ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Perspective on Multiscale Electrodiffusion and Model Selection for Ion Transport in Energy-Storage Nanomaterials.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ion transport in energy storage nanomaterials is described with models that resolve different scales and different physical effects. Device models such as the Doyle-Fuller-Newman framework are well suited to cell voltage, concentration polarization, and electrode utilization, but they usually average local charge separation into effective transport and interface laws. Charge-resolved Poisson-Nernst-Planck, modified Poisson-Nernst-Planck, and Poisson-Fermi descriptions can instead resolve electric potential, ion partitioning, finite ion size, and space charge inside narrow pores and interphases. Molecular simulation gives solvation, adsorption, and interfacial structure, while pore-network and homogenized models connect local transport to electrode geometry. This Perspective compares these model families, states their limits, and explains how quantities should be passed from molecular and pore scales to electrode and device models. Representative examples are discussed for liquid-electrolyte batteries, all-solid-state batteries, and nanoporous supercapacitors. Two concise calculations are retained as model audits. The first tests whether a first-order finite-size approximation remains reliable when its leading correction is small by cancellation. The second tests when local electroneutrality becomes inaccurate in a charged pore and how steric crowding changes screening. These calculations are not new device predictions. The main contribution is a practical procedure that links model choice, cross-scale handoff, and validation with measurable quantities such as voltage, concentration profiles, impedance, interfacial resistance, capacitance, and charging time.
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.