On the Cycling Performance of Na‐O<sub>2</sub> Cells: Revealing the Impact of the Superoxide Crossover toward the Metallic Na Electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Na‐O 2 batteries have attracted extensive attention as promising candidates for large‐scale energy storage due to their ultrahigh theoretical energy density. However, the poor cycling performance of Na‐O 2 batteries is one of the major challenges facing its future development. A novel Na‐O 2 battery using electrically connected carbon paper with Na metal as a protected anode is presented in this study. The O 2 − crossover from the cathode to anode partially contributes to the limited Coulombic efficiency, as well as the Na corrosion during the cycling process. For the cells with protected Na, the carbon paper maintains a pseudo‐equal potential with the Na metal and works as an artificial protective layer to suppress the detrimental side reactions caused by O 2 − and O 2 crossover toward the Na electrode. Furthermore, the short‐circuiting issue caused by Na dendrite growth also can be completely resolved. Consequently, the Na‐O 2 cells with protected Na exhibit two times higher discharge capacity and cycling stability compared with the cells using bare Na. These results indicate the crucial role of the Na anode in determining the overall cell performance and a rational design of anode can dramatically contribute to develop advanced Na‐O 2 batteries with longer lifespans and better cycling 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".