Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Computational Screening of Current Collectors for Enabling Anode-free Lithium Metal Batteries

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper's central claim is that lithium alloys, not transition metals like copper, are the near-ideal current collectors for anode-free lithium metal batteries, because their surfaces bind lithium with near-zero adsorption energy and…

desk verdict A worthwhile screening study with a clean descriptor, held back by a BEP extrapolation that needs validation before the diffusion claims are fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02404 v1 pith:V52EKSN7 submitted 2019-08-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-phphysics.chem-ph

Vikram Pande , Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords anode-freelithiummetalbatteriescurrentcollectorscreeningnucleationoverpotentialsurfacediffusionalloysdensityfunctionaltheoryBrønsted-Evans-Polanyirelationadsorptionenergydescriptor
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 paper argues that the current collector, not just the electrolyte, determines whether anode-free lithium metal batteries can work well, and that lithium alloys are the right class of material. Using density functional theory, the authors compute how strongly lithium binds to and moves on candidate surfaces, and they identify the adsorption free energy of a one-monolayer lithium film as the single descriptor that controls both nucleation and diffusion. The central claim is that optimal current collectors have this adsorption energy near zero: transition metals such as copper bind lithium too strongly, while Li-rich alloy surfaces behave like strained lithium and give near-ideal nucleation with diffusion barriers below 0.15 eV. If the claim holds, swapping copper for a lithium alloy pushes cell specific energy from about 350 Wh/kg to above 400 Wh/kg and improves rate capability, giving a concrete screening rule for material discovery.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 1 ML Li adsorption free energy $\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}}$ used as a single descriptor, together with a Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi (BEP) relation of the form $E_a \approx \alpha\, \Delta H_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}} + \beta$, fitted to 12 nudged elastic band barriers (reported MAE 0.02 eV, $R^2=0.88$). The BEP relation is what makes the screen feasible: it converts expensive diffusion-barrier calculations into a read-off from adsorption energy, so the whole candidate space can be ranked on one number. The volcano curve built from these two quantities marks the optimal window as good nucleation plus fast diffusion, which the paper identifies with $\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}} \approx 0$.

What would settle it

Compute nudged elastic band diffusion barriers for Li on Li-alloy surfaces outside the 12-surface training set, such as Li3Ag(101) or Li9Al4(111), and compare them with the BEP prediction; a mean error much larger than the claimed 0.02 eV would falsify the extrapolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, on the paper's own terms, is a volcano relationship for current collectors: the 1 ML lithium adsorption energy ($\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}}$) simultaneously controls nucleation and surface diffusion, so the best surfaces sit in a narrow window around $\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}} \approx 0$. The authors compute Li adsorption free energies at low and full coverage on low-index surfaces of transition metals and fully lithiated Li-alloys, and Li diffusion barriers via nudged elastic band calculations on 12 surfaces. From those barriers they fit a Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi relation between 1 ML adsorption enthalpy and diffusion activation energy, then use it to assign barriers to the remaining ~70-80 surfaces. Transition metals mostly overbind Li (overpotential > 0.3 V at low coverage), whereas the stable surfaces of LiZn, Li9Al4, Li2Ga, LiB, Li22Si5, Li17Sn4, Li3Cd, and Li3Ag are Li-rich, effectively strained Li, with 1 ML overpotentials below 0.1 V and average diffusion barriers around 0.05 eV. Replacing a 10 μm copper collector with one of these alloys in the paper's cell model gives > 400 Wh/kg instead of ~ 350 Wh/kg.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi relation fitted to only 12 diffusion-barrier calculations predicts the diffusion barriers on all remaining 70-80 surfaces, with no held-out validation; if that scaling is wrong for untested facets, the claim that every screened Li-alloy has fast surface diffusion is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing copper with a Li-alloy current collector raises the modeled cell specific energy from about 350 Wh/kg to above 400 Wh/kg while keeping the same energy density.
  • Li-alloy surfaces give 1 ML Li nucleation overpotentials below 0.1 V and average diffusion activation energies near 0.05 eV, implying easier nucleation and faster lateral spreading of lithium during charge.
  • Cu(111), Fe(110), V(110), and Ni(111) also fall in the optimal window, so increasing the fraction of these facets on conventional collectors is a lower-cost route to improved plating.
  • The volcano relationship provides a screening rule: compute $\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}}$ for a candidate surface; values near zero with low barriers indicate a promising current collector.
  • Coatings made of the screened Li-alloys on copper would improve nucleation and morphology but would not add the specific-energy gain that full collector replacement gives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same descriptor-based volcano could be transferred to sodium or potassium anode-free cells, since their plating overpotential and diffusion should follow an analogous BEP scaling; this is a testable extension, not something the paper claims.
  • The 'strained Li surface' picture implies that alloy composition could be tuned to shift $\Delta G_{\mathrm{ads,1ML}}$ toward zero, turning the screening result into a design rule for new Li-rich intermetallics.
  • The paper considers only fully lithiated alloy phases; if local de-lithiation occurs during cycling, the surface termination and adsorption energy could change, so experimental cycling studies should track phase stability of the collector.
  • Because the paper treats the current collector in isolation, combining this screening with electrolyte and SEI descriptors from the same density functional theory approach might predict cycle life more accurately than either descriptor alone.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a density functional theory (DFT) screening of current collector materials for anode-free lithium metal batteries. The authors compute Li adsorption energies at low coverage and at 1 ML coverage on transition metal and Li-alloy surfaces, and compute Li surface diffusion activation energies using the nudged elastic band method for 12 surfaces. They then derive a Brønsted–Evans–Polanyi (BEP) relation between the 1 ML Li adsorption enthalpy and the diffusion activation energy, and use this relation to estimate barriers for the remaining ~70–80 surfaces. On this basis, they propose that Li alloys have near-zero Li adsorption energies and low diffusion barriers, making them promising current collectors, and suggest a volcano-type descriptor where the optimal 1 ML adsorption energy is close to zero. The paper claims specific energy greater than 400 Wh/kg for anode-free cells with Li-alloy current collectors compared to copper.

