Revisiting the Impact of Anion Selection on Sulfur Redox Reaction Kinetics for High Sulfur Loading Lithium–Sulfur Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lithium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (LiTFSI) is widely used in lithium–sulfur (Li–S) battery electrolytes due to its stability with lithium polysulfides (LiPSs) and moderate compatibility with lithium metal anodes. However, LiTFSI presents environmental concerns due to its association with per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are environmentally persistent and potentially toxic, raises sustainability concerns. This research also reveals that LiTFSI limits sulfur redox reactions (SRRs), making it less effective than other lithium salts. Additionally, some salts previously considered incompatible with Li‐S systems due to their reactivity with LiPSs are demonstrated to perform effectively. For the first time, a protective, porous cathode electrolyte interphase (CEI) formed in situ through reactions between salt anions and LiPS is reported. The cells delivered a high specific capacity of 1230.8 mAh g −1 at 0.05 C with a sulfur loading of ≈6 mg cm −2 , limited lithium anode, maintaining a capacity retention of 76.2% after 100 cycles at 0.1 C. Under harsh conditions, such as high sulfur loading, lean electrolyte conditions (3 µL mg −1 ), and in anode‐free cells, the cells continued to deliver outstanding capacity. This work provides valuable guidelines for understanding and selecting lithium salts to advance electrolyte design for Li–S batteries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".