Reviving Anode Protection Layer in Na‐O<sub>2</sub> Batteries: Failure Mechanism and Resolving Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Na‐O 2 batteries are attractive for energy storage due to their high theoretical energy density. In order to alleviate Na dendrite formation, artificial protective coatings have been widely investigated in Na‐metal batteries (NMBs). Although it can be intuitive to expect transferable Na protection methodologies from NMBs to Na‐O 2 batteries, the performance of anode protection coatings in Na‐O 2 batteries remains obscure, because Na‐O 2 batteries undergo a unique reaction mechanism involving superoxide. Here, the effect of superoxide crossover on the polymeric Na protection layer in Na‐O 2 batteries is revealed, and an effective strategy to eliminate the implications of a superoxide‐sensitive protecting layer is proposed. Using polymeric alucone protected Na anode as an example, the alucone layer actually decomposes under superoxide attack and is incapable of facilitating long‐term cycling of Na‐O 2 batteries in sharp contrast to its stable performance in NMBs. By blocking superoxide crossover with solid‐state electrolytes (SSEs), significantly improved Na‐O 2 cell performance is demonstrated, recovering the Na dendrite suppressing effect of the alucone film. Benefiting from the synergistic effect of SSE and alucone layer, Na‐O 2 batteries can achieve a long life of 325 cycles at 0.2 mA cm −2 . This work indicates that the stability of the Na protection layer against superoxide should be taken into serious consideration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".