Electrochemically-driven formation of Intermetallic Cu3ZnLi2 alters Li-transport in nanostructured bimetallic battery anode

Baptiste Gault; Eric V. Woods; Jian Liu; J. Manoj Prabhakar; Mahander P. Singh; Matic Jovivcevic-Klug; Patricia Jovivcevic-Klug; Siyuan Zhang; Stefan Zaefferer; Xinren Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Electrochemically-driven formation of Intermetallic Cu3ZnLi2 alters Li-transport in nanostructured bimetallic battery anode

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cycling alone turns a brass battery current collector into a lithium-trapping intermetallic.

desk verdict A careful multi-technique study that likely identifies a new Li-sequestration mechanism in brass current collectors, though the phase ID needs a bit more quantitative closure before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21673 v4 pith:WKBHU3B3 submitted 2025-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Eric V. Woods , Xinren Chen , Yuwei Zhang , J. Manoj Prabhakar , Patricia Jovivcevic-Klug , Matic Jovivcevic-Klug , Mahander P. Singh , Yujun Zhao

show 5 more authors

Siyuan Zhang Stefan Zaefferer Jian Liu Yug Joshi Baptiste Gault

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords lithium-metalbatteriesanode-freecurrentcollectorsbrassCu-ZnelectrodesLavesphaseCu3ZnLi2deadlithiumnanocrystallinemicrostructureatomprobetomography4D-STEMmapping

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports that an anode-free lithium-metal cell with a polished α-brass (Cu63Zn37) current collector changes its own current collector while running: after 100 charge/discharge cycles, the original 80 nm nanocrystalline surface layer has grown into a 200–250 nm interlayer containing the ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2. The central claim is that this phase forms purely by electrochemical cycling, without any prior synthesis step, and that it only partially decomposes when lithium is stripped away. The lithium left inside the phase and in nearby pocket-like voids is effectively 'dead Li' — it no longer participates in cycling — and the paper attributes part of the observed capacity loss to this sequestration. If true, this means bimetallic current collectors are not passive scaffolds: their microstructure evolves during battery operation, and binary alloys must be screened for metastable ternary phases that can trap lithium.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2 — an intermetallic compound of copper, zinc, and lithium in the Laves structure — together with a 'conversion front' that marks the depth at which lithium concentration drops to zero and the lithiated interlayer gives way to brass. The phase is the key evidence: GIXRD fixes its presence and approximate volume fraction, 4D-STEM fixes its nanoscale location and grain size, cryo-APT fixes its local stoichiometry and Li distribution, and DFT convex-hull calculations supply the thermodynamic reason it survives stripping. The conversion front, tracked by APT and STEM-EDX composition profiles, is what connects the phase formation to bulk microstructural change: zinc depletion, vacancy fluxes, and recrystallization continue below the front, so the interlayer thickens over cycling.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be high-resolution cryogenic diffraction (synchrotron or neutron) of the same cycled and stripped brass electrode: if the 22° peak and the full Cu3ZnLi2 pattern are absent, or if the pattern is fully accounted for by LiOH, brass, and Zn-containing phases, the central phase-formation claim fails. In parallel, atom-probe reconstructions with Li-specific evaporation and trajectory corrections should be compared: if the Li-rich pockets disappear under those corrections, the 'dead Li in the Laves phase' part of the claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that electrochemical cycling alone creates a ternary Laves phase, Cu3ZnLi2, in a nanocrystalline brass current collector and thereby changes how lithium moves through the electrode. Evidence comes from grazing-incidence X-ray diffraction, where the phase's signature peak at 22° appears after 100 cycles and decreases but does not vanish after lithium stripping; Rietveld refinement gives 8.1 wt% Cu3ZnLi2 when plated and 6.5 wt% when stripped; 4D-STEM phase mapping identifies the phase in ~10 nm grains in the deformed layer; and cryo atom-probe tomography shows Li-rich pockets and zones whose Cu:Zn ratio approaches 3:1. The paper further argues the phase is thermodynamically stable at room temperature because it lies on the computed Cu-Zn-Li convex hull, which explains why stripping removes only part of it. The remaining Li constitutes dead Li, and a mechanism of fast grain-boundary lithium diffusion, rapid zinc out-diffusion, Kirkendall vacancy flows, dezincification stresses, and dynamic recrystallization is proposed to account for the conversion front that advances hundreds of nanometers below the original surface.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 10 nm-scale overlapping grains indexed as Cu3ZnLi2 really are that phase, and that the Li-rich pockets seen in the atom-probe reconstructions are real material rather than reconstruction artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

