Abrasive Blasting of Lithium Metal Surfaces Yields Clean and 3D‐Structured Lithium Metal Anodes with Superior Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avoiding harmful passivation of the lithium metal surface during its implementation as an anode material is a challenge to its use in rechargeable lithium metal batteries. It is critical to control the chemical composition and the morphology of the native passivation layer and to avoid contamination by lubricants or other substances involved in the processing. Herein, abrasive blasting is used as a physical method to achieve clean and 3D‐structured lithium metal electrodes. The careful choice of the abrasive agent and the blasting parameters results in well‐controlled surface properties. The blasted lithium electrodes exhibit significantly lower overvoltages with values as low as 10 mV at 0.1 mA cm−2. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy shows that blasted lithium has interface resistances that are up to five times smaller than those of untreated lithium. The effectiveness of blasting as a cleaning method is clear even in the case of thicker and highly resistive passivation layers occurring after exposure to ambient air.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".