ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Identification of transformation products from fluorinated lithium-ion battery additives TPFPB and TPFPP: forever chemicals of tomorrow?
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorinated organic compounds (FOCs) represent a class of synthetic chemicals distinguished by their resilient carbon-fluorine bonds, which demonstrate an ability to withstand environmental degradation over an extended period. The integration of FOCs into cutting-edge applications, including lithium-ion batteries (LiBs), presents considerable potential for environmental harm that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. This study focuses on the environmental fate of two fluorinated aromatics, tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (TPFPB) and tris(pentafluorophenyl)phosphine (TPFPP), given their important role in improving the performance of LiBs. To achieve this, laboratory simulation methods including total oxidizable precursor assay, electrochemistry (EC), Fenton reaction, UV-C irradiation, and hydrolysis were employed. Liquid chromatography and gas chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry were used for identification of transformation products (TPs) and prediction of their molecular formulae. Despite the structural similarity between TPFPB and TPFPP, distinct differences in electrochemical behavior and degradation pathways were observed. TPFPB readily underwent hydroxylation and hydrolysis, resulting in a wide range of 49 TPs. A total of 28 TPs were newly identified, including oligomers and highly toxic dioxins. In contrast, TPFPP degraded exclusively under harsh conditions, requiring the development of innovative conditioning protocols for EC. In total, the simulation experiments yielded nine structurally different compounds, including seven previously undescribed, partially defluorinated TPs. This study highlights the potential risks associated with the use of FOCs in LiBs and provides insight into the complex environmental behavior of FOCs.
Indexed as
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.