Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Battery Material Comparisons Should Refocus on Diffusivity with Best Practices

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-step procedural fix—grind first, measure second—could make battery material comparisons more reliable, because most published diffusivity values are based on length scales measured at the wrong time.

desk verdict A useful, well-argued perspective with a sound central recommendation, some reproducible-data gaps in the survey, and a real but non-fatal caveat about the active-area assumption in the demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18590 v1 pith:EG3P6EJB submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

CJ Sturgill , Roya Rajabi , Md Abdullah Al Muhit , Hans-Conrad zur Loye , Morgan Stefik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords batterymaterialsionicdiffusivitygrind-measureSAXSPorodcapacityretentionstructure-propertyapparentlithium-ion
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 argues that battery material comparisons have been built on unreliable diffusivity measurements because of a simple procedural error: most studies measure particle size before the final grinding step, or never state when they grind. The authors advocate a 'grind-measure' order—grind the pure active material, then measure its length scale, then build the electrode without further grinding—and show through a review of 303 open-access papers that only 15% clearly followed this logic. Using four titanium-niobium oxide samples, they demonstrate that switching to grind-measure changes an apparent diffusivity by roughly an order of magnitude, and that cell-level rate retention ranks the samples nearly opposite to their true diffusivity ranking. If correct, this means many published diffusivity values and the structure-property claims built on them are suspect, and the field should adopt clearer reporting and a renewed focus on material-level transport properties.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing procedure is the 'grind-measure' sequence: grind the pure active material with a mortar and pestle, collect an aliquot, measure its mass-specific surface area by SAXS Porod analysis (an ensemble X-ray scattering method that detects all surfaces, internal and external), and then form the electrode by stirring with carbon and binder—never grinding again—so the measured length scale matches the particles in the cell. The paper also uses capacity-weighted average diffusivity, which integrates the full state-of-charge-dependent D(x) profile into a single figure of merit, so that materials with crossing D(x) curves can still be ranked. These two tools together are what allow the a

What would settle it

Take one batch of active material, split it into two identical electrode preparations—one following grind-measure and one following measure-grind—and compare the apparent diffusivities from the same electrochemical technique; if the values are statistically identical, the central claim that sequencing changes diffusivity collapses. Alternatively, an in-situ measurement that shows the electrochemically active area equals the un-ground surface area would invalidate the premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an accurate diffusivity for a battery material can only be obtained when the length scale used in the calculation is measured on the same material that goes into the cell—which means measuring after the final grinding step of the pure active material, without additives, and not grinding again during electrode preparation. The authors call this the 'grind-measure' strategy and contrast it with the common 'measure-grind' approach, where particle size is measured before grinding, or after grinding with carbon and binder, so the measured surface area no longer corresponds to the particles actually tested. To make the point concrete, they compare four Ti–Nb–O samples: th

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the assumption that the surface area measured by SAXS Porod on the ground pure powder equals the electrochemically active surface area in the finished electrode, even though binder and carbon partially coat the particles; the paper itself calls this a 'grand challenge' and concedes all derived diffusivities are apparent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Diffusivity values reported in studies that used measure-grind or did not state their grinding sequence are apparent and may be off by about an order of magnitude, so any comparisons built on them are unreliable.
  • Cell-level capacity retention is not a valid proxy for material-level diffusivity; a shorter-particle material with lower intrinsic diffusivity can beat a high-diffusivity material in rate tests.
  • Future battery papers should adopt the grind-measure order and explicitly document whether grinding preceded length-scale measurement.
  • A single capacity-weighted diffusivity value allows materials with complex, state-of-charge-dependent diffusion coefficients to be ranked on an apples-to-apples basis.
  • The example data suggest that synthesis routes that produce smaller particles are sometimes mistaken for improved transport, so both diffusivity and length scale should be reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same length-scale sensitivity applies to other common techniques (GITT, PITT, EIS) that require an assumed particle radius or surface area, so the grind-measure requirement is probably general rather than specific to the ICI method used here.
  • If the argument is right, some celebrated 'fast-ion conductors' in the literature may actually be modest conductors that achieve good rate performance through small particle sizes—a reinterpretation with practical consequences for materials selection.
  • A minimal editorial requirement—asking authors to state the order of grinding and measurement—would be a cheap, high-leverage intervention to improve the reliability of the battery literature.
  • The authors' own admission that true electrochemically active surface area remains unmeasured means the diffusivity values themselves are still apparent; an in-situ method for measuring active area would be the logical next advance.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that ionic-diffusivity comparisons in battery materials research are often invalid because the active-material length scale used in diffusivity calculations is not measured after the grinding step that produces the material actually tested in the cell. The authors analyzed 303 open-access battery papers with an LLM-assisted workflow, reporting that ~49% of structure-property transport claims use diffusivity and only 15% of diffusivity-reporting papers clearly state a 'grind-measure' or no-grinding procedure. They compare SEM, BET, and SAXS Porod length-scale methods, showing that method choice and the timing of grinding can change apparent diffusivity by orders of magnitude. They then present ICI-derived diffusivities and galvanostatic capacity retention for TiNb2O7 and Ti2Nb10O29 made by sol-gel and solid-state routes, concluding that the capacity-retention ranking is nearly opposite to the material-diffusivity ranking and that cell-level metrics are not a valid proxy for material-level transport properties.

