The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A perspective on the high-voltage LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 spinel cathode for lithium-ion batteries
Abstract
The LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 spinel is an attractive cathode candidate for next generation lithium-ion batteries as it offers high power capability with an operating voltage of ∼4.7 V and a capacity of ∼135 mA h g−1. However, its commercialization is plagued by severe capacity fade, particularly at elevated temperatures, in full cells employing a graphite anode. This perspective article provides an overview of the recent developments on understanding various factors that influence the electrochemical performance of the high-voltage spinel cathodes. The factors include the degree of cation ordering, Mn3+ content, morphology, and surface planes/compositions in contact with the electrolyte, which are influenced by synthesis and annealing conditions as well as cation doping. For example, samples with a {111} family of surface planes show superior performance. Recent magnetic measurements and examination of discharge profiles below 3 V have become valuable to get a more precise measure of the degree of cation ordering. Also, surface modifications and electrolyte additives have shown marginal gains. Although acceptable performances have been obtained in half-cells with a metallic lithium anode, capacity fade is seen in full cells with a graphite anode due to metal dissolution at the high operating voltage of 4.7 V and Li+ consumption by the steadily forming solid–electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer promoted by Mn/Ni deposition on the graphite surface. Based on the current understanding, future directions are pointed out.
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
Cites
Armand, M., & Tarascon, J.-M. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/451652a · Cited by 19,612
Cited by
An Outlook on Lithium Ion Battery Technology
Manthiram, A. (2017) · ACS Central Science · doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00288 · Cited by 1,771
Self-citationUnderstanding electrochemical potentials of cathode materials in rechargeable batteries
Liu, C., Neale, Z. G., & Cao, G. (2016) · Materials Today · doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2015.10.009 · Cited by 1,156
Radin, M. D., Hy, S., Sina, M., Fang, C., Liu, H., Vinckeviciute, J., Zhang, M., Whittingham, M. S., Meng, Y. S., & Van der Ven, A. (2017) · Advanced Energy Materials · doi:10.1002/aenm.201602888 · Cited by 677
Electrode–electrolyte interfaces in lithium-based batteries
Yu, X., & Manthiram, A. (2018) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c7ee02555f · Cited by 649
Self-citationLi, W., Dolocan, A., Oh, P., Celio, H., Park, S., Cho, J., & Manthiram, A. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms14589 · Cited by 466
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Manthiram, A., Chemelewski, K., & Lee, E.-S.
- Venue
- Energy & Environmental Science
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1339
- ISSN
- 1754-5692 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-5706
- OpenAlex
- W1987405424
- Cited by
- 625
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.76
- 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
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.