Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128354›Full record

ReviewiScience2022

Connecting battery technologies for electric vehicles from battery materials to management.

Gang Zhao, Xiaolin Wang, Michael Negnevitsky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gang ZhaoSchool of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.
Xiaolin WangSchool of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.
Michael NegnevitskySchool of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vehicle electrification has always been a hot topic and gradually become a major role in the automobile manufacturing industry over the last two decades. This paper presented comprehensive discussions and insightful evaluations of both conventional electric vehicle (EV) batteries (such as lead-acid, nickel-based, lithium-ion batteries, etc.) and the state-of-the-art battery technologies (such as all-solid-state, silicon-based, lithium-sulphur, metal-air batteries, etc.). Battery major component materials, operating characteristics, theoretical models, manufacturing processes, and end-of-life management were thoroughly reviewed. Different from other reviews focusing on theoretical studies, this review emphasized the key aspects of battery technologies, commercial applications, and lifecycle management. Useful battery managing technologies such as health prediction, charging and discharging, as well as thermal runaway prevention were thoroughly discussed. Two novel hexagon radar charts of all-round evaluations of most reigning and potential EV battery technologies were created to predict the development trend of the EV battery technologies. It showed that lithium-ion batteries (3.9 points) would be still the dominant product for the current commercial EV power battery market in a short term. However, some cutting-edge technologies such as an all-solid-state battery (3.55 points) and silicon-based battery (3.3 points) are highly likely to be the next-generation EV onboard batteries with both higher specific power and better safety performance.

Indexed as

Electrochemical energy storageEnergy materialsEnergy storageEngineeringMaterials science

Identifiers

PMID35128354
PMCPMC8800023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.