Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Descriptors for Electrolyte-Renormalized Oxidative Stability of Solvents in Lithium-ion Batteries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the oxidative stability of battery solvents under solvation is controlled by the donor number of the anion and the acceptor number of the solvent, expressible as…

desk verdict Useful cheap descriptor for solvent HOMO renormalization, with a solid IP benchmark, but the transfer to real electrolytes leans on an untested additivity step. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03285 v1 pith:6EXG7H7T submitted 2019-08-08 physics.chem-ph

Vikram Pande , Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords oxidativestabilityHOMOrenormalizationdonornumberacceptorelectrolytesolvationlithium-ionbatteryhigh-voltagelithium-oxygen
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 asks what makes a solvent in a lithium-ion battery resist oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, and argues that what matters is the solvent's highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level inside the electrolyte, not in vacuum. It shows that the solvent's HOMO is pushed upward (destabilized) by solvation, and that this shift is described by two empirical acidity/basicity parameters: the acceptor number of the solvent and the donor number of the anion or other solvating species. A geometric-mean formula, $\mathrm{RN}=C+\alpha\sqrt{\mathrm{AN}\times\mathrm{DN}}$, fits 32 DFT calculations with $R^2=0.86$ and a mean absolute error of 0.16 eV, after only cheap semilocal DFT is used for the bare ionization potential. If the model holds, screening candidate solvents for high-voltage electrolytes reduces to a look-up of donor/acceptor numbers plus one fast calculation, with no expensive quantum-chemistry treatment of the full solvation shell.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the empirical acid–base interaction between a solvent and the species around it, quantified by the donor number (DN, a Lewis-basicity scale of how strongly a species donates electron density) and acceptor number (AN, a Lewis-acidity scale of how strongly it accepts it). The relative shift of the solvent HOMO is modeled as a function of the product $\sqrt{\mathrm{AN}\times\mathrm{DN}}$, on the electrostatic argument that the interaction energy scales with the product of the two charge-related parameters. The machinery consists of computing the bare solvent ionization potential by semilocal DFT, computing the ionization potential of a solvent–anion or solvent–ion-pair complex, and taking the difference; a partial-charge partitioning analysis decides whether the solvent or the anion is the oxidized species. The model's fitted coefficients then allow renormalization contributions to be summed over solvation-shell components, so no further DFT is needed for the full mixture.

What would settle it

Measure the oxidation onset potential of ethylene carbonate in a LiPF6 electrolyte and compare the observed HOMO downshift with the model's predicted total of about 1.79 eV (0.65 eV from $\mathrm{PF}_6^-$ plus 1.14 eV from a neighboring EC molecule). If the measured shift deviates by more than about 0.2 eV, the additive single-species picture is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the oxidative stability of a solvent in a lithium-ion battery is set not by the isolated molecule's HOMO but by the HOMO renormalized by the solvation shell, and that this renormalization is controlled by two empirical acid–base parameters: the donor number of the anion and the acceptor number of the solvent. For a given solvent, anions with higher donor numbers lower the solvent's ionization potential more; for a given salt, solvents with higher acceptor numbers show larger reductions. Both a linear model and a geometric-mean model, $\mathrm{RN}=C+\alpha\sqrt{\mathrm{AN}\times\mathrm{DN}}$, fit the 32 DFT data points with $R^2=0.86$ and MAE=0.16 eV, and the authors use the fitted model to estimate that $\mathrm{PF}_6^-$ shifts EC's HOMO down by 0.65 V and a neighboring EC molecule shifts it by 1.14 V, consistent with quantum-chemistry calculations. The same model applied to $\mathrm{O}_2^-$ predicts a 1.25–1.75 V destabilization of solvents in Li-O2 batteries.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a real solvation shell renormalizes the solvent HOMO as the sum of independent single-species contributions, and that the number of solvating species does not vary significantly across the systems studied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-AN solvents (ethers, esters, carbonates) and low-DN salts (LiPF6, LiTFSI) should be preferred for high-voltage stability, while high-DN components that improve salt solubility tend to reduce oxidative stability.
  • For Li-O2 batteries, superoxide ($\mathrm{O}_2^-$), with a donor number above 40 kcal/mol, is predicted to reduce solvent oxidative stability by 1.25–1.75 V, so solvents must be stable to at least about 4.5 V vs Li/Li+ or superoxide must be managed by redox mediators.
  • The model provides a route to high-throughput screening: compute the bare ionization potential with fast DFT, look up donor/acceptor numbers, and estimate the renormalized HOMO for arbitrary solvent, salt, and additive combinations without expensive coupled-cluster or GW calculations.
  • The Li/Li+ reference potential itself shifts by 0–0.75 V depending on the effective donor number of the electrolyte mixture, giving an additional degree of freedom for widening the stability window.
  • The fitted contour map of renormalization as a function of acceptor number and donor number allows quick estimates for common electrolyte components, such as the EC/LiPF6 case, without any new electronic-structure calculation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because donor and acceptor numbers are known for many organic molecules, the same descriptors could link oxidative stability to existing electrolyte property databases, producing a library-scale map of renormalized HOMO levels for untested solvents before any new DFT is run.
  • Beyond the paper: the additive single-species assumption implies a testable prediction that HOMO renormalization grows linearly with salt concentration (more anions in the shell) until ion pairing or aggregation changes the shell composition; a concentration-dependent oxidation-onset measurement would discriminate the additive model from cooperative models.
  • Beyond the paper: the same geometric-mean logic may transfer to cathode-surface-induced HOMO renormalization by replacing donor/acceptor numbers with a surface charge or surface-site Lewis acidity parameter, a direction the authors flag for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a descriptor-based model for the solvation-induced renormalization of solvent HOMO levels in lithium-ion battery electrolytes. The authors first validate PBE-level ionization potentials (IPs) of isolated solvent molecules against 34 experimental values, reporting an MAE of 0.12 eV. They then compute IPs for solvent–salt complexes and propose two models for the renormalization: a linear model in the Gutmann acceptor number (AN) of the solvent and donor number (DN) of the anion, and a geometric-mean model proportional to sqrt(AN*DN). Both models are reported to achieve R^2=0.86 and MAE=0.16 eV on 32 complexes. The paper applies these models to estimate renormalization in EC/LiPF6 electrolytes and for superoxide in Li-O2 batteries, and suggests the descriptors as a basis for high-throughput screening of stable solvents.

