MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904991212 · doi:10.1149/ma2018-02/5/309

Investigating Facet Selectivity of Li Deposition on Cu Current Collector for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries

2018· article· en· W2904991212 on OpenAlexaff
Yun‐Jung Kim, Hyungjun Noh, Seongmin Yuk, Jin Hong Lee, Hee-Tak Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnodeFaraday efficiencyOverpotentialCurrent collectorMaterials scienceElectrolyteNucleationBattery (electricity)ElectrochemistryLithium (medication)Current densityCathodeChemical engineeringElectrodeChemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Li metal is considered as one of optimal candidates for high-energy anode material because it has the highest theoretical specific capacity (3,860 mAh g -1 ) and the lowest redox potential (−3.04 V vs. standard hydrogen electrode). However, safety concerns and low coulombic efficiency issues, which are caused by the inhomogeneous Li deposition/dissolution and continuous corrosion by electrolytes during battery cycling, have prohibited the use of metallic Li as anode in practical Li metal batteries. Lithium metal batteries (LMBs), which replace graphite anode with Li metal from conventional lithium ion batteries (LIBs), are considered as the most realistic approach to increase energy density of rechargeable battery. Furthermore, an anode-free LMB which features the only use of current collector in the anode compartment is the design to maximize the energy density of LMB. Because the current collector could affect the nucleation behaviors at the initial state of Li plating and the morphological development of the subsequently plated Li, it is a key component for achieving cycling stability of anode-free LMBs. Cu current collector is the most widely adopted current collector for the anode of LIBs and LMBs due to its high conductivity, mechanical property, and electrochemical stability, but is known to have a large Li nucleation overpotential in comparison with Au or Ag. That is because the binding energies of Li atom on bulk Li is much larger than that of Li atom on bulk Cu (which are around 24~30 and 2.5~2.7 kcal mol -1 , respectively). Therefore, the surficial modulation of Cu current collector is needed to improve the affinity between Li metal and Cu and induce uniform initial Li deposition on Cu current collector. Cu collectors used for lithium ion battery, which are fabricated by electrodeposition method, have various crystalline facets on their surfaces. On the basis of the principle of nucleation and growth, the degree of crystalline misfit between adsorbent and substrate can vary depending on the surface facet of substrate. We believe that it can be a key principle for manipulating an initial Li nucleation mode on Cu substrate. In detail, we explore a facet selective Li nucleation and growth phenomenon on Cu and demonstrate that controlling the facet structure can improve the uniformity in Li deposition and the cycling stability. Preferential Li deposition on the Cu(100) plane is demonstrated by electrochemical analysis of the Cu single crystal surfaces and by EBSD analysis of the Li-deposited Cu surfaces. DFT calculations show that a difference in the Li adsorption energy during the initial Li deposition process among the Cu facets is responsible for the facet selectivity. A majorly (100) plane-orientated Cu foil fabricated with a simple annealing method has a more uniform Li nucleation with a 6-times higher nuclei density and a two-fold enhancement in the Li cycling stability compared with a conventional Cu foil with randomly oriented surface facets. The control of the surface facet provides a new design principle for the current collector of lithium metal batteries.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207