Electrochemical Performances of Li-Ion Batteries Based on LiFePO<sub>4</sub> Cathodes Supported by Bio-Sourced Activated Carbon from Millet Cob (MC) or Water Hyacinth (WH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemical performances of Li-ion batteries based on LiFePO4(LFP) cathode supported by bio sourced activated carbon obtained from Millet Cob (MC) or Water Hyacinth (WH) were determined. The carbons were obtained by combustion prior to drying the raw materials of WH and MC, followed by steps of various chemical cleanings, were activated at the following different mass ratios of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and WH or MC respectively: KOH/WH 1:1, 2:1, and 5:1, and KOH/MC 1:1, 2:1, and 5:1.The physics properties (X-ray diffraction patterns, BET surface area, micropore and mesopore volume, conductivity, etc. ) and electrochemical performances (specific capacity, discharge at various current rates, electrochemical impedance measurement, etc.) were determined. The electrochemical performances of coin cells based on cathodes composed of 85% LiFePO4, 8% of these activated carbons, and 7% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a binder, with lithium metal as the anode were studied. Cycling tests and the discharge at different current rates of these cells based on the LiFePO4/C cathodes supported by the various activated carbons were achieved. It was found that the coulombic efficiency, the specific capacity and the discharge at different current densities of these cells were interesting for Li-ion batteries applications. It was shown that their Coulombic efficiency was at least 99% and was very close to that of the cell based on LFP/commercial graphite cathode. The specific capacity of the cells was correlated to the KOH/WH et KOH/MC. Overall, the electrochemical performances of cells based on LFP/MC and LFP/WH were correlated to the physics properties of the activated carbons of MC and WH. Their performances were also compared to those of cells based on LFP/graphite. It was found that cells based on activated carbon obtained from WH exhibited better performances than those from MC. For a given current rate and the same number of cycles, the specific capacity of the cells based on activated carbons of WH is very close to that based on graphite.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".