MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796666938 · doi:10.1021/acsaem.7b00307

Freezing of Aqueous Electrolytes in Zinc–Air Batteries: Effect of Composition and Nanoscale Confinement

2018· article· en· W2796666938 on OpenAlexafffund
Fanghui Liu, Hyun‐Joong Chung, Janet A.W. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Energy Materials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced battery technologies research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrolyteFreezing pointZincMaterials scienceChemical engineeringAqueous solutionElectrodeChemistryThermodynamicsMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zinc–air batteries, which typically employ aqueous electrolytes, have attracted much attention owing to their high energy density, low cost, and environmental friendliness. While the zinc–air battery is a promising solution for energy grid applications, freezing of the electrolyte is an important problem for operation in cold climates. The freezing point of the electrolyte can be affected not only by chemical composition but also by micro/nanoscale confinement in porous electrodes or separators, and this is the focus of our work. First, we find osmotic virial coefficients by fitting experimental freezing point data for various electrolytes that are used in zinc–air batteries. Second, we show how additives that improve the performance of the batteries may also lower the freezing point of the electrolyte system. Third, we show how the nanoscale confinement inside zinc–air batteries further decreases the freezing point; a 10 nm diameter capillary pore can suppress the local freezing point of the electrolyte by ∼10 °C. Finally, we map out the equilibrium mol% ice as a function of temperature, concentration, and confinement. This study provides insight that can be used to design specialized electrolytes for low temperature applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Energy MaterialsSame topicAdvanced battery technologies researchFrench-language works237,207