Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Electrochemical Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Hysteresis in Ener-gy Materials: Focusing on the Solid Side

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that bulk electrochemical phase transitions in solids follow an autocatalytic, reaction-controlled growth law—kx(1−x)^m—rather than stochastic nucleation and diffusion-limited growth, and that this law plus…

desk verdict A clearly written mini-review that synthesizes the author's prior models, but the central mechanistic claim rests on parameters refit for each scan rate, so the scan-rate dependence is described rather than explained. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05829 v2 pith:RKSJ6FXS submitted 2025-06-06 physics.chem-ph

Keyvan Malaie This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph PACS 82.45.-h
keywords electrochemicalphasetransitionscyclicvoltammetrymodellingautocatalytickineticshysteresisseparationNi(OH)2LiFePO4ioninsertionthermodynamics
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

This mini-review makes a mechanistic case: bulk electrochemical phase transitions (EPTs) in energy materials are reaction-controlled, not governed by random nucleation and diffusion-limited growth. The author argues that EPT kinetics follow a size-dependent autocatalytic rate law kx(1−x)^m, where x is the extent of conversion; m=1 gives a homogeneous solid solution and m>1 produces phase separation. Combined with direction-dependent surface energy between oxidized and reduced phases, this model reproduces the asymmetric CV peaks, hysteresis, and scan-rate dependence observed in Ni(OH)₂ and the rate-dependent phase behavior imaged in LiFePO₄. The review also derives thermodynamic CVs from free-energy/miscibility-gap curves and simulates diffusion-limited EPTs with a Butler-Volmer boundary condition, offering a unified picture of solid-side EPT electrochemistry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the autocatalytic rate law dx/dt = k x (1−x)^m, treated as a reaction-controlled (no diffusion limitation) description of EPT kinetics, where x is the mole fraction of the oxidized phase and m controls the interaction type. It is paired with direction-dependent surface energy between the O and R phases, which the free-energy curves of heterogeneous systems must include, giving different oxidation and reduction pathways and hence hysteresis. For the diffusion-limited case, the machinery is the one-dimensional Fick diffusion equation for x(y,t) with a Butler-Volmer-derived surface boundary condition, solved by the Nicholson–Shain numerical integration. These elements together convert free-energy/composition curves into computable CV and galvanostatic charge-discharge signals.

