In operando and in situ characterization tools for advanced rechargeable batteries: Effects of electrode origin and electrolyte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the intricate interactions between electrodes and electrolytes during battery operation is critical for developing high-performance, long-lasting, and safe rechargeable batteries. Structural and chemical processes occurring within battery materials in real time can now be monitored using in situ and operando characterization techniques. In situ and operando electron microscopy and X-ray-based techniques are valuable because they directly reveal reaction pathways and degradation processes with high resolution across multiple length scales. This review first provides a detailed overview of these techniques, including the historical development of experimental setups, their working principles, and the specialized cell designs created for battery research. Recent studies are then discussed with a focus on Li-ion, Na-ion, all-solid-state, and aqueous battery systems. Special attention is given to how these techniques uncover ion insertion and transport processes, interfacial and side reactions, mechanical degradation, dendrite growth, and failure mechanisms. Ongoing efforts are expected in employing in situ and operando approaches to address critical research challenges, such as reaction inhomogeneity in commercial cathodes, fast charging, safe and reversible Li metal plating, and solid electrolyte interphase stabilization. A deeper understanding of component behavior across different battery chemistries is essential to improving current technologies and developing next-generation energy storage systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".