MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411197888 · doi:10.1021/acs.chas.5c00047

Chemical Hazard Assessment of Vanadium–Vanadium Flow Battery Electrolytes in Failure Mode

2025· article· en· W4411197888 on OpenAlexafffund
Kourosh Khaje, Behzad Fuladpanjeh‐Hojaghan, Jürgen Gailer, Viola Birss, Edward P.L. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Chemical Health & Safety · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced battery technologies research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVanadiumFlow batteryFailure mode and effects analysisElectrolyteHazardBattery (electricity)Materials scienceMetallurgyChemistryThermodynamicsComposite materialElectrodePhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing demand for energy storage and the rising frequency of lithium ion battery failure events worldwide underscore the urgency of addressing the battery safety challenges. Ensuring the safe and reliable deployment of advanced battery technologies is paramount. Flow batteries present a promising solution for long-duration energy storage, yet their electrolytes pose potential hazards to human health and the environment. The largest scale vanadium–vanadium flow batteries have been reported in China, with a 100 MW/400 MWh system reportedly commissioned in 2022 and a 175 MW/700 MWh battery completed in December 2024. This is equivalent to 150–200 million liters of vanadium electrolyte. This study aims to assess the chemical hazards of the electrolytes in vanadium–vanadium flow battery during failure mode. There is little or no chemical hazard data for the electrolyte mixtures, and the hazard assessment was thus based on chemical reactivity and toxicity data for the individual electrolyte components. Potential failure modes are identified with overcharging (or high cell voltages) in particular presenting potential hazards due to the possible production of toxic gases. Depending on the electrolyte composition, these conditions could result in the evolution of Cl 2, SO 2, H 2 S, or PH 3 gases, with immediate associated risks for human health. The two main all-vanadium flow battery chemistries use either sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid/HCl mixtures as the supporting electrolyte, with low concentrations of phosphoric acid often included in the sulfuric acid systems. The sulfuric acid–based cells generate oxygen and hydrogen at the positive and negative half-cell electrodes, respectively, during overcharge. On the other hand, the mixed H 2 SO 4 /HCl-based chemistries produce chlorine at the positive electrode during overcharge and potentially under normal charging conditions at high states-of-charge if the flow-rate is insufficient. Vanadium electrolytes containing chloride ions therefore present the most significant toxicity hazards in failure mode. The inherently safe design of battery management and control systems, along with electrolyte containment, is an essential measure to ensure safe flow battery operation. The next step involves designing controlled experiments to study overcharging effects on the electrolyte stability and degradation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Chemical Health & SafetySame topicAdvanced battery technologies researchFrench-language works237,207