Significance. If the screening methodology is reliable, the paper provides a physically motivated descriptor for current collector design in anode-free Li batteries and identifies a class of materials (Li-rich alloys) that had not been systematically considered. The computational protocol follows standard DFT practice, and the manuscript makes concrete, experimentally falsifiable predictions. The use of BEEF-vdW for adsorption energies and barriers is appropriate, and the paper explicitly compares to existing experimental work on Zn, Ag, and Mg coatings. The central idea—that near-zero Li adsorption energy optimizes the nucleation–diffusion trade-off—is conceptually useful and could guide future experimental efforts. However, the reliability of the quantitative screening depends critically on the validity of the BEP extrapolation and on the assumed surface termination, both of which need strengthening before the screening conclusions can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 and Table 1 (BEP relation)] The BEP relation is fitted to 12 NEB barriers (Table 1) and then applied to all remaining ~70–80 surfaces, but the reported MAE of 0.02 eV is a training-set error, not a predictive error. Only three of the fitted points are Li-alloy surfaces (Li2Ga(100), LiZn(100), LiB(10-10)), yet the relation is used to assign barriers for chemically distinct phases such as Li3Ag, Li9Al4, Li22Si5, and Li17Sn4. The claim that 'all considered Li-alloys are good for Li surface diffusion' (Fig. 3c) and the volcano in Fig. 5 therefore rest on an unvalidated extrapolation. The authors should add leave-one-out cross-validation, compute a small number of additional NEB barriers for representative uncomputed alloy surfaces, and report the resulting prediction uncertainty (e.g., from the BEEF-vdW ensemble).
  2. [Table 1 vs. Fig. 4 (coverage mismatch)] The BEP relation is established between the 1 ML Li adsorption enthalpy and diffusion activation energies obtained from low-coverage NEB calculations (Table 1). The paper does not justify why a low-coverage barrier should scale with a 1 ML binding energy; this mixing of coverages in a scaling relation is not standard and could introduce systematic errors. The authors should either compute the NEB barriers at 1 ML coverage for the training set, use low-coverage adsorption energies as the BEP descriptor, or provide a physical argument for why the coverage dependence is negligible.
  3. [Alloy surface termination assumption] All alloy adsorption and diffusion calculations are performed on Li-rich terminations, justified in the text by the statement that 'Li-rich terminations are thermodynamically stable due to the fact that Li has the least surface energy compared to other elements.' This is an assumption, not a result of a surface phase diagram or ab initio thermodynamics at the operating electrochemical potential. Since the nucleation overpotentials and barriers for alloys depend directly on the termination, the authors should verify the Li-rich termination stability explicitly (e.g., by computing surface free energies as a function of Li chemical potential) for at least a few representative alloys, or clearly state this as a limitation and discuss the sensitivity of the conclusions to it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'Using density functional theory calculations, we show that Li-alloys possess ideal characteristics' overstates the level of validation; 'suggest' or 'indicate' would be more appropriate given the BEP extrapolation.
  2. [Results, paragraph on transition metals] There is a typo 'twe find' in the discussion of Cu surface energies; please correct.
  3. [Section on diffusion activation energies] The criterion 'activation energy < 0.15 eV' is chosen relative to Li(100) as a benchmark; the justification for this specific threshold should be stated explicitly, as it directly determines which materials are classified as good.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains the typo 'adsoprtion' and should define the meaning of the blue region in the figure; the main text should clarify that the BEP points are low-coverage NEB barriers plotted against the 1 ML adsorption enthalpy.
  5. [SI Fig. S2] The strain-correlation coefficients a and b (-2.75 and 1.72) are reported without uncertainty; since this correlation is used in the main text to explain adsorption trends, error bars would help assess its strength.
  6. [Cell energy calculations] The specific energy >400 Wh/kg claim relies on a cell design taken from an arXiv preprint (ref 32); the parameters are given in the Fig. 1 caption, but a brief description of the assumptions (e.g., cathode loading, current collector thickness) in the main text would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The volcano's diffusion branch is built from a BEP fit on the same 1 ML Li adsorption energy used as the single descriptor, so the 'optimal near-zero adsorption' conclusion is partly a restatement of the fit; direct NEB on 12 surfaces provides only partial independent grounding.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Li surface diffusion activation energies' (pp. 10-11), Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and caption]
    "To calculate the Li-diffusion activation energies for all the remaning surfaces, we derived a Brønsted—Evans—Polanyi (BEP) relation 50 between the activation energy and the adsorption enthalpy of 1 ML Li covered surfaces. ... We find an excellent BEP relation with an MAE of 0.02 eV on the training set of activation energies. Now we use this derived relationship to determine the activation energy for all the remaining surfaces."