Significance. If the claims are supported, this is a genuinely useful methodological contribution. The 'grind-measure' recommendation is simple, concrete, and falsifiable, and it addresses a real procedural inconsistency in the battery literature. The paper includes openly available data on OSF, detailed SAXS Porod and ICI methodology, and a quantitative demonstration that length-scale choices strongly affect apparent diffusivities. The call to report diffusivity alongside cell-level metrics is reasonable and important. The main value is in drawing attention to a subtle but consequential experimental artifact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Large Language Model Analysis of Publications and Fig. 1] The 303-paper statistics (49%, 15%, 16.6%, 5%, 68.4%) are headline quantitative results, but the validation is described only as 'validated manually using a subset' with no subset size, no inter-annotator agreement, no confusion matrix, and no release of the prompts/decision rules. Because 'ambiguous' is the largest category, the percentages are sensitive to prompt wording and parsing rules. Please provide a reproducibility package: corpus search/inclusion criteria, the exact extraction prompt, and a confusion matrix or kappa statistic against manual labels.
  2. [Electrochemistry, Eq. (1), and Fig. 5d/5f] The ICI diffusivity uses A as the electrochemically active surface area, but A is taken from SAXS Porod analysis of the ground active powder alone. The paper itself concedes in the Introduction that measuring the true electrochemically active surface area remains a grand challenge because of binder/carbon coverage and inaccessible porosity. Since D ~ A^(-2), sample-to-sample differences in the fraction of active surface area could change D_av non-trivially. The D_av values for TNO2-SOL (2.55e-16) and the SS samples (4.97e-16) are within a factor of two, so a plausible ~1.4x bias in A would invert their ordering. A sensitivity analysis or an independent estimate of A is needed before claiming the 'nearly opposite' ranking in Fig. 5f.
  3. [Fig. 5d and 5f] The central example would be strengthened by explicit statistical comparison. No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported for the D_av differences; TNO2-SOL and TNO2-SS are described as 'similar' yet are placed on opposite sides of the diffusivity ranking. The text should state whether the differences are significant with propagated error, including uncertainty in A, and whether the 'nearly opposite' ranking is robust to those uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 3] The 15% figure in the abstract is stated as a fraction of publications reporting diffusivity values, while Fig. 3 reports 5% grind-measure and 16.6% measure-grind as fractions of all 303 publications. Please clarify the denominators consistently in the text and figure.
  2. [Fig. 3] The percentages 16.6%, 5%, and 68.4% sum to 90%. If the remainder corresponds to 'no grinding' or 'not applicable', state this explicitly.
  3. [Experimental, Large Language Model Analysis] The phrase 'was trained' is misleading for OpenAI Codex; the workflow was not fine-tuned. Suggest 'was configured' or 'was used with a structured prompt'.
  4. [Electrochemistry, Eq. (1)] The notation 'Δt1' and 'dE/dt0.5' should be clarified, and the units of A should be stated consistently (mass-specific vs electrochemically active surface area). The sentence around '0.1C.5 A period' contains a typo.
  5. [General] The paper repeatedly cites the authors' own prior work (refs 26, 34, 42, 56) for the ICI method and capacity-weighted diffusivity metric. This is acceptable, but readers would benefit from a sentence distinguishing the new contributions of this perspective from those earlier papers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the diffusivity values are measurements from a standard transient analysis, and the self-cited capacity-weighted metric is a defined figure-of-merit rather than a loaded input.

