MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhanced cycling stability in Li-S batteries: CR-CTA modified GF separators with mechanistic insights and performance evaluation

2025· article· en· W4409718256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Razieh Fazaeli, Zhe Huang, Yonglin Wang, Hamid Aliyan, Yuning Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Power Sources · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCyclingMaterials scienceChemistryChemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries offer high theoretical energy density but face challenges like polysulfide dissolution and poor cycling stability. This study presents an innovative approach to improving Li-S battery performance by modifying glass fiber (GF) separators with a compound (CR-CTA) prepared from Congo Red (CR), a redox-active organic compound, and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), a cationic surfactant. The CR-CTA/SP/PVP-modified GF separator significantly enhances electrochemical properties, cycling stability, and ion transport, reducing the polysulfide shuttle effect and improving sulfur utilization. A Li-S battery using the CR-CTA/SP/PVP-modified GF separator achieved an initial capacity of 1153 mAh g −1 and retained 994 mAh g −1 (86.2 %) after 300 cycles at 0.5C. These results suggest that redox-active molecules like CR can serve as effective functional additives for separator modification, paving the way for high-performance energy storage devices. • CR-CTA-modified GF separator enhances Li-S battery cycling stability. • Innovative CR-CTA compound mitigates polysulfide shuttle effect in Li-S batteries. • Significant boost in sulfur utilization and long-term cycling efficiency. • Dual-modified separator shows 85.6 % capacity retention after 300 cycles. • Redox-active CR in separator improves ion transport and battery performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Power SourcesSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207