After 100 cycles, roughly 10–15 at.% lithium remains in the stripped brass electrode, so a fraction of the plated lithium is permanently lost to the collector rather than to SEI growth alone.
The 80 nm nanocrystalline layer is not the stable electrode surface; it transforms into a 200–250 nm layer with recrystallized grains, so performance models of anode-free cells should treat the collector microstructure as time-dependent.
Rietveld-derived Cu3ZnLi2 volume fraction drops only from 8.1% to 6.5% upon stripping, meaning most of the ternary phase resists delithiation and continues to trap Li in later cycles.
Zn depletion and new grain formation extend roughly 500 nm below the conversion front, so the electrochemically affected zone is much deeper than the Li-containing layer itself.
The first-cycle behavior already deviates from Cu foil (81% vs 65.3% initial Coulombic efficiency), showing that Li-Zn alloying and sequestration begin before the Laves phase is fully established.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the thermodynamic convex-hull argument is right, the same screening logic should apply to other binary alloys that can react with Li, such as Cu-Sn, Zn-Sn, or Ni-Zn collectors, where cycling-driven ternary phases may also trap lithium.
A testable extension would be to interrupt cycling near the observed capacity inflection around cycle 40 and map the conversion-front depth at that point; this would directly date the phase formation and test the proposed mechanism's time sequence.
The association of Li-rich pockets with grain boundaries and triple points implies that the grain-boundary density of the deformed layer controls how much dead Li accumulates; a deliberately coarse-grained or single-crystal brass collector should show less Li retention if the mechanism holds.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper for one observation: after 100 cycles of an anode-free Li-metal cell, the nanocrystalline surface layer of a CuZn37 brass current collector partially converts to the ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2, and the phase survives stripping, trapping Li as “dead Li.” Prior work made Cu3ZnLi2 by smelting or molten-metal routes; this is the first claim that electrochemical cycling alone does it. If correct, that is a genuinely useful addition to the battery-materials subfield.

The paper does a lot of things right. The evidence is multi-modal: GIXRD with Rietveld, 4D-STEM phase mapping, STEM-EDX, cryo-APT, and XPS depth profiles. The cryogenic transfer chain for APT is a real strength, and the authors are upfront about the difficulty of indexing 10 nm overlapping deformed grains and about trajectory-aberration effects in APT Li quantification. The thermodynamic plausibility of Cu3ZnLi2 is backed by published DFT convex-hull data. They also explicitly admit that the dynamic-recrystallization and Ostwald-ripening story is inferred from only the initial and final states.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The stress-test note is on target: the 4D-STEM map gives ~20% volume fraction of Cu3ZnLi2 while the Rietveld refinement gives 8.1 wt% (plated) and 6.5 wt% (stripped), a factor-of-2.5 gap that is not reconciled. The GIXRD fit is reported only as χ² values and phase fractions, with no residual plot or hkl assignment, and no test of alternative phase combinations is shown. Given that the 22° peak is the load-bearing signature, that is a genuine gap. The APT Li-rich pockets are suggestive but, as the authors note, could be influenced by trajectory aberrations. None of this makes the central claim wrong; it means the phase ID needs tighter quantitative closure.

Minor issues: the electrochemical data in Fig. 1 lack error bars (though three replicates are mentioned), and the data are “available upon request” rather than deposited. Neither is disqualifying.

