Planar Li Deposition and Dissolution Enable Practical Anode-Free Pouch Cells
Nature, 2026 · paper · Materials
Presents an electrolyte for anode-free lithium metal batteries that forms a flexible, homogeneous interface layer enabling planar lithium deposition. A 2.7 Ah pouch cell (508 Wh/kg) cycled 100 times at full depth of discharge and 250 times at 80%.
Checked: PDF from assets-eu.researchsquare.com, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
4 findings
Substance Text: "(AFE, LHCE, HCDE) are 18, 50, and 55 cycles, respectively", but Fig. 4c places HCDE at 50 cycles and LHCE at 55 cycles.
- p. 9 Performance paragraph
(AFE, LHCE, HCDE) are 18, 50, and 55 cycles
- p. 11 Fig. 4c bars and x-axis
HCDE
- p. 20 Figure 4c x-axis and bar labels
HCDE … LHCE … 50 55
- p. 9 Performances section, para 1
(AFE, LHCE, HCDE) are 18, 50, and 55 cycles, respectively
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Fig. 4c on p20 shows the HCDE bar at 50 (10.3% dead Li) and the LHCE bar at 55 (7.2% dead Li), the reverse of the p9 text. The text's own LHCE dead-Li growth rate of 0.007 mAh cm–2 per cycle fits 55 cycles, not 50. The AFE (0.041) and BAFF (0.002) rates also check out, which supports the figure's assignment. The authors must confirm which is correct.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance "24% at an ultra-high current density of 49.2 mA cm–2 (7C)" should be 39.2 mA cm–2.
- p. 10 Rate performance paragraph
even 24% at an ultra-high current density of 49.2 mA cm–2(7C)
- p. 20 Fig. 4d upper panel label
39.2 mA cm–2
- p. 10 Rate paragraph
24% at an ultra-high current density of 49.2 mA cm–2
- p. 10 Performance paragraph, rate
49.2 mA cm–2(7C)
Judge's note: The Methods (p11) give 1C = 5.6 mA cm–2, and the text's 5C = 28 mA cm–2 fits that. Fig. 4d upper panel (p20) is labelled 39.2 mA cm–2. The text value 49.2 is a typo.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. 1d lists "Low viscosity: 7.0 mPa s–1"; dynamic viscosity unit is mPa s, as in the text "viscosity (7.04 mPa s)".
- p. 17 Fig. 1d bullet list
Low viscosity: 7.0 mPa s-1
- p. 4 Electrolyte reasons
viscosity (7.04 mPa s)
Judge's note: Page 17 image of Fig. 1d shows 'mPa s⁻¹'; page 4 text gives 'mPa s'. Wrong unit label in figure.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. 2 title: "5.6 mAh cm–1 Li deposition/dissolution" should be mAh cm–2.
- p. 18 Figure 2 caption title
Morphological and crystallographic evolution of 5.6 mAh cm–1 Li deposition/dissolution.
- p. 18 Figure 2 caption title
5.6 mAh cm–1 Li deposition/dissolution
- p. 18
Morphological and crystallographic evolution of 5.6 mAh cm–1 Li deposition/dissolution
Judge's note: The crop image shows the superscript –1. Areal capacity is given as mAh cm–2 everywhere else. This is a wrong unit, so S2.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
15 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Text gives "total mass of 20.5 g" while the balance photographed in Fig. 1e reads 20.44; and the 1668 Wh L–1 cannot be reproduced from the Fig. 1e dimensions ("Cell length: 85 mm", width 58 mm, thickness 2.3 mm), and the volume basis is not stated.
- p. 4 Design paragraph
total mass of 20.5 g
- p. 17 Fig. 1e balance display
20.44
- p. 17 Figure 1e
Cell length: 85 mm
- p. 4 Design section
total capacity of 2.7 Ah and total mass of 20.5 g
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked p4 text and the Fig. 1e photo on p17: the balance shows 20.44 and the text says 20.5 g. 508 Wh kg–1 × 20.5 g ≈ 10.41 Wh. Using the printed outer dimensions (11.34 cm3), that gives about 918 Wh L–1. 1668 Wh L–1 implies a volume of about 6.24 cm3, so the authors presumably used the cell body without seals and tabs, but the paper does not say which volume. The photographed cell may also not be the cell listed in Table S6 (supplement not available). Only the authors can clarify both points.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says only "Increasing the discharge cutoff voltage from 2.8 V to 3.6 V" for 80% DoD, but Fig. 4b and its caption give "80% DoD (3.6–4.3 V)" (upper cutoff 4.3 V, not the 4.4 V of the 100% DoD protocol).
