A Review of Carbon-Composited Materials as Air-Electrode Bifunctional Electrocatalysts for Metal–Air Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metal–air batteries (MABs), particularly rechargeable MABs, have gained renewed interests as a potential energy storage/conversion solution due to their high specific energy, low cost, and safety. The development of MABs has, however, been considerably hampered by its relatively low rate capability and its lack of efficient and stable air catalysts in which the former stems mainly from the sluggish kinetics of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) and oxygen evolution reaction (OER) and the latter stems from the corrosion/oxidation of carbon materials in the presence of oxygen and high electrode potentials. In this review, various carbon-composited bifunctional electrocatalysts are reviewed to summarize progresses in the enhancement of ORR/OER and durability induced by the synergistic effects between carbon and other component(s). Catalyst mechanisms of the reaction processes and associated performance enhancements as well as technical challenges hindering commercialization are also analyzed. To facilitate further research and development, several research directions for overcoming these challenges are also proposed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".