Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38839870›Full record

ReviewNature communications2024

The role of electrocatalytic materials for developing post-lithium metal||sulfur batteries.

Chao Ye, Huan Li, Yujie Chen, Junnan Hao, Jiahao Liu, Jieqiong Shan, Shi-Zhang Qiao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. High-Energy Aqueous Sulfur Battery Chemistry.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. W/V Dual-Atom Doping MoSNano-micro letters · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

7 authors.

Chao Ye *School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8249-4897
Huan Li *School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0662-6939
Yujie ChenSchool of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Junnan HaoSchool of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Jiahao LiuSchool of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Jieqiong ShanDepartment of Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, 999077, Hong Kong, PR China.
Shi-Zhang QiaoSchool of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. s.qiao@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-8422

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The exploration of post-Lithium (Li) metals, such as Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg), Calcium (Ca), Aluminum (Al), and Zinc (Zn), for electrochemical energy storage has been driven by the limited availability of Li and the higher theoretical specific energies compared to the state-of-the-art Li-ion batteries. Post-Li metal||S batteries have emerged as a promising system for practical applications. Yet, the insufficient understanding of quantitative cell parameters and the mechanisms of sulfur electrocatalytic conversion hinder the advancement of these battery technologies. This perspective offers a comprehensive analysis of electrode parameters, including S mass loading, S content, electrolyte/S ratio, and negative/positive electrode capacity ratio, in establishing the specific energy (Wh kg

Identifiers

PMID38839870
PMCPMC11535197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.