Significance. The isolated-molecule IP validation is a solid benchmark, and the descriptor idea is attractive because, if it generalizes, it would allow a cheap estimate of solvation-induced HOMO shifts without expensive quantum chemistry. The authors also correctly note the need to eventually compute DN and AN from first principles. However, the central screening claim currently rests on in-sample fit quality and an untested additivity assumption; the evidence provided does not yet establish predictive accuracy for new solvents or realistic multi-species electrolytes.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section following Eq. (3), Fig. 4] The coefficients of both models are trained on the same 32 DFT complexes that are used to report R^2=0.86 and MAE=0.16 eV. Because no cross-validation, held-out test set, or uncertainty quantification is provided, these metrics demonstrate in-sample agreement only, not predictive accuracy. The screening claim in the abstract requires the model to predict renormalization for solvents and salts not used in the fit; I request leave-one-out cross-validation (or an external test set) and error bars on the model coefficients and predictions.
  2. [Paragraph after Eq. (3) and paragraph beginning 'Using the models'] The manuscript states that the goodness of the fit 'proves that for all the binary salt and solvent combinations, the number of species in the solvation shell of the salt anions is not significantly different' and then proposes to sum individual renormalizations to obtain the net solvation-shell effect. The fit is performed on single anion–solvent (or Li-ion-pair–solvent) complexes and cannot by itself establish constancy of the solvation-shell composition in a real electrolyte. No coordination-number analysis, molecular dynamics, or multi-species cluster DFT calculations are presented. This additivity assumption is load-bearing for the EC/LiPF6 and screening estimates. In particular, the EC/EC estimate (1.14 V) applies the model to a neutral solvent donor, whereas the alpha coefficient was calibrated on anion donors; that transfer requires separate validation.
  3. [Abstract and concluding paragraph] The abstract states that the method uses 'fast GGA-level DFT calculations compared to previously used expensive, experimental data dependent methods,' but the descriptor model requires experimental Gutmann AN and DN for each solvent and salt of interest. The concluding paragraph acknowledges that first-principles computation of DN and AN is needed for unexplored molecules. As a result, the current method is not yet a purely computational screening tool for new species; the claims should be rephrased to make the role of experimental descriptor data explicit.
  4. [Table 2 and Bader analysis paragraph] The model is trained exclusively on complexes classified as solvent oxidation; 8 of the 41 complexes in Table 2 involve salt oxidation or co-oxidation and are excluded from the fit. The Bader charge thresholds (solvent charge greater than 0.6 e, anion charge less than -0.4 e) are applied without sensitivity analysis. In a screening application one must know whether the solvent or the salt is the limiting oxidized species, but the model only provides a renormalization when solvent oxidation is assumed. Please justify the thresholds, test their sensitivity, and clarify how the model should be used when the anion oxidizes first.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 33 solvents, while the text and SI Table 1 list 34 solvents; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lists six anions but omits SCN-, which is included in the complex calculations of Table 2. Please add the DFT and experimental IPs for SCN- and its Li+ ion pair.
  3. [Text and Table 2] The text says that seven solvents were simulated, but Table 2 contains no water complexes and lists only six solvents. Please clarify whether water was included and, if so, why its complexes are absent from Table 2.
  4. [Equation (1) and renormalization definition] The sign convention for the renormalization is not stated explicitly. It should be defined as the difference between the isolated IP and the complex IP, with a comment on how a positive value corresponds to reduced oxidative stability.
