LiFePO4-Graphene Composites as High-Performance Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries: The Impact of Size and Morphology of Graphene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we investigated three types of graphene (i.e., home-made G, G V4, and G V20) with different size and morphology, as additives to a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cathode for the lithium-ion battery. Both the LFP and the two types of graphene (G V4 and G V20) were sourced from industrial, large-volume manufacturers, enabling cathode production at low cost. The use of wrinkled and/or large pieces of a graphene matrix shows promising electrochemical performance when used as an additive to the LFP, which indicates that the features of large and curved graphene pieces enable construction of a more effective conducting network to realize the full potential of the active materials. Specifically, compared to pristine LFP, the LFP/G, LFP/G V20, and LFP/G V4 show up to a 9.2%, 6.9%, and 4.6% increase, respectively, in a capacity at 1 C. Furthermore, the LFP combined with graphene exhibits a better rate performance than tested with two different charge/discharge modes. Moreover, from the economic and electrochemical performance view point, we also demonstrated that 1% of graphene content is optimized no matter the capacity calculated, based on the LFP/graphene composite or pure LFP.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".