MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411209328 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c01331

Advanced Electrolyte Additives for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Classification, Function, and Future Directions

2025· article· en· W4411209328 on OpenAlexaff
K. Brijesh, M. Jareer, G. Lakshmi Sagar, P. Mukesh, A. Amudha, Debabrata Mandal, H.S. Nagaraja, Samaneh Shahgaldi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteLithium (medication)IonFunction (biology)Materials scienceChemical engineeringComputer scienceChemistryMedicineEngineeringOrganic chemistryInternal medicineElectrodePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are widely employed as energy storage devices, particularly in portable electronics and electric vehicles, owing to their high energy density and efficiency. Among the key components of LIBs, the electrolyte plays a crucial role in determining capacity, cycling stability, rate performance, the electrode/electrolyte interface, and overall battery efficiency. However, traditional electrolytes face significant challenges, including severe structural degradation and interfacial side reactions under high-voltage and high-temperature conditions. Protective layers, such as the cathode-electrolyte interphase (CEI) and solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI), are essential for addressing these issues. These layers inhibit electron transfer while allowing lithium-ion (Li + ) transport, preserving the structural and electrochemical integrity of the battery. A cost-effective strategy to further enhance the electrode–electrolyte interface and boost LIB performance is the incorporation of carefully designed electrolyte additives. While some articles discuss the use of electrolyte additives in LIBs, there is a lack of detailed studies classifying these additives based on their chemical composition-based grouping. Such a classification enables a more focused examination of the roles and mechanisms by which these additives improve LIB performance. This review paper bridges this gap by examining various electrolyte additives and their contributions to enhancing the safety and performance of next-generation LIBs. It provides valuable insights into the current progress and challenges associated with additives in liquid electrolytes. The article is organized into seven sections, addressing boron-based electrolyte additives (Section 2), sulfur-based electrolyte additives (Section 3), phosphorus-based electrolyte additives (Section 4), fluorine-based electrolyte additives (Section 5), and nitrogen-based electrolyte additives (Section 6). Each section discusses specific examples, the formation of SEI and CEI layers, and the electrochemical properties of these additives. Furthermore, the article concludes with a summary and outlook, advocating for continued advancements in electrolyte engineering for LIBs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C→Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→