Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Computational Study of Li+ Solvation Structures in Fluorinated Ether, Non-Fluorinated Ether, and Organic Carbonate-Based Electrolytes at Low and High Salt Concentrations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fluorinated ether FEME is the weakest Li+ solvent of the comparison

desk verdict FEME is a plausible new weakly solvating ether, but the paper's headline FEME < DPE ordering is not supported by the reported numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11932 v2 pith:7VUNNR7S submitted 2025-01-21 physics.chem-ph

Rumana Hasan , Dibakar Datta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords lithium-ionbatteriesweaklysolvatedetherelectrolyte22-difluoroethylmethyl(FEME)dipropyl(DPE)LiFSIsolvationstructureionaggregatesmoleculardynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a pure fluorinated ether solvent, 2,2-difluoroethyl methyl ether (FEME), is an even weaker lithium-ion solvator than the non-fluorinated ether dipropyl ether (DPE), and therefore produces anion-rich solvation structures at salt concentrations as low as 1 M LiFSI. Using molecular dynamics and density functional theory, the authors compare FEME and DPE against a 1:1 EC/DEC carbonate mixture at 1, 1.8, and 4 M salt. The simulations show the dominant solvation species in both ethers are aggregates like Li$^+$(FSI$^-$)$_3$(FEME)$_1$, with FEME showing lower solvent coordination numbers and higher anion coordination than DPE. The attraction is that anion-rich solvation shells favor LiF-rich solid-electrolyte interphases, which are desirable for long-life lithium-metal batteries. The paper thus positions FEME as a candidate weakly solvated ether electrolyte, while flagging its flammability as a reason to keep it experimental.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Li$^+$ primary solvation shell, defined by the first minimum in the Li$^+$--O radial distribution function (about 3 Angstroms for the ethers). The authors count how many solvent oxygens and how many FSI$^-$ oxygens sit inside that shell, then classify each Li$^+$ into solvent-separated ion pairs (SSIPs), contact ion pairs (CIPs), or aggregates (AGGs). The inversion of solvent-versus-anion coordination numbers is what carries the argument: lower solvent coordination and higher anion coordination mean weaker solvating power. DFT binding energies of isolated clusters serve as a second, corroborating probe of the same ordering.

What would settle it

Compute first-shell Li$^+$--O(solvent) coordination numbers from ab initio molecular dynamics of FEME + 1 M LiFSI and DPE + 1 M LiFSI; if FEME's value is not below DPE's, the solvation-power ordering fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that FEME has weaker solvating power than DPE at every concentration studied (1, 1.8, and 4 M LiFSI), meaning Li$^+$ prefers FSI$^-$ over the solvent inside its first solvation shell. MD results give Li$^+$--O(FEME) coordination numbers of 0.72--0.79 versus 0.77--0.80 for DPE, while Li$^+$--O(FSI$^-$) coordination is correspondingly higher in FEME (3.91--3.96) than in DPE (3.75--3.82). The dominant solvation structures in both ethers are anion-rich complexes, Li$^+$(FSI$^-$)$_3$(DPE)$_1$ and Li$^+$(FSI$^-$)$_3$(FEME)$_1$, and FEME even shows larger Li$^+$--Li$^+$ coordination numbers (4.96--5.34) than DPE (3.86--3.95). DFT binding energies place FEME at $-0.531$ eV versus $-0.561$ eV for DPE, corroborating weaker cation--solvent binding. In the carbonate control, 68% of Li$^+$ are solvent-separated ion pairs, confirming the contrast.

