Effective Stabilization of Organic Cathodes Through Formation of a Protective Solid Electrolyte Interface Layer via Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organic electrode materials offer a promising alternative for lithium‐ion batteries due to their lower costs, reduced environmental impact, renewability, and high theoretical capacity. Among them, 2,5‐dihydroxy‐1,4‐benzoquinone (DHBQ) is a promising cathode material, but its high solubility in electrolytes leads to rapid capacity degradation of the battery. This study investigates the dilithium salt of DHBQ, Li2DHBQ, as a cathode material for LIBs. Despite its minimal solubility in the electrolyte, Li2DHBQ cathodes suffer rapid capacity decay due to severe morphological damage within the voltage range of 1.5–3.0 V. To achieve morphological stabilization, we promoted the formation of a protective solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer on Li2DHBQ particles by lowering the discharge cutoff voltage. Cycling the battery with a 0.5 V discharge cutoff voltage achieved the optimal thickness and organic‐rich composition of the SEI layer, leading to significantly improved morphological stability of Li2DHBQ. Consequently, the battery maintained 170 mAh g−1 with a low decay rate of 0.16 % within a voltage range of 0.5–3.0 V after 200 cycles at 500 mA g−1. Furthermore, initial cycling with a discharge cutoff voltage of 0.5 V for 20 cycles to form an SEI layer, followed by cycling at a normal discharge cutoff voltage of 1.5 V, retained an even higher capacity of 187 mAh g−1 after 200 cycles at 500 mA g−1. These are significant improvements compared to the battery cycled only in the normal range of 1.5–3.0 V, which retained a capacity of 87 mAh g−1. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of forming a cathode SEI layer at low discharge voltages as a new approach to stabilizing organic cathode materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".