ReviewSmall (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany)2025
Understanding Interphases and Interfaces of Battery Materials at the Nanoscale.
Review in Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probing Buried Interfaces in Batteries: TowardChemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society · 2026Review
- Understanding Interphases and Interfaces of Battery Materials at the Nanoscale.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Battery performance and longevity are critically dependent on interfacial characteristics, regardless of whether these interfaces are organic, inorganic, or buried. Comprehensive understanding of these regions is essential for optimizing electrochemical performance. Characterization of battery interfaces presents significant challenges due to their nanometer-scale thickness, complex composition (often a mixture of organic and inorganic decomposition products), and susceptibility to environmental factors and beam damage. In situ and operando techniques, often utilizing synchrotron or neutron sources, are preferred to minimize contamination and capture dynamic interfacial evolution. However, experimental constraints limit universal applicability; vacuum-based methods suitable for solid-state batteries are incompatible with liquid electrolyte systems, while buried interfaces pose unique analytical hurdles. A lack of standardized characterization protocols contributes to data variability and potential bias within literature. This review addresses strategies for investigating buried interfaces and examines advanced characterization techniques commonly employed in lithium-ion battery interface studies. This study specifically addresses concerns surrounding data interpretation and the inherent sensitivity of these layers, highlighting the need for careful methodological consideration and rigorous data validation to ensure accurate representation of interfacial behavior.
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.