What would settle it

Prepare a Ni(OH)₂ thin-film electrode with a precisely known initial fraction of NiOOH (for instance, by partial oxidation to a set potential) and record the first oxidation CV scan at a fixed scan rate. The autocatalytic model predicts the peak current and onset potential shift in a specific, computable way through the x₀ term in kx(1−x)^m; a nucleation-and-growth mechanism predicts instead a transient nucleation delay and a peak shape nearly independent of the pre-existing phase fraction. If the measured peak shift does not track the model's x₀ dependence while an independent potentiostatic transient still shows Avrami n ≠ 1 behavior, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the rate of a bulk EPT is set by interactions between oxidized (O) and reduced (R) species in the solid, giving the autocatalytic rate law dx/dt = k x (1−x)^m, with the same interaction parameter k in both directions only when m=1. For m>1, the transition is heterogeneous and inherently asymmetric: phase formation (deinsertion or deprotonation) is autocatalytic, while the reverse direction is autoinhibitory, so oxidation and reduction traverse different energy landscapes. This reaction asymmetry, quantified by the ratio k_deinsert/k_insert, is identified as the origin of electrochemical hysteresis, and it shrinks as scan rate increases, consistent with operando X-ray imaging of LiFePO₄ and the CV of Ni(OH)₂. The paper also shows that thermodynamic CVs follow directly from free-energy versus composition curves, giving broad peaks near 90 mV full width at half maximum for homogeneous transitions and narrow peaks for heterogeneous ones, and that diffusion-limited EPTs in thicker films are captured by Fick's law with a Butler-Volmer surface condition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single phenomenological rate law kx(1−x)^m, with an exponent m and a ratio k_deinsert/k_insert tuned to fit the experimental CVs, adequately captures the kinetics of solid-to-solid phase transitions; the law is not derived from a microscopic picture of ion insertion, and its parameters are fixed by the same data used to infer the mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CV peak asymmetry in Ni(OH)₂, such as the sharp rise and higher anodic current, emerges naturally from autocatalytic deprotonation with residual product seeding, with no need to invoke stochastic nucleation.
  • Electrochemical hysteresis in phase-separating insertion electrodes is a reaction-pathway asymmetry rather than a nucleation-work barrier, so lowering the reaction asymmetry should directly narrow voltage hysteresis.
  • The scan-rate dependence of the fitted k_deinsert/k_insert predicts that faster (dis)charge homogenizes the reaction across the particle, matching the LiFePO₄ operando images at 1.5C and 4C.
  • Diffusion-limited EPTs in films such as ε-MnO₂ obey a Butler-Volmer-Fick simulation in which the single dimensionless parameter √D/k′ controls peak separation and shape, bridging reaction-controlled and diffusion-controlled regimes.
  • Because the model is deterministic rather than stochastic, repeated cycles should initiate the phase transition at the same locations, with memory and heterogeneity effects carried by the initial mole fraction of the product phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the model's initial mole fraction of the product phase acts like a seed concentration, so a CV experiment that deliberately pre-inserts a known small amount of product should predictably sharpen and shift the oxidation peak in a way that distinguishes kx(1−x)^m from Avrami-type nucleation.
  • Editorial inference: interpreting x as a conversion coordinate and the growth rate as size-dependent suggests that particle size effects could be folded into the exponent m, offering a quantitative bridge to recently reported particle-size-dependent reaction pathways.
  • Editorial inference: if hysteresis is kinetic reaction asymmetry rather than thermodynamic, then the model predicts thin voltage hysteresis at low rates only when k_deinsert and k_insert are nearly equal; measuring equilibrium open-circuit potentials separately could test this corollary.
  • Editorial inference: the framework suggests that electrolyte composition and SEI formation modify EPT kinetics through the interaction parameter k, making CV peak shape a probe of interfacial modification, an extension the paper leaves unexplored.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This mini-review surveys the thermodynamics, kinetics, and hysteresis of bulk electrochemical phase transitions (EPTs) in solid energy materials. It first recovers the Nernst equation from free-energy–composition curves, uses those curves to derive thermodynamic cyclic voltammograms, and attributes electrochemical hysteresis to direction-dependent surface energy. The paper then introduces an autocatalytic rate law kx(1−x)^m, argues that this law with m>1 captures phase separation while m=1 corresponds to homogeneous behavior, and compares model CVs with experimental Ni(OH)2 data at two scan rates. It also outlines a diffusion-limited EPT model with a Butler–Volmer boundary condition and Nicholson–Shain numerical solution, and discusses LiFePO4 operando imaging as qualitative support. The central mechanistic claim is that the autocatalytic model, rather than stochastic nucleation and diffusion-limited growth, governs the CV shape, hysteresis, and scan-rate dependence in Ni(OH)2 and LiFePO4.

Significance. If convincingly established, the autocatalytic rate-law framework would provide a simple, analytically tractable alternative to nucleation–growth descriptions of EPTs, with potential impact on understanding peak asymmetry, reaction asymmetry, and scan-rate effects in battery and pseudocapacitor materials. The paper is commendably explicit about its phenomenological nature and makes its simulation code openly available on GitHub, which supports reproducibility. The thermodynamic section provides a clear pedagogical bridge between free-energy curves and CV signals. However, the mechanistic conclusions presently rest on in-sample fits with scan-rate-dependent and cycle-dependent parameters, and the LiFePO4 evidence is qualitative; the manuscript therefore reads more as a perspective proposing a hypothesis than as a validated mechanistic demonstration.

