Different Positive Electrodes for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a potential to deliver 60% greater energy density than conventional lithium-ion batteries, the simple design of anode-free lithium metal cells with liquid electrolytes has generated significant research interest. However, without excess lithium, the short lifetime and safety concerns for cells cycling lithium metal with liquid electrolytes make the development of anode-free cells particularly challenging. Herein, we investigate the effect of four different positive electrode materials on the performance of anode-free cells—LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (NMC532), LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811), LiCoO2 (LCO), and LiFePO4 (LFP). In-situ electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and electrolyte degradation measurements were performed on cells with dual-salt LiDFOB/LiBF4 electrolyte to elucidate cell failure. Additional state-of-the-art electrolyte systems as well as other testing conditions (temperature, pressure, depth of discharge) were also explored, along with nail safety tests and calendar aging cycle-hold experiments. We show that the rate of lithium inventory loss and impedance growth differs amongst these cell chemistries, ultimately resulting in the shortest lifetime for NMC811 and the longest lifetime for LCO anode-free cells of 200 cycles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".