Mater. 27, 5932-5940 (2015). X. Sun, P. Bonnick, V. Duffort, M. Liu, Z. Rong, K.A. Persson, G. Ceder and L. F. Nazar. Energy Environ. Sci. 1, 297-301 (2016). 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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