major comments (4)
  1. [Diffusion-Free EPT, Fig. 4c] The scan-rate dependence of the Ni(OH)2 CV is parameterized rather than explained: the ratio kdeinsert/kinsert is set to 2.5 at 2 mV/s and to 1.4 at 5 mV/s, with no functional relationship between this ratio and scan rate derived or predicted. Because this ratio is the key asymmetry parameter, the model cannot be falsified by the data shown, and the claim that the model captures scan-rate effects is unsupported. Please either derive the expected scan-rate dependence from a physical mechanism, demonstrate a single parameter set that reproduces multiple scan rates, or explicitly state that the scan-rate dependence of the ratio is an open empirical input.
  2. [Diffusion-Free EPT, Fig. 4b and 4c] The fit uses at least three effective parameters per CV (the rate-constant ratio, the initial mole fraction of O, and the exponent m), with the initial mole fraction also changed from cycle to cycle (5e−8 for the first cycle, 2.6e−3 for the second). No error bars, sensitivity analysis, parameter-identifiability study, or cross-validation are reported. As a result, the visually good agreement in Fig. 4b,c does not discriminate the autocatalytic mechanism from other kinetic models, such as nucleation–growth with scan-rate-dependent active-site density. Please provide parameter estimation details, confidence intervals, and ideally a comparison against at least one alternative kinetic model.
  3. [LiFePO4 discussion, Fig. 5] The LiFePO4 evidence is purely qualitative: the paper cites operando microscopy from ref. [33] and asserts agreement with the Ni(OH)2 behavior, but no CV fitting or quantitative model comparison is performed for LiFePO4. This analogy does not independently test the autocatalytic model and cannot close the evidence gap left by the Ni(OH)2 fits. Either add quantitative LiFePO4 modeling or soften the claim that LiFePO4 supports the proposed mechanism.
  4. [Diffusion-Free EPT, hysteresis model] The statement that 'the surface energy for oxidation and reduction are different because oxidation and reduction go through different reaction pathways' introduces path-dependent free energies into an equilibrium thermodynamic framework. This is a modeling assumption that is not derived from the underlying thermodynamics, and it deserves explicit acknowledgment as a phenomenological input. The paper should clarify whether the model is intended as a genuine free-energy description or as an effective kinetic model, since that distinction affects how the hysteresis claim should be interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph on S-M model] 'Scharifker and Motsaney' appears to be a typo for 'Mostany' (the co-author of ref. [13]); please correct the spelling.
  2. [Diffusion-limited EPT] The sentence 'these CV curves can be influenced by ohmic resistance, as well, witch is not considered here' contains a typo: 'witch' should be 'which'.
  3. [Eqs. (6)–(11)] The symbol f is used in the Butler–Volmer boundary condition and the numerical solution but is never defined; it should be stated explicitly that f = F/RT.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The pH notation in Eq. (2) is used without definition; please define pH = −log10 a_H+ for clarity.
  5. [Simulation Methods] In the Nicholson–Shain discretization, the parameters δ and μ are mentioned but μ is never used after its introduction; the description of the discretization would benefit from a definition of the step size and the summation limits.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The autocatalytic model's scan-rate and memory effects are parameterized, not predicted: k_deinsert/k_insert is re-fit per scan rate, the second-cycle initial mole fraction is an input, and the rate law kx(1-x)^m is imported from the author's prior work.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Diffusion-Free EPT section, Fig. 4c discussion]
    "At a scan rate of 2 mV/s, the autocatalytic model (blue curves) simulates the CV curve with kdeinsert/kinsert = 2.5, but at a scan rate of 5 mV/s this parameter needs to be reduced to 1.4 to simulate the CV curve. The lower value of this parameter indicates less phase separation during deprotonation at higher scan rates, and hence, lower reaction asymmetry."

    kdeinsert/kinsert is the model's reaction-asymmetry parameter and is adjusted independently for each sweep rate until the simulated CV matches the experimental one. The sentence then reads the fitted value back as evidence that higher scan rates reduce phase separation and asymmetry. Because no functional relation between this ratio and scan rate is derived or predicted, the scan-rate dependence is parameterized rather than explained; the 'indication' is a restatement of the fit, not an independent mechanistic result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 4b caption and accompanying text]
    "Comparison of experimental first and second CV cycles for Ni(OH)2 thin film with the model with an initial mole fraction of O equal to 5×10−8 and 2.6×10−3, respectively, and ... The fact that the second oxidation peak appears at lower potentials is due to the residual NiOOH/NiO2 remaining from the first cycle."

    The initial mole fraction of O is a free input chosen separately for the first and second CV cycles (5e-8 and 2.6e-3) so that the simulation matches each cycle. The manuscript's explanation of the second-cycle peak shift appeals to residual NiOOH/NiO2, but that residual amount is exactly the fitted initial condition. The model does not self-consistently propagate the first-cycle product into the second cycle; the 'memory effect' is inserted by hand and then interpreted as a mechanistic finding.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Diffusion-Free EPT section, first paragraph of the kinetics model]
    "We have recently introduced a nonthermodynamic model based on autocatalytic growth to describe the kinetics and mechanism of EPTs [29]. In this model, the rate of the reaction is not determined by stochastic nucleation and diffusion-limited growth, as suggested by the S-M model, but it is determined by the interactions between the O and R species. The reaction rate depends on the different stages (x) of particle growth, making it a size-dependent growth rate equal to kx(1−x)m."