  5. [EC/LiPF6 comparison paragraph] The statement that the predicted EC renormalization values (0.65 V and 1.14 V) are 'very close' to quantum-chemistry values is qualitative. Please provide the actual values from refs 12 and 22 and include the model uncertainty in the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: DFT renormalization and Gutmann AN/DN descriptors are independent inputs; the fitted model is disclosed as a fit, and the self-cited additivity step is a validation gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the paper's quantitative claims. The baseline IP method is validated against 34 experimental IPs (Fig. 2, MAE = 0.12 eV), so the first rung is externally anchored. Renormalization values are computed by DFT for fixed single-pair complexes (Table 2), while the AN and DN descriptors are independent experimental scales taken from Mayer et al. and Linert et al. Equation (3), RNHOMO = C + alpha*sqrt(AN*DN), is a regression whose coefficients C and alpha are fitted to 32 DFT values; the reported R^2 = 0.86 and MAE = 0.16 eV are in-sample goodness-of-fit statistics. The Figure 4 caption's 'model predicted values' is loose terminology for fitted values, but the paper discloses the training step in the same paragraph, so this is a presentation issue rather than a definitional reduction of the target to an input. The EC/LiPF6 (0.65 V, 1.14 V) and O2- (1.25-1.75 V) estimates are extrapolations of the fitted model to EC and O2-, neither of which appears in the 32-point training set; they are genuine, though out-of-sample-unvalidated, predictions. The additivity assumption for summing individual solvation-shell contributions is stated as an assumption, and the cited support (ref. 42) is a self-citation by the same group; however, the specific numbers in the paper do not depend on ref. 42's outputs, and no equation is shown to reduce to its own input. The statement that the goodness of fit 'proves' that the number of species in the solvation shell is not significantly different is a logical overreach and a correctness/validation concern, not circularity. No load-bearing circular step can be exhibited under the hard rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the fitted coefficients of the two descriptor models and the hand-chosen Bader thresholds that select the data. The key axioms are that single-pair solvation geometries represent the environment, that contributions add, and that literature AN/DN values are valid. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Linear model coefficients C, alpha, beta = not reported in text
    Fit to 32 DFT renormalization values via Eq. (2); the reported R^2=0.86 is on the training set.
  • Geometric-mean model coefficients C, alpha = not reported in text
    Fit to the same data via Eq. (3); the descriptor product AN*DN is fixed from literature, only the prefactor and intercept are fitted.
  • Bader charge thresholds (0.6 and -0.4 e) = 0.6 and -0.4 e
    Hand-chosen cutoffs classify whether the solvent or anion is oxidized; this determines which complexes contribute to the renormalization data used in the fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The IP (negative HOMO) of a solvent is a valid descriptor of its oxidative stability, and the delta-SCF DFT energy difference reliably gives IPs at GGA level.
    Used throughout; validated for isolated solvents (MAE 0.12 eV) but not for the full solvation environment.
  • domain assumption A single anion or Li+-anion pair in a fixed H-bond geometry represents the solvation shell's effect on the solvent HOMO.
    Complexes are built with one anion per solvent; the paper infers from the good fit that the solvation number does not vary.
  • ad hoc to paper Renormalization contributions from different solvating species are additive.
    In the paragraph before the contour plot, the paper sums individual species contributions to get the net renormalization of the full solvation shell, without DFT validation of a multi-species shell.
  • ad hoc to paper The geometric-mean form (Eq. 3) is a valid model for the interaction energy because DN and AN scale with partial charges.
    Motivated by electrostatic analogy, but the exponent 1/2 and the functional form are assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Literature Gutmann AN/DN values remain valid for these molecules in the electrolyte environment.
    The descriptor values are taken from Mayer et al. and Linert et al.; the fit depends on their accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Descriptors for Electrolyte-Renormalized Oxidative Stability of Solvents in Lithium-ion Batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EXG7H7T