Who gets value from this? Researchers working on anode-free Li-metal batteries, alloy current collectors, and metastable-phase formation during cycling. It deserves a serious referee: the central observation is novel, the microscopy is thorough, and the limitations are acknowledged rather than hidden. I would send it to peer review with a request for a robustness check on the phase assignment—residual plots, an alternative-phase search, and a direct reconciliation of the 4D-STEM vs Rietveld volume fractions. That is the difference between a strong communication and a definitive one.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a post-mortem microstructural study of an α-brass (Cu-37% Zn) current collector cycled 100 times in an anode-free Li-metal half-cell. The authors find that the initially ~80 nm nanocrystalline surface layer transforms into a 200–250 nm interlayer containing the ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2, as indicated by GIXRD Rietveld refinement, 4D-STEM phase indexing, STEM-EDX, cryo-APT, and XPS depth profiling. After Li stripping, the phase partially decomposes but residual Li remains sequestered, contributing to 'dead Li' and capacity loss. A mechanistic explanation involving Zn diffusion, Kirkendall vacancy fluxes, stress-driven dynamic recrystallization, and Ostwald ripening is proposed. The paper claims that electrochemical cycling alone can drive the formation of this ternary phase, which has implications for the use of nanostructured bimetallic current collectors in anode-free batteries.

Significance. If the central phase-formation claim is correct, this is a valuable contribution: it identifies a previously unobserved electrochemical route to a ternary Laves phase in a working battery, with a direct link to capacity fade through Li sequestration. The study is also notable for its multi-modal characterization—cryo-APT with vacuum transfer, 4D-STEM, GIXRD, and XPS—which is an exemplary experimental effort for a challenging beam-sensitive system. However, the significance is conditional on the phase identification of Cu3ZnLi2 being quantitatively closed; currently the phase fraction discrepancy between 4D-STEM and Rietveld refinement and the absence of an alternative-phase test leave a correctness risk in the primary claim.

major comments (3)

[Results, Fig. 2(d), Supplementary Table T1] The phase assignment of Cu3ZnLi2 is load-bearing but not quantitatively closed. The 4D-STEM phase map reports an estimated 20 vol% Cu3ZnLi2, while the Rietveld refinement of GIXRD gives 8.1 wt% in the plated state and 6.5 wt% in the stripped state; this factor-of-2.5 discrepancy is not reconciled in the text. The authors themselves state that the 10 nm-scale overlapping deformed grains made unambiguous indexing of overlapping diffraction patterns difficult. Since the central claim is that electrochemical cycling forms Cu3ZnLi2 and that this phase sequesters Li, the manuscript should either reconcile the two phase fractions within stated uncertainties or explicitly bound the uncertainty in both measurements.
[Results, Fig. 1(d) and Supplementary Table T1] The GIXRD evidence for Cu3ZnLi2 is not demonstrated to be unique. The reported χ² values (5.5 without amorphous, 27.5 with amorphous) and the phase list are given, but no Rietveld residual plot, no hkl assignments, and no search over alternative phase combinations are shown. Given that the phase library already includes LiOH, Li2Zn3, Zn3P3, Cu0.7Zn2, and Zn(OH)2, the authors should test whether the full diffraction pattern, including the 22° peak, can be fit without invoking Cu3ZnLi2, using e.g. combinations of known Cu–Zn–Li phases and mixtures of the listed phases, and report the resulting goodness-of-fit comparison.
[Discussion and Methods (APT section)] The cryo-APT data are presented as supporting evidence for Li-rich pockets and Cu3ZnLi2-like compositions, but the authors note that Li field evaporates faster than the surrounding matrix and that trajectory aberrations can cause intermixing (Fig. 2(k); Methods, APT). The 3:1 Cu:Zn ratio in the 1D profile is consistent with Cu3ZnLi2, but this ratio is also the average interlayer composition from STEM-EDX (75 at.% Cu, 25 at.% Zn), and the Li concentration is subject to reconstruction artifacts. The authors should quantify the expected trajectory-aberration effect on the reconstructed Li concentration (e.g., via a simple simulation or reference to published correction factors) or explicitly temper the claim that the APT data certify the Laves phase; as written, the APT data are suggestive but not conclusive.

minor comments (5)