full rationale

The paper's central recommendation—grind-measure rather than measure-grind—is an argued measurement-protocol claim, not a derived result from fitted parameters. It is supported by direct data: the same electrochemical data analyzed with different measured length scales yields different apparent diffusivities (Fig 4f), and grinding changes the measured surface areas (Fig 5a). The ICI diffusivity formula D = (4/pi)(V/A * Delta_E_OC/Delta_t1 / (dE/dt^0.5))^2 is a standard transient analysis applied to measured voltage data and measured SAXS Porod surface areas; the reported D values are measurements, not predictions from fitted inputs. The 'opposite ranking' in Fig 5f is an empirical comparison between capacity-weighted average diffusivities (from measured D(x) profiles) and galvanostatic capacity retention (from measured cycling). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The capacity-weighted diffusivity metric is cited from the authors' prior work (ref 42), but it is a defined figure-of-merit used to condense measured D(x) data; it does not force the ranking by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The acknowledged assumption that the SAXS Porod surface area represents the electrochemically active surface area ('apparent diffusivity', 'measuring the true electrochemically active surface area... remains a grand challenge') affects accuracy and interpretation, but it is not circular because the surface area A and the diffusivity D are not the same quantity by definition. No circular step can be quoted from the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; apparent diffusivities are computed from measured surface areas and electrochemical transients. The only ad hoc element is the unquantified validation of the LLM survey. 'Grind-measure' is a protocol label, not an invented entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ICI diffusivity equation correctly isolates solid-state diffusion using a single material length scale.
    The equation D = 4/π (V/A · ΔE_OC/Δt_1 / (dE/dt^0.5))^2 is a standard electrochemical model, but it assumes the measured transient is diffusion-limited and that the surface-area input corresponds to the electrochemically active area.
  • domain assumption SAXS Porod mass-specific surface area of the ground powder represents the electrochemically active surface area.
    The authors explicitly call the true electrochemically active surface area a grand challenge due to binder/carbon coatings, and they choose total mass-specific surface area as having fewer assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper The LLM-based classification of 303 publications is sufficiently accurate for the reported 49%/15% statistics.
    The paper only states that reliability was 'validated manually using a subset' and provides no inter-annotator agreement, accuracy, or error bars for the classification.
  • domain assumption Grinding after measurement changes the length scale, while subsequent stirring of the slurry does not further alter it.
    The paper demonstrates that grinding changes surface area, but the claim that stirring during electrode preparation leaves the measured length scale unchanged is a procedural assumption built into the grind-measure recommendation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Battery Material Comparisons Should Refocus on Diffusivity with Best Practices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EG3P6EJB

@misc{pith2026260718590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Battery Material Comparisons Should Refocus on Diffusivity with Best Practices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EG3P6EJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18590}
}
read the original abstract