@misc{pith2026190803285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Descriptors for Electrolyte-Renormalized Oxidative Stability of Solvents in Lithium-ion Batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EXG7H7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03285}
}
read the original abstract

Electrolyte stability against oxidation is one of the important factors limiting the development of high energy density batteries. HOMO level of solvent molecules has been successfully used for understanding trends in their oxidative stability but assumes a non-interacting environment. However, solvent HOMO levels are renormalized due to molecules in their solvation shells. In this work, we first demonstrate an inexpensive and accurate method to determine the HOMO level of solvent followed by simple descriptors for renormalization of HOMO level due to different electrolyte components. The descriptors are based on Gutmann Donor and Acceptor numbers of solvent and other components. The method uses fast GGA-level DFT calculations compared to previously used expensive, experimental data dependent methods. This method can be used to screen for unexplored stable solvents among the large number of known organic compounds to design novel high voltage stable electrolytes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic showing the renormalization of HOMO level of the solvent due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thus, this method should yield reliable estimates for IP of different molecules and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The correlation between the DFT calculated Ionization potential and experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The renormalization of HOMO level of solvent for solvents with different Gutmann [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of DFT calculated values and descriptor based model predicted values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The renormalization of HOMO level of solvent for solvents as a function of Gut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Challenges in the development of advanced Li-ion batteries: a review

    Etacheri, V.; Marom, R.; Elazari, R.; Salitra, G.; Aurbach, D. Challenges in the development of advanced Li-ion batteries: a review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3243--3262

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Higher, Stronger, Better… ︁ A Review of 5 Volt Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries

    Kraytsberg, A.; Ein-Eli, Y. Higher, Stronger, Better… ︁ A Review of 5 Volt Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 2012, 2, 922--939

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    A polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable lithium/oxygen battery

    Abraham, K.; Jiang, Z. A polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable lithium/oxygen battery. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1996, 143, 1--5

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    S.; Lohmann, T.; Kozinsky, B.; Liedtke, R.; Ahmed, J.; Kojic, A

    Christensen, J.; Albertus, P.; Sanchez-Carrera, R. S.; Lohmann, T.; Kozinsky, B.; Liedtke, R.; Ahmed, J.; Kojic, A. A critical review of Li/air batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2011, 159, R1--R30

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    G.; Freunberger, S

    Bruce, P. G.; Freunberger, S. A.; Hardwick, L. J.; Tarascon, J.-M. Li--O _2 and Li--S batteries with high energy storage. Nat. Mater. 2012, 11, 19

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Evers, S.; Nazar, L. F. New approaches for high energy density lithium--sulfur battery cathodes. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 46, 1135--1143

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    B.; Kim, Y

    Goodenough, J. B.; Kim, Y. Challenges for rechargeable Li batteries. Chem. Mater. 2009, 22, 587--603

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    P.; Yang, L

    Kim, J.-H.; Pieczonka, N. P.; Yang, L. Challenges and Approaches for High-Voltage Spinel Lithium-Ion Batteries. ChemPhysChem 2014, 15, 1940--1954

    work page 2014

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A.; Rajput, N

    Makeev, M. A.; Rajput, N. N. Computational screening of electrolyte materials: status quo and open problems. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2019, 23, 58--69

    2019

  2. [10]

    C.; Swanson, S.; Wilcke, W

    Girishkumar, G.; McCloskey, B.; Luntz, A. C.; Swanson, S.; Wilcke, W. Lithium- air battery: promise and challenges. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2010, 1, 2193--2203

    2010

  3. [11]

    D.; Speidel, A.; Scheffler, R.; Miller, D.; Viswanathan, V.; Hummelsh j, J.; N rskov, J.; Luntz, A

    McCloskey, B. D.; Speidel, A.; Scheffler, R.; Miller, D.; Viswanathan, V.; Hummelsh j, J.; N rskov, J.; Luntz, A. Twin problems of interfacial carbonate formation in nonaqueous Li--O _2 batteries. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 997--1001

    2012

  4. [12]

    Challenges with Prediction of Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Stability Window and Guiding the Electrode--Electrolyte Stabilization