    The central kinetic law kx(1-x)^m is not derived in this paper; it is imported from the author's earlier work (ref [29]). Its exponent m is declared to encode homogeneous (m=1) versus heterogeneous (m>1) behavior, and the parameters are tuned to reproduce the Ni(OH)2 CVs in Figs. 4b-c. Using this self-cited, data-fitted rate law as the basis for the mechanistic conclusion that EPT kinetics are autocatalytic is load-bearing self-citation: the conclusion restates the model's own assumptions rather than an independently established result.

full rationale

The paper is self-contained where it repeats standard thermodynamics (Nernst equation, Clausius-Clapeyron, phase diagrams) and the Nicholson-Shain diffusion simulation; those parts are not circular. The circularity is confined to the kinetic-model narrative. In Fig. 4c the asymmetry parameter k_deinsert/k_insert is re-fitted at 2 and 5 mV/s, and the text then reads the fitted change as evidence that higher scan rate lowers reaction asymmetry. The second-cycle 'memory' effect is likewise carried by a separately specified initial mole fraction rather than by integrating the first cycle. The rate law kx(1-x)^m itself is introduced by citation to the author's own ref [29], and its parameters are tuned to the very CVs it is used to explain, so the mechanistic conclusion that EPT kinetics are autocatalytic is not independently established. This is a fitted-parameter/self-citation chain rather than an internal contradiction, hence a score of 6 rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central mechanistic conclusions rest on phenomenological models whose parameters are fit to the data they are used to interpret, and on standard electrochemical transport assumptions that are adopted without error analysis. The free parameters are mostly simulation inputs or fitted constants; no new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • k (rate constant in autocatalytic model) = ratio kdeinsert/kinsert = 2.5 (2 mV/s), 1.4 (5 mV/s)
    The rate law kx(1-x)^m is introduced in ref [29]; in this paper the ratio of deinsertion to insertion rate constants is adjusted to fit the experimental CVs of Ni(OH)2 at two scan rates.
  • m (autocatalytic interaction exponent) = m=1 (homogeneous), m=3 (heterogeneous)
    m controls whether the EPT behaves as a solid solution or a phase-separating system; values are chosen to reproduce homogeneous vs heterogeneous CV shapes.
  • initial mole fraction of O (x0) = 5e-8 and 2.6e-3
    Initial mole fractions are set to match the first and second CV cycles of Ni(OH)2 (Fig 4b).
  • D (diffusion coefficient in film) = not specified
    Diffusion coefficient used in eq 3 and eq 7 for the diffusion-limited CV simulation; not fitted to experimental data in this paper but a model input.
  • k' (standard rate constant) = not specified
    Butler-Volmer standard rate constant used in eq 6; simulation parameter for the diffusion-limited model.
  • q (charge scaling parameter) = not specified
    Charge scaling factor in eq 11 that converts dimensionless flux to current; chosen to match the redox film charge.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The free energy of a two-phase mixture is described by double-minimum Gm-x curves, with the miscibility gap controlling equilibrium potential plateaus.
    Used to derive the Nernst equation (eq 1) and the E-x curves in Fig 2, following the framework in ref [25].
  • domain assumption Electrochemical phase transitions can be treated as reactive mixtures where configurational entropy yields the Nernst equation.
    Central to the thermodynamic derivation in the 'Diffusion-Free EPT' section.
  • domain assumption Butler-Volmer kinetics can be rearranged into the boundary condition eq 6 relating surface mole fraction to potential and reaction rate.
    Used in the diffusion-limited CV simulation; the equation as printed appears dimensionally ambiguous but follows from standard B-V under assumed symmetry.
  • domain assumption Fick's second law (eq 3) with semi-infinite linear diffusion describes ion transport inside the O/R film.
    Used for the diffusion-limited EPT model, with boundary conditions eqs 4 and 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The autocatalytic rate law kx(1-x)^m captures the kinetics and phase-separation behavior of EPTs.
    Introduced in the author's prior work (ref [29]) and assumed here to explain CV shapes without derivation from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Hysteresis arises from direction-dependent surface energy that differs for oxidation and reduction pathways.
    Invoked to explain the peak separation in Fig 3b, following the author's earlier framework in ref [25].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrochemical Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Hysteresis in Ener-gy Materials: Focusing on the Solid Side." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKSJ6FXS