- p. 9 Performance paragraph
Increasing the discharge cutoff voltage from 2.8 V to 3.6 V allows for the release of 80% of the total capacity
- p. 20 Fig. 4 caption and Fig. 4b label
80% DoD (3.6–4.3 V)
- p. 20 Figure 4 caption (b) and panel b
(b) 80% DoD (3.6–4.3 V)
- p. 9 Performances section
Increasing the discharge cutoff voltage from 2.8 V to 3.6 V
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: P9 describes only a change to the discharge cutoff. Panel 4b reads '3.6 ~ 4.3 V' and the caption says 3.6–4.3 V, while the 100% DoD window is 2.8–4.4 V. The Methods (p11) do not give the 80% DoD window. The change in charge cutoff is never mentioned in the text.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Methods say MST quantified Li and LiH "in the fully deposited samples", while the Results say the Cu foils were "collected from fully discharged (to 1.0 V) AFLMBs".
- p. 12 Methods, Characterizations
The amount of inactive metallic Li and LiH in the fully deposited samples
- p. 9 Performances section
Cu foils collected from fully discharged (to 1.0 V) AFLMBs
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The crops from pages 12 and 9 show the two descriptions, which name opposite states of charge. The Results wording fits dead-Li titration, so the Methods phrase is likely loose or wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "(see discussed below)" is ungrammatical; it should read 'see discussion below' or 'as discussed below'.
- p. 4 Design section, electrolyte reasons (3)
(see discussed below)
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 4 crop.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Grammar: "Regarding to the chemical composition" (p7) and "BAFF and its-derived SEI" (p10).
- p. 7 SEI characterization, paragraph 2
Regarding to the chemical composition
- p. 10 Performance section, power paragraph
BAFF and its-derived SEI
- p. 10
excellent ion-conductivity in BAFF and its-derived SEI
Judge's note: Both phrases appear as quoted on the page images of p7 and p10. Fix: 'Regarding the' and 'its derived'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "(EIS, Figures 3i)" uses the plural for a single panel, and the Fig. 3 caption prints "BAFF-derived SEl" with a lower-case l.
- p. 7 SEI characterization
(EIS, Figures 3i)
- p. 19 Figure 3 caption
BAFF-derived SEl
Judge's note: Page 7 shows 'Figures 3i'. The page 19 caption shows 'SEl', where the final letter renders differently from the I in 'SEI' elsewhere.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 3a caption says "Cryo-EM image of 5th deposited Li in BAFF" while the text calls the technique "cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (Cryo-TEM)".
- p. 19 Figure 3 caption (a)
Cryo-EM image of 5th deposited Li in BAFF
- p. 7 SEI characterization
cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (Cryo-TEM)
- p. 19 Figure 3 caption
Cryo-EM image of 5th deposited Li
Judge's note: Both forms appear on the p7 and p19 images. Cryo-EM is the broader term, so this is only an inconsistency in naming.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 3i legend writes "Ea (KJ mol–1)" with capital K; text and SI form is "kJ mol–1".
- p. 19 Figure 3i legend
E_a (KJ mol-1)
- p. 7 SEI characterization
37.4 kJ mol–1
Judge's note: Page 19 Fig. 3i legend shows 'KJ mol⁻¹'; text on page 7 uses kJ. Cosmetic prefix case error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "In contract, the lifespan of" should read "In contrast".
- p. 9 Performance paragraph
In contract, the lifespan of
Judge's note: Seen on the p9 page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "the HDCE-based AFLMB suffered from severe gas generation" should read HCDE.
- p. 9 Performance paragraph
the HDCE-based AFLMB suffered
- p. 9 Performances section
the HDCE-based AFLMB suffered from severe gas generation
- p. 9 Performances section
In contract, the lifespan
- p. 9 Performance paragraph
the HDCE-based AFLMB
Judge's note: P9 image shows 'HDCE'. The electrolyte is HCDE everywhere else, including the Methods on p11. The 'In contract' typo is handled under C012.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Methods: "was less 10 ppm" is missing 'than'.
- p. 11 Methods, electrolyte preparation
was less 10 ppm
Judge's note: P11 image reads 'was less 10 ppm'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "The Li electrodes were retracted from the charged Cu||NCM811 pouch cells" uses the wrong word; 'extracted' or 'harvested' is meant.
- p. 12 Methods
The Li electrodes were retracted from the charged
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 12 crop.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Missing space between sentences in Methods: "to prevent beam damage.The crystallographic".
- p. 12 Characterizations
to prevent beam damage.The crystallographic
Judge's note: Crop of page 12 shows 'damage.The' with no space; a genuine typographic slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 2j panel header reads "2th dis, 1.0 V"; should be "2nd dis" (caption: 'LHCE: 1st and 2nd').
- p. 18 Fig. 2j panel header
2th dis, 1.0 V
Judge's note: Page 18 figure image shows '2th dis, 1.0 V'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 3e x-axis label reads "Youth modulus (GPa)" instead of Young's modulus.
- p. 19 Fig. 3e x-axis
Youth modulus (GPa)
Judge's note: Seen on the p19 page image. The caption and text say Young's modulus.
Second check: none (judge only)