The continuous demand for improved batteries motivates the discovery and advancement of materials with improved transport. Ionic diffusivity is the relevant material property where its measurement depends on accurate assessment of the active material length-scale, generally from the mass-specific surface area. In this perspective, we argue for renewed focus on diffusivity comparisons. A procedural review of 303 recent open-access publications about battery material development revealed two aspects: (1) 49% of publications support structure-property transport claims using diffusivity values and (2) of those reporting diffusivity values, 15% clearly stated that the length scale was measured after grinding-alone or stated that grinding was not used at all. Diffusivity assessment rationally requires length scale measurement after grinding (grind-measure), rather than the reverse. A range of measurement methods are compared, including SEM, BET, and SAXS as well as the resulting apparent diffusivities. Common errors and pitfalls of each of these approaches are described. As an example, datasets are presented for TiNb2O7 (TNO1) and Ti2Nb10O29 (TNO2) made from sol-gel (SOL) and solid state (SS) techniques using rigorous quantitative measurements to separately compare material diffusivities and galvanostatic performance. Here, the SOL samples had shorter length-scales and lower diffusion coefficients. Galvanostatic cell measurements, however, revealed that the shorter length-scales more than compensated for the lower diffusivities with better overall high-rate capacity retention. This example shows how cell level metrics often differ from underlying diffusivities. We argue that materials development needs renewed focus on property measurements like diffusivity where best-practices are important to derive meaningful insights towards structure-property relationships.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A total of 303 open-access publications about battery materials from the past five years were analyzed. The (a) research scope and (b) inclusion of structure-property claims were parsed. From the subset of publications with structure-property claims, the (c) analytic scope, the (d) sequence of grinding and length-scale measurements, the (e) clarity of length scale used in diffusivity calculations, and the (f) divers… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic comparing the measure-grind and grind-measure strategies. Grinding is generally necessary to reduce aggregation and improve kinetics, however, grinding with additives hampers the subsequent measurement of the material length scale since the additives also contribute to mass-specific surface area. On the other hand, the grind-measure strategy includes grinding the pure active material so that its final leng… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. SEM micrographs (a,c) of as-made TNO1-SOL at different magnifications along with the size histograms (b,d) reflecting the secondary and primary particle sizes. Length scale measurements using SEM, BET, and Porod were compared using mass specific surface area (e), including Porod analysis after grinding. A single electrochemical dataset (3 identical batteries) were analyzed using these different length scale measurem… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A (a) comparison of each sample’s surface area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references

  1. [1]

    K. J. Griffith, K. M. Wiaderek, G. Cibin, L. E. Marbella, C. P. Grey, Nature 2018, 559, 556

    2018

  2. [2]

    A. R. Patterson, R. Elizalde-Segovia, K. E. Wyckoff, A. Zohar, P. P. Ding, W. M. Turner, K. R. Poeppelmeier, S. R. Narayan, R. J. Clément, R. Seshadri, K. J. Griffith, Chem. Mater. 2023, 35, 6364

    2023

  3. [3]

    J. L. Allen, X. Ren, C. K. Nguyen, D. C. Horn, H. H. Sun, D. T. Tran, ChemElectroChem 2023, 10, e202300267

    2023

  4. [4]

    P. Jing, M. Liu, H.-P. Ho, Y. Ma, W. Hua, H. Li, N. Guo, Y. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Chen, B. Zhao, J. Wang, M. Liu, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    H. Liu, C. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. A 2024, 12, 5414

    2024

  6. [6]

    L. D. Salzer, B. Diamond, K. Nieto, R. C. Evans, A. L. Prieto, J. B. Sambur, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 1685

    2023

  7. [7]

    J. Ma, Y. Xiang, J. Xu, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, J. Qiu, X. Zhu, H. Zhang, H. Lin, G. Cao, Adv. Energy Mater. 2025, 15, 2403623

    2025

  8. [8]

    Zheng, R

    J. Zheng, R. Xia, C. Sun, N. Yaqoob, Q. Qiu, L. Zhong, Y. Li, P. Kaghazchi, K. Zhao, J. E. ten Elshof, M. Huijben, Small 2023, 19, 2301967

    2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Liu, A. Guilherme Buzanich, L. A. Montoro, H. Liu, Y. Liu, F. Emmerling, P. A. Russo, N. Pinna, Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 6507

    2025

  2. [10]

    K. E. Wyckoff, D. D. Robertson, M. B. Preefer, S. M. L. Teicher, J. Bienz, L. Kautzsch, T. E. Mates, J. A. Cooley, S. H. Tolbert, R. Seshadri, Chem. Mater. 2020, 32, 9415

    2020

  3. [11]

    Sarkar, L

    A. Sarkar, L. Velasco, D. Wang, Q. Wang, G. Talasila, L. de Biasi, C. Kübel, T. Brezesinski, S. S. Bhattacharya, H. Hahn, B. Breitung, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3400

