MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034328582 · doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ab9b96

Synthesis and Evaluation of Difluorophosphate Salt Electrolyte Additives for Lithium-Ion Batteries

2020· article· en· W3034328582 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Hall, Toren Hynes, C. P. Aiken, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryElectrolyteLithium (medication)Inorganic chemistryTetramethylammoniumSalt (chemistry)AmmoniumIonOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrolyte additive lithium difluorophosphate improves the lifetime of lithium-ion cells. This work presents the synthesis and evaluation of alternative difluorophosphate salt electrolyte additives. Ammonium difluorophosphate is readily prepared via a solid-state, benchtop reaction of ammonium fluoride and phosphorus pentoxide that requires only gentle heating to initiate. The best yield of sodium difluorophosphate (NaFO) in the present study was obtained by reacting difluorophosphoric acid and sodium carbonate in 1,2-diemethoxyethane over 3 Å molecular sieves. Tetramethylammonium difluorophosphate was prepared from NaFO via cation-exchange with tetramethylammonium chloride. NaFO is here reported to be a very good electrolyte additive, with similar performance in NMC532/graphite pouch cells as the lithium salt. The beneficial nature of both additives is attributable to the difluorophosphate anion. In contrast, ammonium and tetramethylammonium difluorophosphates are found to be poor electrolyte additives. For the former, this is suggested to be due to the formation of lithium nitride and hydrogen gas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207