MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Co-precipitation of Ni-rich Me(OH)₂ Precursors for High Performance LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 Cathodes: A Review

2025· review· en· W4408913999 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Budiman Batara, Kaihua Xu, Kun Zhang, Wenchao Hua, Yaguang Peng, Wenze Liu, Yuhui Xu, Xueliang Sun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationCathodeMaterials scienceChemical engineeringMetallurgyNanotechnologyChemistryGeographyEngineeringMeteorologyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The LiNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 (NCM) cathode materials have emerged as critical components in lithium-ion batteries due to their high energy and power densities. The co-precipitation method is widely used in laboratory and industry settings to optimize the crystallinity, grain morphology, particle size, and sphericity of precursor materials, directly affecting NCM battery performance. This review addresses the nucleation mechanism and the thermodynamic and kinetic reaction processes of co-precipitation. The comprehensive effects of key parameters on precursor physicochemical properties are also systematically interpreted. Notably, precursor characterization and physicochemical properties, including impurity levels and tolerance limits relevant to production, are highlighted. Finally, optimization strategies for developing high-quality precursor materials toward commercialization are proposed. This systematic review provides a deeper understanding of precursor optimization and advances relevant theories for the development of NCM 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→