[Discussion (Ostwald ripening paragraph)] In the paragraph discussing Ostwald ripening, 'Figure 34(e)' should read 'Figure 4(e)'.
[Results, Fig. 1(d) and accompanying text] The text mentions 'LiOH & Li(OH)2' as products of Li reaction with atmospheric moisture; Li(OH)2 is not a standard chemical formula, so this should be corrected to LiOH, Li2O, or the appropriate hydrated species.
[Abstract and Experimental Methods] The brass composition is given as 'Cu 63% Zn 37%' without specifying at.% or wt.%; please add the unit for clarity.
[Figures 2 and 3] The STEM-EDX at.% maps would benefit from visible scale bars and color scales; currently the color scales are only described qualitatively in the text, making quantitative comparisons across figures difficult.
[Figures 2(g) and 3(e)] The notation 'functionally equivalent APT region' is vague; please specify the spatial correspondence (e.g., same lamella, same depth range) or provide marked overlays.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the phase-formation claim rests on independent diffraction, microscopy, and APT evidence plus external DFT, with only non-load-bearing method self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental observation study, not a derivation of a prediction from a fitted input. The central claim—that cycling nanocrystalline CuZn37 brass forms a Li-bearing ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2 that partially persists after stripping and sequesters Li as 'dead Li'—is supported by GIXRD Rietveld refinement, 4D-STEM indexing, STEM-EDX, XPS, and cryo-APT measurements. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the conclusion; the Rietveld phase fractions are fitted outputs reported as measurements, and the capacity-fade observation is independent of the phase identification. The thermodynamic stability of Cu3ZnLi2 is attributed to external DFT work (refs 38-39), not to the present authors' prior results, and it is used to rationalize partial reversibility rather than to construct the observation. The self-citations present (refs 27, 47-48, 76-77) concern cryogenic transfer, APT reconstruction, and EELS data-processing methods; they do not carry the load of the phase-formation or dead-Li claim. The paper's acknowledged difficulty in unambiguously indexing overlapping 10 nm grains and the apparent mismatch between the 20% 4D-STEM phase fraction and the 8.1 wt% Rietveld value are evidence-quality/correctness concerns, not circularity: the phase assignment is not equivalent by construction to an input parameter, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. I find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to make the central claim; the evidence is observational and the mechanism uses established diffusion and thermodynamic concepts from cited literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cu and Li are immiscible at room temperature according to the equilibrium phase diagram.
Used in the Introduction to frame the observation that any Li-Cu mixing is metastable and electrochemically driven.
domain assumption Li diffuses about three orders of magnitude faster along grain boundaries than through bulk Cu (ref 57).
Central to the proposed mechanism in which Li pockets form along grain boundaries in the nanocrystalline layer (Discussion, Fig. 5a).
domain assumption Zn diffuses faster than Cu in brass, with strong grain-boundary enhancement (refs 60-65).
This unbalanced flux is the basis for the Kirkendall-vacancy and Zn-depletion mechanism proposed to control conversion-front progression.
domain assumption Cu3ZnLi2 is thermodynamically stable at 300 K per prior DFT convex-hull calculations.
Used to explain why the phase persists after stripping; the calculation is cited from refs 38/39, not reproduced in this paper.
domain assumption Kirkendall vacancy flow and Vegard's-law-type stresses drive recrystallization in the Zn-depleted region.
Standard metallurgical framework invoked to connect Zn depletion to stress and dynamic recrystallization; not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrochemically-driven formation of Intermetallic Cu3ZnLi2 alters Li-transport in nanostructured bimetallic battery anode." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKBHU3B3

@misc{pith2026250721673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrochemically-driven formation of Intermetallic Cu3ZnLi2 alters Li-transport in nanostructured bimetallic battery anode},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKBHU3B3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21673}
}

read the original abstract

The role of Li-based batteries in the electrification of society cannot be understated, however their operational lifetime is often limited by the formation of dendrites, i.e. the localised deposition of Li that can cause shorts between the two electrodes leading to the failure of the battery. Nanocrystalline bimetallic current collectors can be used for anode-free Li-metal batteries, with improved Li plating and limited or suppressed formation of dendrites. Here, we demonstrate that the microstructure of an alpha-Brass current collector, Cu 63% Zn 37%, used in an anode-free Li-metal battery evolves during cycling. It initially had a nanocrystalline deformation layer approximately 80 nm in thickness after polishing. After 100 cycles, the initial deformed brass layer was partially converted to a ternary Laves phase Cu3ZnLi2 within a nanocrystalline brass matrix that grew to 200 - 250 nm in thickness. Upon Li stripping, the phase partially decomposes electrochemically, but what remains can sequester Li thus forming "dead Li" thereby contributing to capacity loss. We propose a mechanism for the microstructural evolution including dynamic recrystallization and phase formation. Since this ternary Laves phase emerges during electrochemical cycling alone, binary alloy current collectors must be assessed for metastable ternary phase formation under different cycling conditions to either stabilize and exploit such phases or electrochemically fully strip them.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