@misc{pith2026250605829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrochemical Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Hysteresis in Ener-gy Materials: Focusing on the Solid Side},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKSJ6FXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05829}
}
read the original abstract

Bulk electrochemical phase transitions (EPTs) are the cornerstone of most modern electro-chemical technologies, underlying many energy storage and electrocatalytic systems. Nonetheless, the fundamental mechanisms governing EPTs in solid-to-solid systems re-main only partially understood because they involve complex interactions between phase transitions and electrochemical reactions. This mini-review introduces the thermodynam-ics of EPTs based on the general framework of phase transitions and mixtures, followed by a discussion of electrochemical hysteresis and kinetics in EPTs. Finally, using recent insights into the EPTS in Ni(OH)2, LiFePO4, and MnO2 materials, the importance of Cyclic Voltamme-try (CV) modelling in discerning underlying reaction mechanisms is highlighted. This mini-review inspires fundamental research into solid-to-solid EPTs for improving the perfor-mance of current energy storage materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05829 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. c (red curves) shows the second CV cycles of the same Ni(OH0)2 at two different scan rates at 2 and 5 mV/s. Interestingly, the effect of scan rate for the deprotonation and protonation peaks are different. At a scan rate of 2 mV/s, the autocatalytic model (blue curves) simulates the CV curve with kdeinsert/kinsert = 2.5, but at a scan rate of 5 mV/s this parameter needs to be reduced to 1.4 to simulate the CV curve.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    B. Koo, J. Chung, J. Kim, D. Fraggedakis, S. Seo, C. Nam, D. Lee, J. Han, S. Jo, H. Zhao, N. Nadkarni, J. Wang, N. Kim, M. Weigand, M. Z. Bazant, J. Lim, Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 4, DOI 10.1039/D3EE00341H

    work page doi:10.1039/d3ee00341h 2023

  2. [1]

    V. V. Kharton, Solid State Electrochem. I Fundam. Mater. their Appl. 2009, 1–506

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Wittstock, in Lehrb

    G. Wittstock, in Lehrb. Der Elektrochimie, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2023, p. 536

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    P. J. Gellings, The CRC Handbook of SOLID STATE Electrochemistry , CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [4]

    A. J. Bard, L. R. Faulkner, H. S. White, Electrochemical Methods : Fundamentals and Applications, Third Edition, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ SE -, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    A. A. Kornyshev, I. Vilfan, Electrochim. Acta 1995, 40, 109–127

    work page 1995

  7. [6]

    Cheng, Z

    D. Cheng, Z. Wei, Z. Zhang, P. Broekmann, A. N. Alexandrova, P. Sautet, Angew. Chemie 2023, 135, 1–7

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Zhang, Z

    Z. Zhang, Z. Wei, P. Sautet, A. N. Alexandrova, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 19284– 19293

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Scholz, Electroanalytical Methods: Guide to Experiments and Applications, Second Edition, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010

    F. Scholz, Electroanalytical Methods: Guide to Experiments and Applications, Second Edition, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010

    2010

  2. [9]

    Doménech-Carbó, J

    A. Doménech-Carbó, J. Phys. Chem. C 2022, 126, 11822–11832

    2022

  3. [10]

    Roychowdhury, N

    D. Roychowdhury, N. D. Antona, Y. Zhao, Y. Surendranath, V. Augustyn, P. A. Kempler, S. W. Boettcher, 2025, DOI 10.1021/acselectrochem.5c00137

    2025 doi

  4. [11]

    M. Z. Bazant, Faraday Discuss. 2017, 199, 423–463

    2017

  5. [12]

    H. Zhao, M. Z. Bazant, Phys. Rev. E 2019, 100, 1–11

    2019

  6. [13]

    Mostany, B

    J. Mostany, B. Scharifker, Encycl. Electrochem. 2010, 512–540. 15

    2010

  7. [14]

    M. S. Whittingham, Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 11683–11720

    2014

  8. [15]

    Tsakova, J

    V. Tsakova, J. Solid State Electrochem. 2020, 24, 2183–2185

    2020

  9. [16]

    Milchev, Electrocrystallization: Fundamentals of Nucleation and Growth , Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., 2002

    A. Milchev, Electrocrystallization: Fundamentals of Nucleation and Growth , Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., 2002

    2002

  10. [17]

