In-Situ Formation of Low-Strain and Defect-Free Single Crystal NMC in Electrode Slurries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthesis of cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries usually results in agglomerations of single crystals. [1][2] Jet milling is commonly used in industry to deagglomerate cathode material powders. [3] However, dry grinding techniques can often lead to the introduction of defects, requiring a reheating step to reform pristine NMC. Wet milling in water has also been proposed, however, this results in lithium loss and crystal defects, again requiring additional drying and reheating steps are required to reform pristine NMC. [4][5] Here we report a low-strain and defect-free NMC deagglomeration method that is performed in-situ during the electrode slurry dispersion process. In this method, cathode material, conductive additive and binder are planetary milled in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP). This results in both the deagglomeration of cathode secondary particles and the formation of a well-dispersed electrode slurry. Figure 1(a-d) compares the SEM images of NMC samples deagglomerated by different dry grinding techniques and the in-situ slurry milling method. Figure 1(e) and (f) show lattice strains and the first cycle voltage curves of the same samples. In comparison to the dry grinding techniques, in-situ slurry milling was found to be more effective in secondary particle deagglomeration than dry methods and resulted in a single crystal NMC with the lowest lattice strain, lowest irreversible capacity, and highest coulombic efficiency. In fact, in-situ milling was found to reduce lattice strain compared to the original agglomerated cathode material, by relieving internal strains created at the grain boundaries of secondary particles. We believe that in-situ slurry milling is an effective method for NMC particle deagglomeration and improving NMC performance. References: [1] Zheng, L.; Bennett, J.C.; Obrovac, M.N. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020 , 167 , 130536. [2] Lee, S.-Y.; Park, G.-S.; Jung, C.; Ko, D.-S.; Park, S.-Y.; Goo Kim, H.; Hong, S.-H.; Zhu, Y.; Kim, M. Adv. Sci. 2019 , 6 , 1800843. [3] Gommeren, H.J.C.; Heitzmann, D. A.; Molenaar, J. A. C.; Scarlett, B . Powder Technol. 2000 , 18 , 147-154. [4] Kumakura, S.; Paulsen, J.; Yang, T.; Yang, H. Han, S.-Y. US 2020/0381727 A1, 2020. [5] Paulsen, J.; Kumakura, S.; Yang, T.; Kim, D.-H.; Yang, H. US 2021/0143423 A1, 2021. Figure 1
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".