[1]

Huang, H

Y. Huang, H. Yang, Y. Gao, G. Chen, Y. Li, L. Shi, D. Zhang, Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2024, 8, 1282

work page 2024
[2]

L. Yang, N. M. Hagh, J. Roy, E. Macciomei, J. R. Klein, U. Janakiraman, M. E. Fortier, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2024, 171, DOI 10.1149/1945-7111/ad4ff2

work page doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ad4ff2 2024
[3]

X. Cui, J. Wang, S. Sun, X. Chen, Y. Wang, D. Han, J. Wang, X. Yao, W. Yan, Energy & Fuels 2025, 39, 7665

work page 2025
[4]

G. Lai, Y. Zuo, C. Fang, Z. Huang, T. Chen, Q. Liu, S. Cui, J. Zheng, npj Computational Materials 2025, 11, DOI 10.1038/s41524-025-01615-4

doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01615-4 2025
[5]

Sandoval, D

S. Sandoval, D. Nelson, H. Sridhara, T. Thomas, J. Lewis, K. Cavallaro, P. Shevche nko, N. Dasgupta, F. Usseglio-Viretta, D. Finegan, M. McDowell, 2025, DOI 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-1hflr

work page doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-1hflr 2025
[6]

Y. Lei, K. Wang, S. Jiang, X. Xu, J. Zheng, J. Yin, Y. Gao, ChemElectroChem 2024, 11, DOI 10.1002/celc.202300702

work page doi:10.1002/celc.202300702 2024
[7]

K. Ryu, K. Lee, J. Lim, M. J. Lee, K.-H. Kim, U. H. Lee, B. L. D. Rinkel, K. Kim, S. Kim, D. Kim, D. Shin, B. McCloskey, J. Kang, S. W. Lee, Energy & Environmental Science 2024, 17, 7772

work page 2024
[8]

K. Gao, L. Sun, K. Wang, Y. Zhang, Materials Today Energy 2023, 37, DOI 10.1016/j.mtener.2023.101413

work page arXiv 2023

Show all 78 references

[9]

G. X. Li, P. Lennartz, V. Koverga, R. Kou, A. Nguyen, H. Jiang, M. Liao, D. Wang, N. Dandu, M. Zepeda, H. Wang, K. Wang, A. T. Ngo, G. Brunklaus, D. Wang, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2024, 121, e2311732121

2024
[10]

H. Feng, Y. Z hao, A. Huang, J. Zhong, J. Xu, Journal of Power Sources 2025, 630, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2024.236154. 21

2025
[11]

C. Wang, Y. Liu, W. J. Jeong, T. Chen, M. Lu, D. L. Nelson, E. P. Alsac, S. G. Yoon, K. A. Cavallaro, S. Das, D. Majumdar, R. Gopalaswamy, S. Xia, M. T. McDowell, Nat Mater 2025, DOI 10.1038/s41563- 025-02198-7

2025 doi
[12]

N. Li, X. Han, X. Cui, C. Xu, C. Mao, X. Dai, W. Xue, Advanced Functional Materials 2024, 35, DOI 10.1002/adfm.202409431

2024 doi
[13]

J. Seo, J. Lim, H. Chang, J. Lee, J. Woo, I. Jung, Y. Kim, B . Kim, J. Moon, H. Lee, Small 2024, 20, e2402988

2024
[14]

B. T. Heligman, K. J. Kreder, A. Manthiram, Joule 2019, 3, 1051

2019
[15]

M. An, H. Wang, W. Cheng, G. Li, S. Liu, X. Gao, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2023, 966, DOI 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.171619

2023
[16]

S. Y. Sayed, C. Reese, Y. Kim, A. K. Sachdev, International Materials Reviews 2025, DOI 10.1177/09506608251318467

2025 doi
[17]

Jeong, J

H. Jeong, J. Jang, C. Jo, Chemical Engineering Journal 2022, 446, DOI 10.1016/j.cej.2022.136860

2022
[18]

Q. Yun, Y. B. He, W. Lv, Y. Zhao, B. Li, F. Kang, Q. H. Yang, Adv Mater 2016, 28, 6932

2016
[19]