    The BEP relation is fitted to 12 NEB barriers and then used to assign Ea for the ~70 remaining surfaces. The input variable of that fit is the 1 ML Li adsorption enthalpy, which is exactly the quantity used as the x-axis and single descriptor of the volcano in Fig. 5. For most materials, the green 'diffusion' points in the volcano are therefore not independent data but a deterministic transformation of the red adsorption-energy points via the fitted line. The claim that optimal performance occurs at ΔGads,1ML ≈ 0 is thus partly a consequence of the fit, not an independent first-principles result. The reported MAE is a training-set error with no held-out validation, so the extrapolation is statistically forced rather than verified.

full rationale

The paper's nucleation analysis rests on direct DFT adsorption energies for all candidate surfaces and is not circular. The specific-energy comparison uses a cell model taken from a prior preprint by the same authors, but that is a standard design assumption and not load-bearing for the DFT screening. The main circularity concern is the diffusion branch of the central descriptor claim: most diffusion activation energies are obtained from a BEP relation fitted to the same 1 ML adsorption energy that is then promoted to a 'single descriptor' of current-collector performance. That makes the 'fast diffusion at near-zero adsorption energy' conclusion partly self-consistent by construction. However, 12 direct NEB barriers, including Li, Cu, and three alloy surfaces, provide some independent grounding, and BEP scaling is an established physical approximation with external precedent. The paper also compares qualitatively with independent experimental reports on Zn, Ag, and Mg coatings. The circularity is therefore partial rather than total: the central claim does not reduce entirely to a fit or a self-citation chain, but the diffusion half of the volcano is substantially a fitted input relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The screening rests on standard DFT approximations plus a fitted BEP scaling relation, a hand-picked diffusion threshold, an assumed Li-rich surface termination, and a self-cited cell model for the specific energy projection. The central claim about Li-alloy nucleation benefits is partly supported by direct NEB on three alloys, but the broad screening conclusions depend on these parameters and assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • BEP slope and intercept = Not given explicitly; linear fit shown in Fig. 4
    Linear fit between 1 ML adsorption enthalpy and NEB diffusion barrier on 12 surfaces, used to predict barriers for all other surfaces.
  • Strain correlation coefficients a and b = a = -2.75, b = 1.72
    Fit in SI Fig. S2 relating 1 ML Li adsorption energy to surface strain, used for analysis of Li-alloy surfaces.
  • Good-diffusion threshold = 0.15 eV
    Hand-picked cutoff based on Li(100) barrier; materials below this are called good current collector candidates.
  • Cell design parameters = 10 um anode current collector, 4.25 mAh/cm2 LCO cathode, etc.
    Taken from Zhu et al. cell model; drives the specific energy numbers in Fig. 1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BEEF-vdW provides accurate adsorption energies and barriers for Li on metal surfaces
    Used for all DFT calculations; benchmark against Li surface energy in SI, but no direct validation for Li adsorption on alloys.
  • domain assumption Nucleation overpotential and surface diffusion barrier are sufficient descriptors for dendrite-free, uniform Li growth
    Basis of the screening; neglects SEI, electrolyte, current density, and mechanical effects that also control cycling.
  • ad hoc to paper Li-rich terminations are the thermodynamically stable surfaces of Li alloys
    Assumed from surface energy argument (Li has lowest surface energy); used to justify nucleating on strained Li layers.
  • ad hoc to paper BEP relation trained on 12 surfaces generalizes to all 70-80 surfaces
    Used to assign diffusion barriers without NEB for most surfaces; no held-out validation.
