MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184973615 · doi:10.1149/ma2021-017425mtgabs

Evaluating Solid Electrolyte Interphase Engineering for Rechargeable Aqueous Aluminum Metal Batteries

2021· article· en· W3184973615 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Dong, Kok Long Ng, Yijia Wang, Oleksandr Voznyy, Gisele Azimi

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteAqueous solutionOxideElectrochemistryBattery (electricity)TrifluoromethanesulfonateMaterials scienceChemical engineeringIonic liquidChemistryInorganic chemistryElectrodeNanotechnologyCatalysisMetallurgyOrganic chemistryPower (physics)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amongst various electrochemical energy storage technologies for renewable energy power grids, the aluminum metal battery (AMB) is arguably the most attractive given the high abundance and high theoretical volumetric/gravimetric capacity of metallic aluminum. The current generation of AMBs, however, utilizes a chloroaluminate ionic liquid (IL) that is intrinsically capacity limiting, highly corrosive, and hygroscopic. These limitations severely hinder the practicality of AMBs. To overcome these drawbacks, aqueous electrolytes are considered as attractive alternatives to ILs. However, their employment is troubled by the spontaneous formation of an ionically-passivating oxide film and hydrogen evolution on aluminum. Impressively, two solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) engineering methods have recently been proposed that seemingly resolves such problems to enable rechargeable aqueous AMBs. The first involves a 5 m (mol kg-1) Al(OTF)3 (aluminum trifluoromethanesulfonate) water-in-salt electrolyte that appears to delay hydrogen evolution by a SEI formed from the reduction of OTF- anions. The second involves an IL pretreatment process for the aluminum electrode, which is argued to be capable of simultaneously removing the native oxide layer and preventing its subsequent formation in aqueous solutions through an organic artificial SEI. Despite the promising results derived from the above methods, there is a lack of understanding for their underlying mechanisms and whether truly reversible aqueous AMBs were achieved. In this study, we reveal the (electro)chemical processes involved in each SEI-building method through a combination of computational, electrochemical and spectroscopic characterizations. We show that both methods unfortunately lack the ability to form stable and effective SEIs and enhancements to electrochemical performances observed in previous studies were largely misinterpretations of the data. Overall, hydrogen evolution remains as the sole cathodic reaction and no aluminum deposition can be achieved. This is the fundamental reason explaining the lower-than-expected voltages and cyclabilities of currently reported aqueous AMBs. To promote future research into enabling truly reversible aqueous AMBs, we offer suggestions for the design of more reliable electrolytes and interphases utilizing the insights gained in our investigation.

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207