ReviewNature communications2023
Benchmarking organic active materials for aqueous redox flow batteries in terms of lifetime and cost.
Review in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Your battery may not be a battery.Nature nanotechnology · 2026Article
- Challenges for Aqueous Organic Redox Flow Batteries: The Degradation of Electrolytes and the Design of Ion-Selective Membranes.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- High Potential Isoindoline-Based Nitroxides Posolytes for Aqueous Organic Redox Flow Batteries.ChemSusChem · 2026Article
- Structural and morphological investigation of (RSC advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flow batteries are one option for future, low-cost stationary energy storage. We present a perspective overview of the potential cost of organic active materials for aqueous flow batteries based on a comprehensive mathematical model. The battery capital costs for 38 different organic active materials, as well as the state-of-the-art vanadium system are elucidated. We reveal that only a small number of organic molecules would result in costs close to the vanadium reference system. We identify the most promising candidate as the phenazine 3,3'-(phenazine-1,6-diylbis(azanediyl))dipropionic acid) [1,6-DPAP], suggesting costs even below that of the vanadium reference. Additional cost-saving potential can be expected by mass production of these active materials; major benefits lie in the reduced electrolyte costs as well as power costs, although plant maintenance is a major challenge when applying organic materials. Moreover, this work is designed to be expandable. The developed calculation tool (ReFlowLab) accompanying this publication is open for updates with new data.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.