Y. Ma, X. Ma, J. Bai, W. Xu, H. Zhong, Z. Liu, S. Xiong, L. Yang, H. Chen, Small 2023, 19, 2301731

2023
[20]

T. Xia, T. Liang, Z. Xiao, J. Chen, J. Liu, S. Zhong, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2020, 831, DOI 10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.154801

2020
[21]

Zhang, J

N. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Zhao, C. Wang, J. Wang, J. Wang, Batteries & Supercaps 2022, 6, DOI 10.1002/batt.202200373

2022 doi
[22]

Zhang, A

D. Zhang, A. Dai, M. Wu, K. Shen, T. Xiao, G. Hou, J. Lu, Y. Tang, ACS Energy Lett ers 2019, 5, 180

2019
[23]

Zheng, Q

H. Zheng, Q. Zhang, Q. Chen, W. Xu, Q. Xie, Y. Cai, Y. Ma, Z. Qiao, Q. Luo, J. Lin, L. Wang, B. Qu, B. Sa, D.-L. Peng, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2020, 8, 313

2020
[24]

Q. Zhao, L. Zhang, T. Li, X. Zheng, X. Chen, W. Huang, Q. Xion g, Y. Zhang, Electrochimica Acta 2024, 489, 144294

2024
[25]

D. Pan, G. Wang, L. Li, Z. Zhan, Z. Yuan, X. Wang, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2023, 968, 172239

2023
[26]

Q. Yin, Q. Liu, Y. Liu, Z. Qu, F. Sun, C. Wang, X. Yuan, Y. Li, L. Shen, C. Zhang, Y. Lu, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2404689

2024
[27]

L. S. Aota, C. Jung, S. Zhang, O. K. Buyukuslu, A. Saksena, E. Hatipoglu, P. Yadav, M. P. Singh, X. Chen, E. Woods, C. Scheu, S. H. Kim, D. Raabe, B. Gault, Adv Sci (Weinh) 2025, 12, e2409275

2025
[28]

W. J. Jeong, C. Wang, S. G. Yoon, Y. Liu, T. Chen, M. T. McDowell, ACS Energy Letters 2024, 9, 2554

2024
[29]

P. Bach, I. Valencia-Jaime, A. H. Romero, F. U. Renner, ECS Meeting Abstracts 2015, MA2015- 02, 40. 22

2015
[30]

Y. Ye, H. Xie, Y. Yang, Y. Xie, Y. Lu, J. Wang , X. Kong, S. Jin, H. Ji, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145, 24775

2023
[31]

Afzali, E

P. Afzali, E. Gibertini, L. Magagnin, Electrochimica Acta 2024, 488, DOI 10.1016/j.electacta.2024.144190

2024
[32]

W. Jia, J. Zhang, L. Zheng, H. Zhou, W. Zou, L. Wang, eScience 2024, 4, 100266

2024
[33]

M. Wan, S. Kang, L. Wang, H. -W. Lee, G. W. Zheng, Y. Cui, Y. Sun, Nature Communications 2020, 11, 829

2020
[34]

G. Li, Z. Han, Y. Tan, Q. Wei, E. Mao, J. Du, L. Fu, Electrochimica Acta 2024, 473, 143504

2024
[35]

M. Sun, J. Wei, Z. Xu, Q. Huang, Y. Zhao, W. Wang, X. Bai, Sci Bull (Beijing) 2018, 63, 1208

2018
[36]

J. Xing, L. Yan, T. Chen, Z. Song, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, L. Zhou, J. Li, J Colloid Interface Sci 2023, 652, 627

2023
[37]

L. Xie, Y. Deng, T. Wang, J. Deng, H. Ji, L. Wang, X. Niu, J. Gao, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2022, 926, DOI 10.1016/j.jallcom.2022.166437

2022
[38]

J. Cao, W. Chen, A. Gao, D. Muhtar, G. Du, G. Qian, X. Lu, F. Xie, Y. Sun, X. Lu, Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2025, 64, e202413065

2025
[39]

J. Cao, Y. Shi, A. Gao, G. Du, M. Dilxat, Y. Zhang, M. Cai, G. Qian, X. Lu, F. Xie, Y. Sun, X. Lu, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 1354

2024
[40]

H. Liu, C. Wei, Z. Song, Y. Wu, D. Wang, A. Zhou, J. Li, Chem Commun (Camb) 2025, 61, 5986

2025
[41]

