MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402162113 · doi:10.1016/j.nxener.2024.100176

A comprehensive review of silicon anodes for high-energy lithium-ion batteries: Challenges, latest developments, and perspectives

2024· review· en· W4402162113 on OpenAlexafffund
Ebrahim Feyzi, Anil Kumar M R, Xia Li, Sixu Deng, Jagjit Nanda, Karim Zaghib

Bibliographic record

VenueNext Energy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsLithium (medication)AnodeSiliconEngineering physicsNanotechnologyMaterials scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringOptoelectronicsChemistryPsychologyElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have become the predominant and widely used energy storage systems in portable electronic devices, such as video cameras, smartphones, laptops, and plug-in hybrid vehicles, along with in stationary energy storage applications like power banks and backup energy storage systems. Moreover, they are widely used in the latest models of all electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). However, to meet the demand for EVs and HEVs, notable improvements in commercially available LIBs are required. These include improving energy density, cycling life, power and rate capabilities, safety, and cost. In spite of the initial commercialization of LIBs in 1990 by Sony, current commercial LIBs still rely on graphite/carbon as the anode material, providing a theoretical capacity of approximately 372 mAh g−1. The search is on for viable alternatives to graphite with higher capacity materials, and silicon (Si) has emerged as a promising candidate with a theoretical capacity of approximately 4200 mAh g−1. However, Si anodes face several challenges, such as considerable volume expansion during the lithiation/delithiation process, which leads to significant crystallographic-related phase-induced stresses, continuous formation of a solid electrolyte interface (SEI), and cycle retention decay. The volume expansion caused by stress leads to the pulverization of Si electrodes. This results in the loss of electrical contact with the substrate or current collector, causing a significant and rapid decrease in capacity and ultimately leading to battery failure. This review explores the challenges associated with Si-based anodes, their underlying causes, and their comparative advantages over conventional anodes. Furthermore, the review discusses innovative solutions to address these challenges, such as utilizing novel binders, electrolyte additives, structural, interfacial, composite engineering techniques, and prelithiation methods. Finally, considering the material cost, the suggestion to transition entirely to using up to 100% wt. silicon for anode development is proposed, streamlining practical and commercial implementation in future LIBs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations111
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNext EnergySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207