Rechargeable Zinc–Air versus Lithium–Air Battery: from Fundamental Promises Toward Technological Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As battery technologies that can potentially increase the energy density and expand application scenarios of the lithium‐ion batteries, rechargeable metal‒air batteries have attracted extensive research interests. Among a variety types of metal anodes investigated, zinc (Zn)‒air and lithium (Li)‒air batteries hold best prospects for real‐world applications and attract the most scientific community interests. It has been more than 10 years since Cho et al. first compared Li–air and Zn–air batteries, during which great progress has been made. In this review, these two representative metal‒air battery technologies are compared in view of the most recent progresses and improvements in the last decade, especially efforts that push these technologies toward real world applications. It starts with the fundamentals of Zn–air and Li–air batteries, and discusses the progress made in electrolyte design, anode protection, and cathode catalysts development. It ends with an evaluation of the current research state along with an overall future perspective. Such a comprehensive comparison of typical non‐aqueous and aqueous battery systems with a focus on practical application criteria would be a timely review of metal‒air battery development in the last decade, which shed light for fundamental and applied research, eventually leading to real‐world application.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".