    2018

  4. [12]

    Van Den Bergh, M

    W. Van Den Bergh, M. Stefik, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2204126

    2022

  5. [13]

    Jiang, P

    F. Jiang, P. Peng, Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 32639

    2016

  6. [14]

    G. Liu, X. Liu, X. Li, W. Zhang, S. Li, Y. Ding, B. Jin, X. Liu, Y. Luo, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2025, 686, 1033

    2025

  7. [15]

    N. V. Kosova, D. Z. Tsydypylov, Batteries 2022, 8

    2022

  8. [16]

    M. A. A. Muhit, S. C. Wechsler, Z. J. L. Bare, C. Sturgill, N. Keerthisinghe, M. A. Grasser, G. Morrison, C. Sutton, M. Stefik, H.-C. zur Loye, Chem. Mater. 2024, 36, 10626

    2024

  9. [17]

    Schlumberger, C

    C. Schlumberger, C. Scherdel, M. Kriesten, P. Leicht, A. Keilbach, H. Ehmann, P. Kotnik, G. Reichenauer, M. Thommes, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2022, 329, 111554

    2022

  10. [18]

    G. E. Möhl, E. Metwalli, P. Müller-Buschbaum, ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 1525

    2018

  11. [19]

    Nölle, K

    R. Nölle, K. Beltrop, F. Holtstiege, J. Kasnatscheew, T. Placke, M. Winter, Mater. Today 2020, 32, 131

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. C. Schulze, N. R. Neale, ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 1082

    2021

  13. [21]

    Rowden, N

    B. Rowden, N. Garcia-Araez, Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 97

    2021

  14. [22]

    Zheng, J

    H. Zheng, J. Li, X. Song, G. Liu, V. S. Battaglia, Electrochimica Acta 2012, 71, 258

    2012

  15. [23]

    Gonçalves, S

    R. Gonçalves, S. Lanceros-Méndez, C. M. Costa, Electrochem. Commun. 2022, 135, 107210

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tian, S.-H

    R. Tian, S.-H. Park, P. J. King, G. Cunningham, J. Coelho, V. Nicolosi, J. N. Coleman, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1933

    2019

  17. [25]

    S. Puls, E. Nazmutdinova, F. Kalyk, H. M. Woolley, J. F. Thomsen, Z. Cheng, A. Fauchier-Magnan, A. Gautam, M. Gockeln, S.-Y. Ham, M. T. Hasan, M.-G. Jeong, D. Hiraoka, J. S. Kim, T. Kutsch, B. Lelotte, P. Minnmann, V. Miß, K. Motohashi, D. L. Nelson, F. Ooms, F. Piccolo, C. Pl...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sturgill, I

    C. Sturgill, I. Milisavljevic, S. C. Wechsler, M. A. A. Muhit, H.-C. zur Loye, S. Misture, M. Stefik, Chem. Mater. 2025, 37, 624

    2025

  19. [27]

    Chien, H

    Y.-C. Chien, H. Liu, A. S. Menon, W. R. Brant, D. Brandell, M. J. Lacey, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 2289

    2023

  20. [29]

    S. D. Kang, W. C. Chueh, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 120504

    2021

  21. [30]

    S. D. Kang, J. J. Kuo, N. Kapate, J. Hong, J. Park, W. C. Chueh, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 120503

    2021

  22. [31]

    J. S. Horner, G. Whang, D. S. Ashby, I. V. Kolesnichenko, T. N. Lambert, B. S. Dunn, A. A. Talin, S. A. Roberts, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2021, 4, 11460

    2021

  23. [32]

    J. Li, F. Yang, X. Xiao, M. W. Verbrugge, Y.-T. Cheng, Electrochimica Acta 2012, 75, 56

    2012

  24. [33]

    El-Azazy, M

    M. El-Azazy, M. Min, P. Annus, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy, BoD – Books on Demand, 2020

    2020

  25. [34]