Kaboli, W

S. Kaboli, W. Zhu, D. Clément, M. Dontigny, F. Gendron, K. Amouzegar, A. Guerfi, A. Vijh, M. L. Trudeau, A. Paolella, ACS Applied Energy Materials 2023, 6, 4257

2023
[42]

G. M. Hobold, B. M. Gallant, ECS Meeting Abstracts 2023, MA2023-01, 630

2023
[43]

Gervillie, L

C. Gervillie, L. Ah, A. R. Liu, C. -J. Huang, S. Meng, ECS Meeting Abstracts 2024, MA2024-02, 889

2024
[44]

Q. Yin, T. Li, H. Zhang, G. Zhong, X. Yang, X. Li, Journal of Energy Chemistry 2024, 96, 145

2024
[45]

T. M. M. Heenan, C. Tan, A. J. Wade, R. Jervis, D. J. L. Brett, P . R. Shearing, Data in Brief 2020, 30, 105539

2020
[46]

Sidot, A

E. Sidot, A. Kahn-Harari, E. Cesari, L. Robbiola, Materials Science and Engineering: A 2005, 393, 147

2005
[47]

L. T. Stephenson, PLOS One 2018, 13, 0209211

2018
[48]

Khanchandani, A

H. Khanchandani, A. A. El-Zoka, S. H. Kim, U. Tezins, D. Vogel, A. Sturm, D. Raabe, B. Gault, L. T. Stephenson, PLoS One 2022, 17, e0262543

2022
[49]

Blavette, F

D. Blavette, F. Vurpillot, P. Pareige, A. Menand, Ultramicroscopy 2001, 89, 145

2001
[50]

A. G. Shard, Surface and Interface Analysis 2014, 46, 175

2014
[51]

A. G. Shard, M. A. Baker, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 2024, 42, 050801

2024
[52]

W. Yu, Z. Yu, Y. Cui, Z. Bao, ACS Energy Letters 2022, 7, 3270. 23

2022
[53]

C. P. Yang, Y. X. Yin, S. F. Zhang, N. W. Li, Y. G. Guo, Nat Commun 2015, 6, 8058

2015
[54]

N. Li, T. Jia, Y. Liu, S. Huang, F. Kang, Y. Cao, Front Chem 2022, 10, 884308

2022
[55]

C. Kong, F. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Liu, J. Liu, K. Feng, Y. Pei, Y. Wu, G. Wang, Molecules 2024, 29, DOI 10.3390/molecules29153669

2024 doi
[56]

Q. Shi, C. Lu, Y. Cao, Y. Hao, A. Bachmatiuk, M. H. Rüm meli, Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2023, 7, 1298

2023
[57]

R. Rupp, B. Caerts, A. Vantomme, J. Fransaer, A. Vlad, J Phys Chem Lett 2019, 10, 5206

2019
[58]

X. F. Tan, S. D. McDonald, Q. Gu, Y. Hu, L. Wang, S. Matsumura, T. Nishimura, K. Nogita, Journal of Power Sources 2019, 415, 50

2019
[59]

X. F. Tan, W. Yang, K. Aso, S. Matsumura, S. D. McDonald, K. Nogita, ACS Applied Energy Materials 2019, 3, 141

2019
[60]

A. B. Kuper, D. Lazarus, J. R. Manning, C. T. Tomizuka, Physical Review 1956, 104, 1536

1956
[61]

J. Hino, C. Tomizuka, C. Wert, Acta Metallurgica 1957, 5, 41

1957
[62]

N. L. Peterson, S. J. Rothman, Physical Review B 1970, 2, 1540

1970
[63]

Abadias, E

G. Abadias, E. Chason, J. Keckes, M. Sebastiani, G. B. Thompson, E. Barthel, G. L. Doll, C. E. Murray, C. H. Stoessel, L. Martinu, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films 2018, 36, DOI 10.1116/1.5011790

2018 doi
[64]

L. Xie, H. Lu, Y. Jiao, S. Qiao, Y. Zheng, A. Li, Y. Chen, X. Han, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2023, 968, DOI 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.172018

2023
[65]

M. R. Achter, L. S. Birks, E. J. Brooks, Journal of Applied Physics 1959, 30, 1825

1959
[66]