    Borodin, O. Challenges with Prediction of Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Stability Window and Guiding the Electrode--Electrolyte Stabilization. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2018, 13, 86 -- 93

    2018

  5. [13]

    Effect of dynamic surface polarization on the oxidative stability of solvents in nonaqueous Li--O _2 batteries

    Khetan, A.; Pitsch, H.; Viswanathan, V. Effect of dynamic surface polarization on the oxidative stability of solvents in nonaqueous Li--O _2 batteries. Phys. Rev. Materials 2017, 1, 045401

    2017

  6. [14]

    Peljo, P.; Girault, H. H. Electrochemical potential window of battery electrolytes: the HOMO--LUMO misconception. Energy Environ. Sci 2018, 11, 2306--2309

    2018

  7. [15]

    Modeling insight into battery electrolyte electrochemical stability and interfacial structure

    Borodin, O.; Ren, X.; Vatamanu, J.; von Wald Cresce, A.; Knap, J.; Xu, K. Modeling insight into battery electrolyte electrochemical stability and interfacial structure. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 2886--2894

    2017

  8. [16]

    E.; Leiter, K

    Borodin, O.; Olguin, M.; Spear, C. E.; Leiter, K. W.; Knap, J. Towards high throughput screening of electrochemical stability of battery electrolytes. Nanotechnology 2015, 26, 354003

    2015

  9. [17]

    Kumar, N.; Leung, K.; Siegel, D. J. Crystal surface and state of charge dependencies of electrolyte decomposition on LiMn _2 O _4 cathode. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2014, 161, E3059--E3065

    2014

  10. [18]

    S.; Rubio, A

    Thygesen, K. S.; Rubio, A. Renormalization of molecular quasiparticle levels at metal-molecule interfaces: Trends across binding regimes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 046802

    2009

  11. [19]

    Chemical reactivity descriptor for the oxide-electrolyte interface in Li-ion batteries

    Giordano, L.; Karayaylali, P.; Yu, Y.; Katayama, Y.; Maglia, F.; Lux, S.; Shao-Horn, Y. Chemical reactivity descriptor for the oxide-electrolyte interface in Li-ion batteries. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 3881--3887

    2017

  12. [20]

    B.; Hybertsen, M

    Neaton, J. B.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Louie, S. G. Renormalization of molecular electronic levels at metal-molecule interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 216405

    2006

  13. [21]

    M.; Rostgaard, C.; Rubio, A.; Thygesen, K

    Garcia-Lastra, J. M.; Rostgaard, C.; Rubio, A.; Thygesen, K. S. Polarization-induced renormalization of molecular levels at metallic and semiconducting surfaces. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 80, 245427

    2009

  14. [22]

    Borodin, O.; Behl, W.; Jow, T. R. Oxidative stability and initial decomposition reactions of carbonate, sulfone, and alkyl phosphate-based electrolytes. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 8661--8682

    2013

  15. [23]

    A.; Zhang, M.; Borodin, O.; Gobrogge, E.; Olguin, M.; Ding, M

    Alvarado, J.; Schroeder, M. A.; Zhang, M.; Borodin, O.; Gobrogge, E.; Olguin, M.; Ding, M. S.; Gobet, M.; Greenbaum, S.; Meng, Y. S.; Xu, K. A carbonate-free, sulfone-based electrolyte for high-voltage Li-ion batteries. Mater. Today 2018, 21, 341--353

    2018

  16. [24]

    Electrochemical oxidation stability of anions for modern battery electrolytes: a CBS and DFT study

    J \'o nsson, E.; Johansson, P. Electrochemical oxidation stability of anions for modern battery electrolytes: a CBS and DFT study. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 3697--3703

    2015

  17. [25]

    Y.; Park, M

    Kim, D. Y.; Park, M. S.; Lim, Y.; Kang, Y.-S.; Park, J.-H.; Doo, S.-G. Computational comparison of oxidation stability: Solvent/salt monomers vs solvent--solvent/salt pairs. J. Power Sources 2015, 288, 393--400

    2015

  18. [26]

    Theoretical analysis of the oxidation potentials of organic electrolyte solvents

    Okoshi, M.; Ishikawa, A.; Kawamura, Y.; Nakai, H. Theoretical analysis of the oxidation potentials of organic electrolyte solvents. ECS Electrochem. Lett. 2015, 4, A103--A105

    2015

  19. [27]

    Energies, structures, and electronic properties of molecules in solution with the C-PCM solvation model

    Cossi, M.; Rega, N.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V. Energies, structures, and electronic properties of molecules in solution with the C-PCM solvation model. J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 24, 669--681

