The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chemical and Electrochemical Differences in Nonaqueous Li–O2 and Na–O2 Batteries
Abstract
We present a comparative study of nonaqueous Li-O2 and Na-O2 batteries employing an ether-based electrolyte. The most intriguing difference between the two batteries is their respective galvanostatic charging overpotentials: a Na-O2 battery exhibits a low overpotential throughout most of its charge, whereas a Li-O2 battery has a low initial overpotential that continuously increases to very high voltages by the end of charge. However, we find that the inherent kinetic Li and Na-O2 overpotentials, as measured on a flat glassy carbon electrode in a bulk electrolysis cell, are similar. Measurement of each batteries' desired product yield, YNaO2 and YLi2O2, during discharge and rechargeability by differential electrochemical mass spectrometry (DEMS) indicates that less chemical and electrochemical decomposition occurs in a Na-O2 battery during the first Galvanostatic discharge-charge cycle. We therefore postulate that reactivity differences (Li2O2 being more reactive than NaO2) between the major discharge products lead to the observed charge overpotential difference between each battery.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
From lithium to sodium: Cell chemistry of room temperature sodium–air and sodium–sulfur batteries
Adelhelm, P., Hartmann, P., Bender, C. L., Busche, M., Eufinger, C., & Janek, J. (2015) · Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology · doi:10.3762/bjnano.6.105 · Cited by 478
Eshetu, G. G., Elia, G. A., Armand, M., Forsyth, M., Komaba, S., Rojo, T., & Passerini, S. (2020) · Advanced Energy Materials · doi:10.1002/aenm.202000093 · Cited by 470
The critical role of phase-transfer catalysis in aprotic sodium oxygen batteries
Xia, C., Black, R., Fernandes, R., Adams, B., & Nazar, L. F. (2015) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/nchem.2260 · Cited by 298
Nanostructured positive electrode materials for post-lithium ion batteries
Wang, F., Wu, X., Li, C., Zhu, Y., Fu, L., Wu, Y., & Liu, X. (2016) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c6ee02070d · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- McCloskey, B. D., Garcia, J. M., & Luntz, A. C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-03-24
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1230-1235
- ISSN
- 1948-7185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996722839
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.33
- 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: Chemical and Electrochemical Differences in Nonaqueous Li–O2 and Na–O2 Batteries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jz500494s
- The paper
- McCloskey, B. D., Garcia, J. M., & Luntz, A. C. (2014). Chemical and Electrochemical Differences in Nonaqueous Li–O2 and Na–O2 Batteries. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz500494s
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.