    Milchev, Nanoscale 2016, 8, 13867–13872

    A. Milchev, Nanoscale 2016, 8, 13867–13872

    2016

  11. [18]

    Nakova, B

    A. Nakova, B. Ranguelov, V. Tsakova, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2025, 172, 12510

    2025

  12. [19]

    Fanfoni, M

    M. Fanfoni, M. Tomellini, NUOVO Cim. 1998, 20, 1171–1182

    1998

  13. [20]

    M. Pise, M. Muduli, A. Chatterjee, B. P. Kashyap, R. N. Singh, S. S. V. Tatiparti, Results in Surfaces and Interfaces 2022, 6, 100044

    2022

  14. [21]

    E. R. Cooper, M. Li, I. Gentle, Q. Xia, R. Knibbe, Angew. Chemie 2023, 135, DOI 10.1002/ange.202309247

    2023 doi

  15. [22]

    Scholz, M

    F. Scholz, M. Lovrić, Z. Stojek, J. Solid State Electrochem. 1997, 1, 134–142

    1997

  16. [23]

    Lovrić, M

    M. Lovrić, M. Hermes, F. Scholz, J. Solid State Electrochem. 2000, 4, 394–401

    2000

  17. [24]

    Nafady, N

    A. Nafady, N. J. Al -Qahtani, K. A. Al -Farhan, S. Bhargava, A. M. Bond, J. Solid State Electrochem. 2014, 18, 851–859

    2014

  18. [25]

    Malaie, F

    K. Malaie, F. Scholz, U. Schröder, ChemElectroChem 2023, 10, e202201118

    2023

  19. [26]

    Malaie, F

    K. Malaie, F. Scholz, U. Schröder, H. Wulff, H. Kahlert, ChemPhysChem 2022, 23, e202200364

    2022

  20. [27]

    J. Lim, Y. Li, D. H. Alsem, H. So, S. C. Lee, P. Bai, D. A. Cogswell, X. Liu, N. Jin, Y. Yu, N. J. Salmon, D. A. Shapiro, M. Z. Bazant, T. Tyliszczak, W. C. Chueh, Science (80-. ). 2016, 353, 566–571

    2016

  21. [28]

    R. D. SHANNON, Acta Cryst. 1976, A32, 751–767

    1976

  22. [29]

    Malaie, Phys

    K. Malaie, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2023, 25, 30606–30611

    2023

  23. [30]

    Malaie, J

    K. Malaie, J. Solid State Electrochem. 2024, 28, 1607–1611

    2024

  24. [31]

    A. A. Isse, S. Gottardello, C. Maccato, A. Gennaro, Electrochem. commun. 2006, 8, 1707– 1712

    2006

  25. [32]

    P. Bai, D. A. Cogswell, M. Z. Bazant, Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 4890–4896

    2011

  26. [34]

    Garay, H

    F. Garay, H. E. Rodr, K. Malaie, Phys. Chem. C 2025, DOI 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c01468

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    S. Y. Vassiliev, E. E. Levin, V. A. Nikitina, Electrochim. Acta 2016, 190, 1087–1099. 16

    2016

  28. [36]

    S. Y. Vassiliev, V. V. Sentyurin, E. E. Levin, V. A. Nikitina, Electrochim. Acta 2019, 302, 316–326

    2019

  29. [37]

    M. D. Levi, D. Aurbach, J. Solid State Electrochem. 2008, 12, 409–420

    2008

  30. [38]

    E. M. Gavilán -Arriazu, M. P. Mercer, D. E. Barraco, H. E. Hoster, E. P. M. Leiva, ChemPhysChem 2022, 23, DOI 10.1002/cphc.202100700

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Garay, S

    F. Garay, S. N. Vettorelo, J. Electroanal. Chem. 2020, 878, 114647

    2020

  32. [40]

    H. E. Rodríguez Lucas, F. Garay, Electrochim. Acta 2025, 515, 145666

    2025

  33. [41]

    P. C. Chen, M. Gao, C. A. McCandler, C. Song, J. Jin, Y. Yang, A. L. Maulana, K. A. Persson, P. Yang, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2024, DOI 10.1038/s41565-024-01626-0

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    R. S. Nicholson, I. Shain, Anal. Chem. 1964, 36, 1212. 17 Table of Contents This Minireview explores the electrochemical thermodynamics, kinetics, and hysteresis of solid-to-solid electrochemical phase transitions (EPTs). It bridges phase transition thermodynamics of homogenou...

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.