Phospho-Olivines as Positive-Electrode Materials for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries
Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1997 · paper · Materials
Studies LiFePO4 and related phosphates as positive electrodes for rechargeable lithium batteries. Lithium can be reversibly extracted and inserted at 3.5 V versus lithium, giving 100–110 mAh/g, with capacity falling at higher current.
Checked: PDF from iopscience.iop.org, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
2 findings
Substance Text p. 5: "The volume decreases by 6.81% and the density increases by 2.59%", but the Table I volumes ("291.392 (3)" for LiFePO4, "272.357 (1)" for FePO4) give a 6.53% decrease and, with the formula masses, a density increase of about 2.28%.
- p. 5 Results text, right column
The volume decreases by 6.81%
- p. 6 Table I, Volume row
291.392 (3)
- p. 5 Results and Discussion, paragraph after Fig. 5
The volume decreases by 6.81% and the density increases by 2.59%.
- p. 6 Table I, Volume row
272.357 (1)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the Table I image (p. 6) and the text on p. 5. The text says the parameters are listed in Table I. a*b*c reproduces both tabulated volumes, so the table is internally consistent. The decrease from the Table I volumes is 6.53% (6.99% if FePO4 is the reference). The two text figures agree with each other: a 6.81% decrease, allowing for the mass change from 157.76 to 150.82 g/mol, gives +2.59% density. They do not agree with Table I. A text search found no other basis for these percentages. Only the authors can say which values are correct. The 2.59% density figure is covered here (C009 is marked as a duplicate). Reviewer note 8's claim that the density increase should be about 7% is not accepted, because it ignores the loss of Li mass.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The captions of Figs. 2 and 5 say "at 2.0 mA/g (0.05 mA/cm2)", but the Fig. 5 inset reads "Current Density : 0.05 mA/cm2, 1.85 mA/g" and the Fig. 2 inset reads "0.05 mA/cm2, 2.1 mA/g".
- p. 5 Fig. 5 caption and inset
Current Density 0.05 mA/cm2, 1.85 mAIg
- p. 4 Fig. 2 inset vs caption
0.05 mA/cm2, 2.1 mA/g
- p. 5 Fig. 5 inset vs caption
0.05 mA/cm2, 1.85 mA/g
- p. 5 Fig. 5 caption
Discharge/charge curves vs. lithium at 2.0 mA/g
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the Fig. 5 inset on page 5 (zoomed crop): it reads 1.85 mA/g, while the caption gives 2.0 mA/g. The Fig. 2 inset on page 4 reads 2.1 mA/g, while its caption gives 2.0 mA/g. The mA/cm2 value is the same in all of them. Different electrode loadings could explain why the two insets differ from each other, but each caption disagrees with its own inset. The Fig. 5 mismatch (1.85 against 2.0) is the larger one.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
11 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 captions both say 'at 2.0 mA/g (0.05 mA/cm2)', but the in-panel labels read '0.05 mA/cm2, 2.1 mA/g' (Fig. 2) and 'Current Density : 0.05 mA/cm2, 1.85 mA/g' (Fig. 5).
- p. 4 Fig. 2 caption and inset
Discharge/charge curves vs. lithium at 2.0 mA/g
- p. 4 Fig. 2 inset vs caption
0.05 mA/cm2, 2.1 mA/g
- p. 4 Fig. 2 caption
at 2.0 mA/g
- p. 5 Fig. 5 inset vs caption
Current Density : 0.05 mA/cm2, 1.85 mA/g
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Confirmed on pages 4 and 5. Different electrode loadings could legitimately give different mA/g values. The captions nonetheless give one value that does not match either panel, so only the authors can say which is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording 'washing the products several times with acetonitrile, which decomposes at 350°C' grammatically attributes the 350°C decomposition to acetonitrile rather than to LiBr.
- p. 6 Thermal stability paragraph
acetonitrile, which decomposes at 350°C
Judge's note: The crop confirms the wording. The intended referent is presumably LiBr, but the sentence leaves this ambiguous.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The co-author's name is spelled "K. S. Nanjandaswamy" in Refs. 14, 15 and 16, but "Nanjundaswamy" in the byline and in Ref. 20.
