Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single‐ or Poly‐Crystalline Ni‐Rich Layered Cathode, Sulfide or Halide Solid Electrolyte: Which Will be the Winners for All‐Solid‐State Batteries?

Han, Yoonjae, Jung, Sung Hoo, Kwak, Hiram, Jun, Seunggoo, Kwak, Hunho H., Lee, Jong Hoon, Hong, Seung‐Tae, Jung, Yoon Seok·2021·Advanced Energy Materials

Abstract

Two newly emerging materials for application in all‐solid‐state batteries, namely, single‐crystalline Ni‐rich layered oxide cathode and halide solid electrolyte (SE), are of utmost interest because of their superior properties (good microstructural integrity and excellent electrochemical oxidation stability, respectively) to conventional polycrystalline layered oxides and sulfide SEs. In this work, four electrodes employing single‐ or polycrystalline LiNi 0.88 Co 0.11 Al 0.01 O 2 (NCA) and Li 3 YCl 6 or Li 6 PS 5 Cl 0.5 Br 0.5 are rigorously characterized by complementary analyses. It is shown that the synergy of employing cracking‐free single‐crystalline NCA and oxidation‐tolerable Li 3 YCl 6 can be achieved by considering intercoupled engineering factors that are prone to overlook, such as size, lightness, and mixing of particles. Accordingly, the highest level of performances in terms of discharge capacity (199 mA h g−1 at 0.1C), initial Coulombic efficiency (89.6%), cycling performance (96.8% of capacity retention at the 200th cycle), and rate capability (130 mA h g−1 at 4C) are demonstrated at 30 °C. Severe side reactions occurring at the Li 6 PS 5 Cl 0.5 Br 0.5/NCA interfaces are also quantified and probed. Importantly, an overlooked but significant contribution of the side reaction of Li 6 PS 5 Cl 0.5 Br 0.5 to the detrimental electrochemo‐mechanical degradation of polycrystalline NCA is revealed for the first time by postmortem scanning electron microscopy and operando electrochemical pressiometry measurements.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aenm.202100126

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 69 references

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Han, Y., Jung, S. H., Kwak, H., Jun, S., Kwak, H. H., Lee, J. H., Hong, S., & Jung, Y. S.
Venue
Advanced Energy Materials
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-17
Volume
11
Issue
21
ISSN
  • 1614-6832 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-6840
OpenAlex
W3153036406
Cited by
312
References
69
FWCI
15.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Single‐ or Poly‐Crystalline Ni‐Rich Layered Cathode, Sulfide or Halide Solid Electrolyte: Which Will be the Winners for All‐Solid‐State Batteries? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/aenm.202100126
The paper
Han, Y., Jung, S. H., Kwak, H., Jun, S., Kwak, H. H., Lee, J. H., Hong, S., & Jung, Y. S. (2021). Single‐ or Poly‐Crystalline Ni‐Rich Layered Cathode, Sulfide or Halide Solid Electrolyte: Which Will be the Winners for All‐Solid‐State Batteries? Advanced Energy Materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202100126

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.