K. W. Gao, W. Y. Chu, H. L. Li, Y. P. Liu, L. J. Qiao, Materials Science and Engineering: A 2004, 371, 51

2004
[67]

X. Guo, K. Gao, L. Qiao, W. Chu, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 2001, 32, 1309

2001
[68]

Lisenko, C

N. Lisenko, C. D. Evans, Y. L. Yao, Manufacturing Letters 2020, 23, 5

2020
[69]

Heidersbach, Corrosion 1968, 24, 38

R. Heidersbach, Corrosion 1968, 24, 38

1968
[70]

E. O. Kirkendall, Trans. AIME 1942, 147, 104

1942
[71]

L. T. E. Kirkendall and C. Upthegrove, Trans. AIME 1939, 133, 186

1939
[72]

F. U. Renner, A. Stierle, H. Dosch, D. M. Kolb, T. L. Lee, J. Zegenhagen, Physical Review B 6 AD, 77, 235433
[73]

E. F. Rauch, J. Portillo, S. Nicolopoulos, D. Bultreys, S. Rouvimov, P. Moeck, Zeitschrift für Kristallographie 2010, 225, 103

2010
[74]

E. F. Rauch, P. Harrison, X. Zhou, M. Herbig, W. Ludwig, M. Véron, Symmetry 2021, 13, DOI 10.3390/sym13122339

2021 doi
[75]

Zhang, C

S. Zhang, C. Scheu, Microscopy (Oxf) 2018, 67, i133. 24

2018
[76]

M. P. Singh, E. V. Woods, S. Kim, C. Jung, L. S. Aota, B. Gault, Batteries & Supercaps 2023, DOI 10.1002/batt.202300403

2023 doi
[77]

E. V. Woods, Microsc. Microanal 2023, ozad120, DOI 10.1093/micmic/ozad120

2023 doi
[78]

Herbig, P

M. Herbig, P. Choi, D. Raabe, Ultramicroscopy 2015, 153, 32. 25 Supplementary Information Figure S1. TEM of initially prepared brass foil before cycling (a) bright -field TEM view of Pt -capped polished brass lamella; note the nanocrystalline layer is not visible (b) 4D -STEM ...

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Huang, H

Y. Huang, H. Yang, Y. Gao, G. Chen, Y. Li, L. Shi, D. Zhang, Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2024, 8, 1282

work page 2024

[2] [2]

L. Yang, N. M. Hagh, J. Roy, E. Macciomei, J. R. Klein, U. Janakiraman, M. E. Fortier, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2024, 171, DOI 10.1149/1945-7111/ad4ff2

work page doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ad4ff2 2024

[3] [3]

X. Cui, J. Wang, S. Sun, X. Chen, Y. Wang, D. Han, J. Wang, X. Yao, W. Yan, Energy & Fuels 2025, 39, 7665

work page 2025

[4] [4]

G. Lai, Y. Zuo, C. Fang, Z. Huang, T. Chen, Q. Liu, S. Cui, J. Zheng, npj Computational Materials 2025, 11, DOI 10.1038/s41524-025-01615-4

doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01615-4 2025

[5] [5]

Sandoval, D

S. Sandoval, D. Nelson, H. Sridhara, T. Thomas, J. Lewis, K. Cavallaro, P. Shevche nko, N. Dasgupta, F. Usseglio-Viretta, D. Finegan, M. McDowell, 2025, DOI 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-1hflr

work page doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-1hflr 2025

[6] [6]

Y. Lei, K. Wang, S. Jiang, X. Xu, J. Zheng, J. Yin, Y. Gao, ChemElectroChem 2024, 11, DOI 10.1002/celc.202300702

work page doi:10.1002/celc.202300702 2024

[7] [7]

K. Ryu, K. Lee, J. Lim, M. J. Lee, K.-H. Kim, U. H. Lee, B. L. D. Rinkel, K. Kim, S. Kim, D. Kim, D. Shin, B. McCloskey, J. Kang, S. W. Lee, Energy & Environmental Science 2024, 17, 7772

work page 2024

[8] [8]

K. Gao, L. Sun, K. Wang, Y. Zhang, Materials Today Energy 2023, 37, DOI 10.1016/j.mtener.2023.101413

work page arXiv 2023