Paper-Supported Sodium Alginate Composite Separator Prepared by Polymer-Assisted Phase Separation for Lithium Ion Batteries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecofriendly and renewable properties are highly desirable for separators of lithium batteries, apart from the notorious safety issues. As a natural polysaccharide material, sodium alginate (SA) has outstanding biodegradability and biocompatibility and has usually been used for the binder of electrodes due to its high ionic conductivity. Herein, SA porous separators were initially prepared by a facile polymer-assisted phase separation in which polyethylene glycol (PEG) and acetonitrile acted as a pore-forming agent and an extraction solvent, respectively. The influence of PEG content on the pore formation was systematically investigated, and the uniform and continuous pore structures were successfully realized at the PEG content of 200–500 wt %. Additionally, the cellulose-based paper support (KP) and poly(vinylidene fluoride- co -hexafluoropropylene) porous coating (PVH) were adopted for the decent mechanical integrity of SA porous membranes. The prepared SA composite separators showed excellent thermal dimensional stability, high porosity, and good electrolyte wettability. Moreover, the polar features of SA endowed the composite separators with high ionic conductivity (4.8 mS cm –1 ) and lithium ion transference number (0.62). The strong depression capacity of lithium dendrites and a comparable electrochemical performance were also observed for the SA-based separators compared with the pure KP and commercial polyolefin separators.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it