    2003

  20. [28]

    Quantum calculation of molecular energies and energy gradients in solution by a conductor solvent model

    Barone, V.; Cossi, M. Quantum calculation of molecular energies and energy gradients in solution by a conductor solvent model. J. Phys. Chem. A 1998, 102, 1995--2001

    1998

  21. [29]

    Simplified continuum solvent model with a smooth cavity based on volumetric data

    Held, A.; Walter, M. Simplified continuum solvent model with a smooth cavity based on volumetric data. J. Chem. Phys 2014, 141, 174108

    2014

  22. [30]

    Solvent effects on the reactivities of organometallic compounds

    Gutmann, V. Solvent effects on the reactivities of organometallic compounds. Coord. Chem. Rev. 1976, 18, 225--255

    1976

  23. [31]

    The acceptor number -— A quantitative empirical parameter for the electrophilic properties of solvents

    Mayer, U.; Gutmann, V.; Gerger, W. The acceptor number -— A quantitative empirical parameter for the electrophilic properties of solvents. Monatsh. Chem. 1975, 106, 1235--1257

    1975

  24. [32]

    E.; Garcia-Lastra, J

    Bhowmik, A.; Castelli, I. E.; Garcia-Lastra, J. M.; J rgensen, P. B.; Winther, O.; Vegge, T. A perspective on inverse design of battery interphases using multi-scale modelling, experiments and generative deep learning. Energy Storage Mater. 2019,

    2019

  25. [33]

    \ "U about the assignment of wave functions and eigenvalues ​​to the single electrons of an atom

    Koopmans, T. \ "U about the assignment of wave functions and eigenvalues ​​to the single electrons of an atom. Physica 1934, 1, 104--113

    1934

  26. [34]

    J.; Hansen, L

    Mortensen, J. J.; Hansen, L. B.; Jacobsen, K. W. Real-space grid implementation of the projector augmented wave method. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 71, 035109

    2005

  27. [35]

    Enkovaara, J. et al. Electronic structure calculations with GPAW: a real-space implementation of the projector augmented-wave method. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2010, 22, 253202

    2010

  28. [36]

    W.; Thygesen, K

    Rostgaard, C.; Jacobsen, K. W.; Thygesen, K. S. Fully self-consistent GW calculations for molecules. Phys. Rev. B 2010, 81, 085103

    2010

  29. [37]

    P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M

    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  30. [38]

    Parker, A. J. The effects of solvation on the properties of anions in dipolar aprotic solvents. Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 1962, 16, 163--187

    1962

  31. [39]

    A grid-based Bader analysis algorithm without lattice bias

    Tang, W.; Sanville, E.; Henkelman, G. A grid-based Bader analysis algorithm without lattice bias. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 084204

    2009

  32. [40]

    F.; Taha, A

    Linert, W.; Jameson, R. F.; Taha, A. Donor numbers of anions in solution: the use of solvatochromic Lewis acid--base indicators. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1993, 3181--3186

    1993

  33. [41]

    R.; Pande, V.; Pitsch, H.; Viswanathan, V

    Khetan, A.; Arjmandi, H. R.; Pande, V.; Pitsch, H.; Viswanathan, V. Understanding Ion Pairing in High-Salt Concentration Electrolytes Using Classical Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Its Implications for Nonaqueous Li--O _2 Batteries. J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 8094--8101

    2018

  34. [42]

    M.; Pande, V.; Khetan, A.; Viswanathan, V.; McCloskey, B

    Burke, C. M.; Pande, V.; Khetan, A.; Viswanathan, V.; McCloskey, B. D. Enhancing electrochemical intermediate solvation through electrolyte anion selection to increase nonaqueous Li--O _2 battery capacity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2015, 112, 9293--9298

    2015

  35. [43]

    5ly= , V鲭3x/ujX(ks Ӹ s?g_ J r lذ Z(i W]paBn|ZJ d1 KLe9\2 =ʠԯ׭o à v 5@P Ԯ fj , (Qϔ2 S tY٠Uw) 2S +'BM [0 e ^ oHK &7t/1,EW˕]- Zٺ rVw

    Chen, Y.; Freunberger, S. A.; Peng, Z.; Fontaine, O.; Bruce, P. G. Charging a Li--O _2 battery using a redox mediator. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 489 mcitethebibliography main_VV.tex0000664000000000000000000006720013523123131011636 0ustar rootroot [journal=aelccp,manuscript=article] ...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.