  • domain assumption Only fully lithiated alloy phases are relevant, avoiding Li inventory consumption
    Modeling choice for anode-free operation; other phases would consume lithium.
  • domain assumption The Zhu et al. cell model accurately represents practical anode-free cell energy
    Basis for specific energy comparison; unpublished preprint from the same group.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computational Screening of Current Collectors for Enabling Anode-free Lithium Metal Batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V52EKSN7

@misc{pith2026190902404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computational Screening of Current Collectors for Enabling Anode-free Lithium Metal Batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V52EKSN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02404}
}
read the original abstract

Lithium metal cells are key towards achieving high specific energy and energy density for electrification of transportation and aviation. Anode-free cells are the limiting case of lithium metal cells involving no excess lithium and the highest possible specific energy. In addition, anode-free cells are easier, cheaper and safer as they avoid handling and manufacturing of lithium metal foils. Issues related to dendrite growth and poor cycling are magnified in anode-free cells due to lack of excess lithium. Electrolyte and current collector surface play a crucial role in affecting the cycling performance of anode-free cells. In this work, we have computationally screened for candidate current collectors that can nucleate lithium effectively and allow uniform growth. These are determined by the free energy of lithium adsorption and lithium surface diffusion barrier on candidate current collectors. Using density functional theory calculations, we show that Li-alloys possess ideal characteristics for Li nucleation and growth. These can lead to vastly improved specific energy compared to current transition metal current collectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The specific energy of anode free cells using 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Li adsorption energies at (a) Low coverage, (b) 1 ML coverage on transition metal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Li adsorption energies at (a) Low coverage, (b) 1 ML coverage on Li alloys. (c) Li [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Brønsted–Evans–Polanyi (BEP) relation between adsoprtion enthalpy for nucle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Volcano relationship for the performance of current collectors based on the single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W.; Aurbach, D

    Choi, J. W.; Aurbach, D. Promise and reality of post-lithium-ion batteries with high energy densities. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16013

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Consortium, U. S. A. B. USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs-CY 2020 Commercialization

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Make a Practical Electric Semi Truck

    Sripad, S.; Viswanathan, V. Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Make a Practical Electric Semi Truck. ACS Energy Lett. 2017, 2, 1669--1673

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Lithium metal anodes for rechargeable batteries

    Xu, W.; Wang, J.; Ding, F.; Chen, X.; Nasybulin, E.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.-G. Lithium metal anodes for rechargeable batteries. Energy Environ. Sci 2014, 7, 513--537

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    L.; Sripad, S.; Bower, G

    Fredericks, W. L.; Sripad, S.; Bower, G. C.; Viswanathan, V. Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Electrify Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Aircraft. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 2989--2994

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Viswanathan, V.; Knapp, B. M. Potential for electric aircraft. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 88

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Electric Flight - Potential and Limitations

