MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399295914 · doi:10.1002/aesr.202400035

A Facile Chemical Reduction Approach of Li–Sn Modified Li Anode for Dendrite Suppression

2024· article· en· W4399295914 on OpenAlexafffund
Amardeep Amardeep, Donald J. Freschi, Lingzi Sang, Jian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Energy and Sustainability Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsAnodeReduction (mathematics)Dendrite (mathematics)Materials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryMathematicsPhysical chemistryEngineeringGeometryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium dendrites are among the most significant threats associated with the practical application of lithium metal anode in lithium batteries. Lithium dendrites are caused by the slow Li‐ion diffusivity in the bulk lithium, which results in a non‐uniform electric field‐cum‐uneven Li plating/stripping at the electrode/electrolyte interface over prolonged cycling. Herein, a facile chemical reduction method is utilized to construct a Li‐ion diffusive Li–Sn protective layer on the electrolyte‐exposed surface of lithium metal to overcome the aforementioned challenge. A systematic study on the SnCl4 precursor concentration variation demonstrated that 25 mM SnCl4 concentration is the most effective and displays a cumulative areal capacity beyond 700 mAh cm−2 at 1 mA cm−2 for 1 h. Moreover, it exhibits superior cumulative capacities than bare Li metal at higher current densities of 2 and 3 mA cm−2. In situ optical microscopy reveals more uniform lithium deposition on the Li–Sn‐modified electrode, while mossy and dendritic lithium growth is observed on the bare lithium electrode. Full cells fabricated with Li–Sn modified anode and NMC532 cathode exhibited 83% capacity retention after 150 cycles, outperforming bare Li‐containing cells, which shows a catastrophic decay post 100 cycles, illustrating the propensity for safer Li metal batteries with Li–Sn modified anode.

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 score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Energy and Sustainability ResearchSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207