    Kumar, M

    M. Kumar, M. A. A. Muhit, C. Sturgill, N. Karimitari, J. T. Barber, H. Tisdale, M. Stefik, H.-C. zur Loye, C. Sutton, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2025, 8, 13407

    2025

  26. [35]

    Zhang, Electrochimica Acta 2011, 56, 1246

    X. Zhang, Electrochimica Acta 2011, 56, 1246

    2011

  27. [36]

    Z. Cai, B. Ouyang, H.-M. Hau, T. Chen, R. Giovine, K. P. Koirala, L. Li, H. Ji, Y. Ha, Y. Sun, J. Huang, Y. Chen, V. Wu, W. Yang, C. Wang, R. J. Clément, Z. Lun, G. Ceder, Nat. Energy 2024, 9, 27

    2024

  28. [37]

    C. Zhu, R. E. Usiskin, Y. Yu, J. Maier, Science 2017, 358, eaao2808

    2017

  29. [38]

    D. D. Robertson, H. Cumberbatch, D. J. Pe, Y. Yao, S. H. Tolbert, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 996

    2024

  30. [39]

    Brezesinski, J

    T. Brezesinski, J. Wang, S. H. Tolbert, B. Dunn, Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 146

    2010

  31. [40]

    Nickol, T

    A. Nickol, T. Schied, C. Heubner, M. Schneider, A. Michaelis, M. Bobeth, G. Cuniberti, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 090546

    2020

  32. [41]

    X. Yang, A. L. Rogach, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1900747

    2019

  33. [42]

    C. J. Sturgill, C. Sutton, J. Schwenzel, M. Stefik, J. Mater. Chem. A 2025, 13, 6314

    2025

  34. [43]

    Joensen, Ganesha Operating Manual, SAXSLab

    K. Joensen, Ganesha Operating Manual, SAXSLab

  35. [44]

    Spalla, S

    O. Spalla, S. Lyonnard, F. Testard, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2003, 36, 338

    2003

  36. [45]

    NIST X-Ray Form Factor, Atten. Scatt. Tables Form Page,

  37. [46]

    Scattering Length Density Calculator,

  38. [47]

    Z. Geng, T. Thiringer, M. J. Lacey, IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification 2022, 8, 2985

    2022

  39. [48]

    Dreyer, J

    W. Dreyer, J. Jamnik, C. Guhlke, R. Huth, J. Moškon, M. Gaberšček, Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 448

    2010

  40. [49]

    K. A. Bertness, NIST Spec. Publ

  41. [50]

    Thommes, K

    M. Thommes, K. Kaneko, A. V. Neimark, J. P. Olivier, F. Rodriguez-Reinoso, J. Rouquerol, K. S. W. Sing, Pure Appl. Chem. 2015, 87, 1051

    2015

  42. [51]

    Y. Shen, K. Schäfer, S. Brandt, K. Li, W.-C. Cheng, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2022, 344, 112210

    2022

  43. [52]

    J. W. M. Osterrieth, J. Rampersad, D. Madden, N. Rampal, L. Skoric, B. Connolly, M. D. Allendorf, V. Stavila, J. L. Snider, R. Ameloot, J. Marreiros, C. Ania, D. Azevedo, E. Vilarrasa- Garcia, B. F. Santos, X.-H. Bu, Z. Chang, H. Bunzen, N. R. Champness, S. L. Griffin, B. Chen...

    2022

  44. [53]

    Z. Lu, D. Rébiscoul, T. Narayanan, T. Zemb, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2022, 55, 1154

    2022

  45. [54]

    South Carolina SAXS Collaborative (SCSC) - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry | University of South Carolina,

  46. [55]

    S. E. J. O’Kane, W. Ai, G. Madabattula, D. Alonso-Alvarez, R. Timms, V. Sulzer, J. Sophie Edge, B. Wu, G. J. Offer, M. Marinescu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 7909

    2022

  47. [56]

    Sturgill, M

    C. Sturgill, M. Kumar, N. Karimitari, I. Milisavljevic, C. S. Collins, A. Hegler, H. J. Chao, S. K. Balijepalli, S. T. Misture, C. Sutton, M. Stefik, Adv. Energy Mater. 2026, e06454

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.