    Hepperle, M. Electric Flight - Potential and Limitations. Workshop on Energy Efficient Technologies and Concepts Operation, German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Lilienthalplatz 7, D-38108 Braunschweig, Germany. 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    S.; Ma, S

    Park, M. S.; Ma, S. B.; Lee, D. J.; Im, D.; Doo, S.-G.; Yamamoto, O. A highly reversible lithium metal anode. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 3815

    work page 2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    An artificial solid electrolyte interphase layer for stable lithium metal anodes

    Li, N.-W.; Yin, Y.-X.; Yang, C.-P.; Guo, Y.-G. An artificial solid electrolyte interphase layer for stable lithium metal anodes. Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 1853--1858

    2016

  2. [10]

    Jiao, S. et al. Stable cycling of high-voltage lithium metal batteries in ether electrolytes. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 739

    2018

  3. [11]

    Zhang, J.-G.; Xu, W.; Henderson, W. A. Lithium metal anodes and rechargeable lithium metal batteries; Springer Switzerland, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Reviving the lithium metal anode for high-energy batteries

    Lin, D.; Liu, Y.; Cui, Y. Reviving the lithium metal anode for high-energy batteries. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017, 12, 194

    2017

  5. [13]

    Ionic liquid electrolyte with highly concentrated LiTFSI for lithium metal batteries

    Zhang, H.; Qu, W.; Chen, N.; Huang, Y.; Li, L.; Wu, F.; Chen, R. Ionic liquid electrolyte with highly concentrated LiTFSI for lithium metal batteries. Electrochim. Acta 2018, 285, 78--85

    2018

  6. [14]

    Non-flammable electrolyte enables Li-metal batteries with aggressive cathode chemistries

    Fan, X.; Chen, L.; Borodin, O.; Ji, X.; Chen, J.; Hou, S.; Deng, T.; Zheng, J.; Yang, C.; Liou, S.-C.; Amine, K.; Xu, K.; Wang, C. Non-flammable electrolyte enables Li-metal batteries with aggressive cathode chemistries. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 715

    2018

  7. [15]

    J.; Genovese, M.; Weber, R.; Hames, S.; Logan, E.; Dahn, J

    Louli, A. J.; Genovese, M.; Weber, R.; Hames, S.; Logan, E.; Dahn, J. Exploring the Impact of Mechanical Pressure on the Performance of Anode-Free Lithium Metal Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2019, 166, A1291--A1299

    2019

  8. [16]

    D.; Zheng, J.; Xu, W.; Henderson, W

    Qian, J.; Adams, B. D.; Zheng, J.; Xu, W.; Henderson, W. A.; Wang, J.; Bowden, M. E.; Xu, S.; Hu, J.; Zhang, J.-G. Anode-free rechargeable lithium metal batteries. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2016, 26, 7094--7102

    2016

  9. [17]

    Lithium-free

    Neudecker, B.; Dudney, N.; Bates, J. “Lithium-free” thin-film battery with in situ plated Li anode. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000, 147, 517--523

    2000

  10. [18]

    practical challenges hindering the development of solid state Li ion batteries

    Kerman, K.; Luntz, A.; Viswanathan, V.; Chiang, Y.-M.; Chen, Z. practical challenges hindering the development of solid state Li ion batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2017, 164, A1731--A1744

    2017

  11. [19]

    Status and challenges in enabling the lithium metal electrode for high-energy and low-cost rechargeable batteries

    Albertus, P.; Babinec, S.; Litzelman, S.; Newman, A. Status and challenges in enabling the lithium metal electrode for high-energy and low-cost rechargeable batteries. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 16

    2018

  12. [20]

    Layered reduced graphene oxide with nanoscale interlayer gaps as a stable host for lithium metal anodes

    Lin, D.; Liu, Y.; Liang, Z.; Lee, H.-W.; Sun, J.; Wang, H.; Yan, K.; Xie, J.; Cui, Y. Layered reduced graphene oxide with nanoscale interlayer gaps as a stable host for lithium metal anodes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2016, 11, 626

    2016

  13. [21]

    N.; Noked, M.; Dasgupta, N

    Wood, K. N.; Noked, M.; Dasgupta, N. P. Lithium metal anodes: toward an improved understanding of coupled morphological, electrochemical, and mechanical behavior. ACS Energy Lett. 2017, 2, 664--672

