Degradation Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies of Nickel-Rich NMC-Based Lithium-Ion Batteries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The demand for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) with high mass-specific capacities, high rate capabilities and long-term cyclabilities is driving the research and development of LIBs with nickel-rich NMC (LiNi x Mn y Co 1− x − y O 2 , $$x \geqslant 0.5$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>⩾</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math> ) cathodes and graphite (Li x C 6 ) anodes. Based on this, this review will summarize recently reported and widely recognized studies of the degradation mechanisms of Ni-rich NMC cathodes and graphite anodes. And with a broad collection of proposed mechanisms on both atomic and micrometer scales, this review can supplement previous degradation studies of Ni-rich NMC batteries. In addition, this review will categorize advanced mitigation strategies for both electrodes based on different modifications in which Ni-rich NMC cathode improvement strategies involve dopants, gradient layers, surface coatings, carbon matrixes and advanced synthesis methods, whereas graphite anode improvement strategies involve surface coatings, charge/discharge protocols and electrolyte volume estimations. Electrolyte components that can facilitate the stabilization of anodic solid electrolyte interfaces are also reviewed, and trade-offs between modification techniques as well as controversies are discussed for a deeper understanding of the mitigation strategies of Ni-rich NMC/graphite LIBs. Furthermore, this review will present various physical and electrochemical diagnostic tools that are vital in the elucidation of degradation mechanisms during operation to supplement future degradation studies. Finally, this review will summarize current research focuses and propose future research directions. Graphic Abstract The demand for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) with high mass specific capacities, high rate capabilities and longterm cyclabilities is driving the research and development of LIBs with nickel-rich NMC (LiNi x Mn y Co 1− x − y O 2 , x ≥ 0.5) cathodes and graphite (Li x C 6 ) anodes. Based on this, this review will summarize recently reported and widely recognized studies of the degradation mechanisms of Ni-rich NMC cathodes and graphite anodes. And with a broad collection of proposed mechanisms on both atomic and micrometer scales, this review can supplement previous degradation studies of Ni-rich NMC batteries. In addition, this review will categorize advanced mitigation strategies for both electrodes based on different modifications in which Ni-rich NMC cathode improvement strategies involve dopants, gradient layers, surface coatings, carbon matrixes and advanced synthesis methods, whereas graphite anode improvement strategies involve surface coatings, charge/discharge protocols and electrolyte volume estimations. Electrolyte components that can facilitate the stabilization of anodic solid-electrolyte interfaces (SEIs) are also reviewed and tradeoffs between modification techniques as well as controversies are discussed for a deeper understanding of the mitigation strategies of Ni-rich NMC/graphite LIBs. Furthermore, this review will present various physical and electrochemical diagnostic tools that are vital in the elucidation of degradation mechanisms during operation to supplement future degradation studies. Finally, this review will summarize current research focuses and propose future research directions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it