Gas‐phase carbon coating of LiFePO<sub>4</sub> nanoparticles in fluidized bed reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4 or LFP) is a promising cathode material for large‐scale rechargeable lithium ion batteries. It suffers, however, from low ionic and low electronic conductivities. Size reduction to nanoparticles and uniform coating of conductive carbon overcome the conductivity issues. The conventional solid or liquid carbon coating processes drawbacks include the following: carbon excess; non‐uniform carbon layer; and undesired carbon type. Furthermore, economical liquid‐ and solid‐based carbon sources, being wastes derived from other industries, may also introduce impurities detrimental to the battery performance. This article presents a new fluidized bed chemical vapour deposition process (FB‐CVD) to coat carbon on LFP nanoparticles, with a secondary size representing particles of the Geldart's group B powders, through the pyrolysis of propylene. This gas‐phase process is used to overcome challenges in conventional carbon coating processes. Operating conditions including reaction time, gas residence time, reaction temperature, inlet concentration of propylene, and catalytic effect of LiFePO4 powders were investigated to produce C‐LiFePO4 (or C‐LFP) powders with desired mass and uniformity of coated carbon while avoiding sintering of the material. In addition, a mechanism for gas‐phase C‐LFP production from LFP is 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".