    2017

  14. [22]

    Combinatorial Methods for Improving Lithium Metal Cycling Efficiency

    Genovese, M.; Louli, A.; Weber, R.; Sanderson, R.; Johnson, M.; Dahn, J. Combinatorial Methods for Improving Lithium Metal Cycling Efficiency. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, A3000--A3013

    2018

  15. [23]

    Nanoscale nucleation and growth of electrodeposited lithium metal

    Pei, A.; Zheng, G.; Shi, F.; Li, Y.; Cui, Y. Nanoscale nucleation and growth of electrodeposited lithium metal. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 1132--1139

    2017

  16. [24]

    Free-standing copper nanowire network current collector for improving lithium anode performance

    Lu, L.-L.; Ge, J.; Yang, J.-N.; Chen, S.-M.; Yao, H.-B.; Zhou, F.; Yu, S.-H. Free-standing copper nanowire network current collector for improving lithium anode performance. Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 4431--4437

    2016

  17. [25]

    Compact 3D Copper with Uniform Porous Structure Derived by Electrochemical Dealloying as Dendrite-Free Lithium Metal Anode Current Collector

    Zhao, H.; Lei, D.; He, Y.-B.; Yuan, Y.; Yun, Q.; Ni, B.; Lv, W.; Li, B.; Yang, Q.-H.; Kang, F.; Lu, J. Compact 3D Copper with Uniform Porous Structure Derived by Electrochemical Dealloying as Dendrite-Free Lithium Metal Anode Current Collector. Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1800266

    2018

  18. [26]

    Three-dimensional pie-like current collectors for dendrite-free lithium metal anodes

    Yan, K.; Sun, B.; Munroe, P.; Wang, G. Three-dimensional pie-like current collectors for dendrite-free lithium metal anodes. Energy Storage Mater. 2018, 11, 127--133

    2018

  19. [27]

    A.; Cheng, J.-H.; Kuo, L.-M.; Su, W.-N.; Hwang, B.-J

    Assegie, A. A.; Cheng, J.-H.; Kuo, L.-M.; Su, W.-N.; Hwang, B.-J. Polyethylene oxide film coating enhances lithium cycling efficiency of an anode-free lithium-metal battery. Nanoscale 2018, 10, 6125--6138

    2018

  20. [28]

    Dendrite-free Li metal anode by lowering deposition interface energy with Cu99Zn alloy coating

    Liu, S.; Zhang, X.; Li, R.; Gao, L.; Luo, J. Dendrite-free Li metal anode by lowering deposition interface energy with Cu99Zn alloy coating. Energy Storage Mater. 2018, 14, 143--148

    2018

  21. [29]

    Lithiophilic sites in doped graphene guide uniform lithium nucleation for dendrite-free lithium metal anodes

    Zhang, R.; Chen, X.-R.; Chen, X.; Cheng, X.-B.; Zhang, X.-Q.; Yan, C.; Zhang, Q. Lithiophilic sites in doped graphene guide uniform lithium nucleation for dendrite-free lithium metal anodes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 7764--7768

    2017

  22. [30]

    Prestoring lithium into stable 3D nickel foam host as dendrite-free lithium metal anode

    Chi, S.-S.; Liu, Y.; Song, W.-L.; Fan, L.-Z.; Zhang, Q. Prestoring lithium into stable 3D nickel foam host as dendrite-free lithium metal anode. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1700348

    2017

  23. [31]

    Selective deposition and stable encapsulation of lithium through heterogeneous seeded growth

    Yan, K.; Lu, Z.; Lee, H.-W.; Xiong, F.; Hsu, P.-C.; Li, Y.; Zhao, J.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Selective deposition and stable encapsulation of lithium through heterogeneous seeded growth. Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 16010

    2016

  24. [32]

    Design Principles for Self-forming Interfaces Enabling Stable Lithium Metal Anodes

    Zhu, Y.; Pande, V.; Li, L.; Pan, S.; Wen, B.; Wang, D.; Viswanathan, V.; Chiang, Y.-M. Design Principles for Self-forming Interfaces Enabling Stable Lithium Metal Anodes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09593 2019,

    1903 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chiang, Y.-M.; Viswanathan, V.; Li, L.; Pande, V.; Krishnamurthy, D.; Ahmad, Z.; Woodford, W. H. Lithium metal electrodes and batteries thereof. 2017; US Patent App. 15/480,235