- p. 8 References 14-16
K. S. Nanjandaswamy
- p. 8 Reference 20
K. S. Nanjundaswamy
- p. 2 Author line
Nanjundaswamy
Judge's note: Checked the byline on p. 2 ("K. S. Nanjundaswamy") and the reference list on p. 8: Refs. 14–16 read "Nanjandaswamy" and Ref. 20 reads "Nanjundaswamy". This is the same author (a co-author of this paper), spelled two ways within one paper.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Number agreement errors: "These consideration have motivated the investigations of iron-based oxides." (p. 3; should be "considerations") and "the width of the 4.1 V plateau decreases ..., which suggest that the 4.1 V plateau" (p. 7; should be "suggests").
- p. 3 Introduction
These consideration have moti-vated
- p. 6 Results
the upper voltage limit used in our experiments were 4.3 to 4.4 V
- p. 7 Conclusion
which suggest that the 4.1 V plateau
- p. 3 Introduction, end of paragraph on cost of transition metals
These consideration have motivated the investigations of iron-based oxides.
Judge's note: Checked the page 3 crop: it reads "These consideration have moti-vated", with the whole word visible, so this is not an extraction artefact. Checked the page 7 crop: "which suggest" refers back to the singular "width ... decreases". The 'limit ... were' item on p. 6 is judged under C013.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 1 caption reads '(b) actual stucture.' instead of 'structure'.
- p. 3 Fig. 1 caption
actual stucture.
Judge's note: The Fig. 1 caption on the page 3 image shows 'actual stucture.'
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo 'Atomic absorption spec-trosopy' should read 'spectroscopy'.
- p. 4 Experimental
Atomic absorption spec-trosopy
- p. 4 Experimental, chemical delithiation paragraph
Atomic absorption spec-trosopy was performed
Judge's note: The crop shows 'spec-' / 'trosopy' across the line break. The letter 'c' is missing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo 'by Gibb's phase rule' should read 'Gibbs phase rule' (or 'Gibbs' phase rule').
- p. 4 Results and Discussion
by Gibb's phase rule
Judge's note: The crop shows 'Gibb's'. This is a cosmetic misspelling of the name.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 2 axis and caption use "y in Li1-yFePO4" / "for Li1-yFePO4", while the text says "The V(x) curves for Li1-xFePO4 in Fig. 2".
- p. 4 Fig. 2 x-axis label vs text
y in Li1-yFePO4
- p. 4 Text on V(x) curves
The V(x) curves for Li1-xFePO4 in Fig. 2
Judge's note: Checked page 4. The Fig. 2 x-axis reads "y in Li1-yFePO4" and the caption reads "for Li1-yFePO4". The right-column text refers to "The V(x) curves for Li1-xFePO4 in Fig. 2". The letter is a dummy composition variable, so the meaning does not change, but the notation is inconsistent.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject–verb agreement: "the upper voltage limit used in our experiments were 4.3 to 4.4 V" (p. 6) should read "was".
- p. 6 Discussion, left column
our experiments were 4.3 to 4.4 V
- p. 6 Results and Discussion, paragraph on LiMPO4 (M = Mn, Co, Ni)
the upper voltage limit used in our experiments were 4.3 to 4.4 V
- p. 6 Results
upper voltage limit used in our experiments were 4.3 to 4.4 V
- p. 7 Conclusion
while charging up to 4.3 V
Judge's note: Checked the p. 6 crop: the grammar error is as quoted. The other claim, that this conflicts with "while charging up to 4.3 V" in the Conclusion (p. 7), is not a defect: 4.3 V falls inside the stated 4.3–4.4 V range, and the Conclusion refers to the LiMnPO4 cell specifically.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference author names printed as 'D. Guymard' (ref. 5), 'R. Bittihu' (ref. 8), 'N. Imanashi' (ref. 10) and 'W. Evantoff' (ref. 18).
- p. 7 Ref. 5
J. M. Tarascon and D. Guymard
- p. 7 Ref. 8
R. Bittihu
- p. 8 Ref. 18
W. Evantoff
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the correct spellings Guyomard, Bittihn, Imanishi and Eventoff. The page images show the spellings as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Ref. 7 prints 'L. A. de Piciotto'.
- p. 7 Reference 7
L. A. de Piciotto
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author's name is spelled de Picciotto. The page image shows 'de Piciotto'.
Second check: none (judge only)