MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282919135 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v25i2.a02

Improving High-Temperature Cycle Stability and Rate Performance of LiNi0.82Co0.11Mn0.07O2 Cathode Materials Using Hydrogen Peroxide Solution Washing System

2022· article· en· W4282919135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seon‐Jin Lee, Hyun-Ju Jang, Jong-Tae Son

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of SMEs and StartupsKorea Institute for Advancement of TechnologyMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyNational Research Foundation
KeywordsOxidizing agentCathodeHydrogen peroxideAqueous solutionLithium (medication)Thermal stabilityChemistryMaterials scienceTitrationNuclear chemistryChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, for the removal of residual lithium (Li2CO3,LiOH) from a nickel-rich cathode material surface, LiNi0.82Co0.11Mn0.07O2 cathode materials were washed with an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).H2O2 ( pH6.04), a weak acid, can easily decompose Li2CO3 and LiOH as an oxidizing agent. On titration of residual lithium, the amounts of LiOH and Li2CO3 are 390 and 605ppm,25 - and 47 -times lower, after H2O2 washing compared to 10,296 and 28,440ppm, respectively, in case of cathode materials before washing. On DSC thermal analysis, the peak temperature and calorific value of the cathode material washed with H2O2 were 245.5∘C and 602.0 J/g, respectively, whereas the bare case was 208.6∘C and 1,071 J/g, respectively. Therefore, H2O2-washed LiNi0.82Co0.11Mn0.07O2 cathode materials had higher capacity heat retention after 100 cycles at 55∘C(85.6% at 0.5C) than the bare LiNi0.82Co0.11Mn0.07O2 cathode materials (78.6% at 0.5C).

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 score0.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical SystemsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207