IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i21p7949-d954138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproducible Production of Lithium-Ion Coin Cells

Author

Listed:
  • Paul-Martin Luc

    (Electrical Energy Storage Technology, Department of Energy and Automation Technology, Faculty IV, Secr. EMH 2, Technische Universität Berlin, Einsteinufer 11, D-10587 Berlin, Germany)

  • Simon Bauer

    (inno2grid GmbH, EUREF-Campus Haus 13, Torgauer Straße 12-15, D-10829 Berlin, Germany)

  • Julia Kowal

    (Electrical Energy Storage Technology, Department of Energy and Automation Technology, Faculty IV, Secr. EMH 2, Technische Universität Berlin, Einsteinufer 11, D-10587 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Due to the simple structure and the possibility of manual production, coin cells enable fast and, compared to larger cell formats, an inexpensive examination option in battery research. The comparability and traceability of coin cell structures in literature are only feasible to a limited extent due to the lack of a standard in manual production. Since the findings from the literature are barely building up on each other and have not been repeated, a full factorial Design of Experiments (DoE) was performed to investigate the significance of earlier findings in terms of their influence on the reproducibility of the performance. The parameters studied were the anode-to-cathode ratio, the amount of electrolyte, the spring type and the separator count. To quantify the reproducibility of coin cell assembly, the number of functional cells (here: successful formation followed by 30 cycles) and the empirical coefficient of variation for the performance parameters discharge capacity, internal resistance and coulombic efficiency were compared. The critical parameters found in prior literature have no statistically significant influence on reproducibility when focusing on the number of functional cells. Instead, other uninvestigated parameters seem to influence the system coin cell more. By further examining the parameter settings that produced the most functional cells (≥75% of 8 cells), guidance for constructing coin cells (type R2032) was suggested, and other potential influencing parameters are discussed for further study.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul-Martin Luc & Simon Bauer & Julia Kowal, 2022. "Reproducible Production of Lithium-Ion Coin Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:21:p:7949-:d:954138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/7949/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/7949/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huiwen Ji & Jinpeng Wu & Zijian Cai & Jue Liu & Deok-Hwang Kwon & Hyunchul Kim & Alexander Urban & Joseph K. Papp & Emily Foley & Yaosen Tian & Mahalingam Balasubramanian & Haegyeom Kim & Raphaële J. , 2020. "Ultrahigh power and energy density in partially ordered lithium-ion cathode materials," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 213-221, March.
    2. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linze Li & Bin Ouyang & Zhengyan Lun & Haoyan Huo & Dongchang Chen & Yuan Yue & Colin Ophus & Wei Tong & Guoying Chen & Gerbrand Ceder & Chongmin Wang, 2023. "Atomic-scale probing of short-range order and its impact on electrochemical properties in cation-disordered oxide cathodes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    3. Antonella Lanati & Marinella Marzano & Caterina Manzari & Bruno Fosso & Graziano Pesole & Francesca De Leo, 2019. "Management at the service of research: ReOmicS, a quality management system for omics sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Joel Ferguson & Rebecca Littman & Garret Christensen & Elizabeth Levy Paluck & Nicholas Swanson & Zenan Wang & Edward Miguel & David Birke & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2023. "Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Rosenblatt, Lucas & Herman, Bernease & Holovenko, Anastasia & Lee, Wonkwon & Loftus, Joshua & McKinnie, Elizabeth & Rumezhak, Taras & Stadnik, Andrii & Howe, Bill & Stoyanovich, Julia, 2023. "Epistemic parity: reproducibility as an evaluation metric for differential privacy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Inga Patarčić & Jadranka Stojanovski, 2022. "Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines across Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, November.
    8. Susanne Wieschowski & Svenja Biernot & Susanne Deutsch & Silke Glage & André Bleich & René Tolba & Daniel Strech, 2019. "Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-8, November.
    9. Shinichi Nakagawa & Edward R. Ivimey-Cook & Matthew J. Grainger & Rose E. O’Dea & Samantha Burke & Szymon M. Drobniak & Elliot Gould & Erin L. Macartney & April Robin Martinig & Kyle Morrison & Matthi, 2023. "Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, December.
    10. Paul J. Ferraro & J. Dustin Tracy, 2022. "A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: a meta-analysis and a real-effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1441-1466, November.
    11. Brian M. Schilder & Alan E. Murphy & Nathan G. Skene, 2024. "rworkflows: automating reproducible practices for the R community," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Tim Hulsen, 2020. "Sharing Is Caring—Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, April.
    13. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    14. Lingjing Jiang & Niina Haiminen & Anna‐Paola Carrieri & Shi Huang & Yoshiki Vázquez‐Baeza & Laxmi Parida & Ho‐Cheol Kim & Austin D. Swafford & Rob Knight & Loki Natarajan, 2022. "Utilizing stability criteria in choosing feature selection methods yields reproducible results in microbiome data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1155-1167, September.
    15. Joshua Borycz & Robert Olendorf & Alison Specht & Bruce Grant & Kevin Crowston & Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Natalie M. Rice & Rachael Hu & Robert J. Sandusky, 2023. "Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Yi Pei & Qing Chen & Meiyu Wang & Pengjun Zhang & Qingyong Ren & Jingkai Qin & Penghao Xiao & Li Song & Yu Chen & Wen Yin & Xin Tong & Liang Zhen & Peng Wang & Cheng-Yan Xu, 2022. "A medium-entropy transition metal oxide cathode for high-capacity lithium metal batteries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Cantone, Giulio Giacomo, 2023. "The multiversal methodology as a remedy of the replication crisis," MetaArXiv kuhmz, Center for Open Science.
    18. Ron S. Kenett & Abraham Rubinstein, 2021. "Generalizing research findings for enhanced reproducibility: an approach based on verbal alternative representations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4137-4151, May.
    19. Naudé, Wim, 2024. "Is the Scholarly Field of Entrepreneurship at Its End?," IZA Discussion Papers 16916, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Jinzhou Li & Marloes H. Maathuis, 2021. "GGM knockoff filter: False discovery rate control for Gaussian graphical models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(3), pages 534-558, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:21:p:7949-:d:954138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.