    2017

  26. [34]

    A.; Xu, W.; Bhattacharya, P.; Engelhard, M.; Borodin, O.; Zhang, J.-G

    Qian, J.; Henderson, W. A.; Xu, W.; Bhattacharya, P.; Engelhard, M.; Borodin, O.; Zhang, J.-G. High rate and stable cycling of lithium metal anode. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6362

    2015

  27. [35]

    H.; Mei, D.; Jiao, S.; Polzin, B

    Zheng, J.; Engelhard, M. H.; Mei, D.; Jiao, S.; Polzin, B. J.; Zhang, J.-G.; Xu, W. Electrolyte additive enabled fast charging and stable cycling lithium metal batteries. Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 17012

    2017

  28. [36]

    Fluoroethylene carbonate additives to render uniform Li deposits in lithium metal batteries

    Zhang, X.-Q.; Cheng, X.-B.; Chen, X.; Yan, C.; Zhang, Q. Fluoroethylene carbonate additives to render uniform Li deposits in lithium metal batteries. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1605989

    2017

  29. [37]

    Exner, K. S. Recent Advancements Towards Closing the Gap between Electrocatalysis and Battery Science Communities: The Computational Lithium Electrode and Activity--Stability Volcano Plots . ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2330--2344

    2019

  30. [38]

    Dendrite growth in lithium/polymer systems a propagation model for liquid electrolytes under galvanostatic conditions

    Monroe, C.; Newman, J. Dendrite growth in lithium/polymer systems a propagation model for liquid electrolytes under galvanostatic conditions. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2003, 150, A1377--A1384

    2003

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    T.; M gelh j, A.; Petzold, V.; Landis, D

    Wellendorff, J.; Lundgaard, K. T.; M gelh j, A.; Petzold, V.; Landis, D. D.; N rskov, J. K.; Bligaard, T.; Jacobsen, K. W. Density functionals for surface science: Exchange-correlation model development with Bayesian error estimation. Phys. Rev. B 2012, 85, 235149

    2012

  34. [42]

    C.; Kroes, G.-J.; N rskov, J

    Mallikarjun Sharada, S.; Bligaard, T.; Luntz, A. C.; Kroes, G.-J.; N rskov, J. K. SBH10: A Benchmark Database of Barrier Heights on Transition Metal Surfaces. J. Phys. Chem. C 2017, 121, 19807--19815

    2017

  35. [43]

    L.; Kollar, J

    Vitos, L.; Ruban, A.; Skriver, H. L.; Kollar, J. The surface energy of metals. Surf. Sci. 1998, 411, 186--202

    1998

  36. [44]

    Mavrikakis, M.; Hammer, B.; N rskov, J. K. Effect of strain on the reactivity of metal surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 81, 2819

    1998

  37. [45]

    Khorshidi, A.; Violet, J.; Hashemi, J.; Peterson, A. A. How strain can break the scaling relations of catalysis. Nat. Catal. 2018, 1, 263

    2018

  38. [46]

    Self-diffusion barriers: possible descriptors for dendrite growth in batteries? Energy Environ

    J \"a ckle, M.; Helmbrecht, K.; Smits, M.; Stottmeister, D.; Gro , A. Self-diffusion barriers: possible descriptors for dendrite growth in batteries? Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 3400--3407

    2018

  39. [47]

    Surface science: an introduction; Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Oura, K.; Lifshits, V.; Saranin, A.; Zotov, A.; Katayama, M. Surface science: an introduction; Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Jonsson, H.; Mills, G.; Jacobsen, K. W. Classical and Quantum Dynamics in Condensed Phase Simulations; Chapter 16, pp 385--404

  41. [49]

    Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2017, 29, 273002

    2017

  42. [50]

    On the introduction of thermodynamic variables into reaction kinetics

    Evans, M.; Polanyi, M. On the introduction of thermodynamic variables into reaction kinetics. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1937, 33, 448--452

    1937

  43. [51]

    adobe:ns:meta/

    Wang, S. et al. Universal transition state scaling relations for (de) hydrogenation over transition metals. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 20760--20765 mcitethebibliography main_VV.tex0000664000000000000000000007734313527076126011666 0ustar rootroot [journal=aelccp,manuscri...

    2011

Pith tools

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