Load-bearing premise

The MD force field for FEME, built from OPLS-AA parameters via LigParGen and ionic-liquid parameters for LiFSI, is assumed to reproduce the relative Li$^+$--solvent and Li$^+$--anion coordination; the small FEME-versus-DPE differences (coordination numbers differing by about 0.05, binding energies by about 0.03 eV) would invert if the fluorinated ether's dipole or coordination behavior is misdescribed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A FEME-based electrolyte with 1 M LiFSI already forms aggregate-dominated solvation, so anion-derived SEI chemistry would be accessible without the high salt loading usually required.
  • FEME's weaker solvation than DPE implies even more suppressed free-solvent decomposition at both anode and cathode interfaces.
  • The hopping-type Li$^+$ transport suggested for aggregate networks could give higher transference numbers, though the paper notes aggregation can also slow ionic conductivity.
  • The carbonate benchmark shows the same simulation pipeline reproduces the known SSIP-dominated structure of EC/DEC + LiPF$_6$, supporting the contrast.
  • These results extend the weakly solvated ether electrolyte design space to a fluorinated ether that is a pure solvent, not a mixture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 0.03 eV binding-energy gap between FEME and DPE sits near thermal energy ($kT \approx 0.026$ eV at 298 K), so the ordering may be sensitive to the choice of DFT functional and dispersion correction.
  • The same fluorination pattern could be screened more broadly: other 2,2-difluoroalkyl methyl ethers may show tunable solvating power between DPE and FEME.
  • Raman or $^{19}$F NMR experiments on FEME + 1 M LiFSI would directly test the predicted aggregate dominance at low salt concentration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined classical molecular dynamics (MD) and density functional theory (DFT) study of Li+ solvation in three families of electrolytes: DPE/LiFSI and FEME/LiFSI at 1, 1.8, and 4 M, and a 1:1 vol% EC/DEC mixture with 1 M LiPF6. The central claims are that the two ether electrolytes are dominated by anion-rich aggregates (AGGs) even at 1 M, that the carbonate electrolyte is dominated by solvent-separated ion pairs (SSIPs), and that FEME has weaker solvating power than DPE. The evidence is taken from radial distribution functions and coordination numbers from MD, solvation-structure speciation from MD snapshots, and binding energies, Bader charges, charge density differences, and HOMO/LUMO data from DFT cluster calculations. The authors also provide a qualitative discussion of transport mechanisms and of the relevance of anion-rich solvation to LiF-rich SEI formation.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim—that FEME is a weaker solvent than DPE—is robust, the paper would provide useful computational guidance for designing weakly solvating fluorinated ether electrolytes. The qualitative contrast between AGG-dominated ethers and SSIP-dominated carbonates is consistent with prior work and is supported by the reported RDFs, coordination numbers, and the DPE/LiFSI comparison to the study of Li et al. The paper has concrete strengths: input files and optimized structures are made available on GitHub; the carbonate density and HOMO/LUMO values are checked against literature data; and the DPE+1.8 M LiFSI result is benchmarked against an earlier OPLS-based simulation. However, the headline FEME-versus-DPE ordering rests on very small coordination-number and binding-energy differences, and the FEME force field is not validated, so the main quantitative conclusion is not yet established at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Table 3] The headline claim that FEME has weaker solvating power than DPE rests on coordination-number differences of only about 0.05–0.10: Li–O(solvent) CNs are 0.72–0.79 for FEME versus 0.77–0.80 for DPE, and Li–O(FSI) CNs are 3.91–3.96 versus 3.75–3.82. These values are reported without any statistical uncertainty. The RDFs and CNs are averaged over the last 1 ns of a single 5 ns production run per system, so no block averages, independent replicate runs, or confidence intervals are available. Given the small magnitude of the differences, the present data do not by themselves establish the FEME < DPE ordering. The authors should add error bars (e.g., from block averaging or several independent trajectories) and assess whether the ordering is statistically significant.
  2. [§2.1, Section 3.2] The force field for FEME is not validated. Section 2.1 states that the FEME parameters come from LigParGen/OPLS-AA and the salt parameters from ionic-liquid databases, but no FEME-specific validation is provided: no comparison of the simulated density, viscosity, or solvation structure of FEME against experiment or higher-level theory. Fluorinated ethers can have electrostatic charge distributions that are poorly captured by generic OPLS-AA charges, and a small bias in the FEME dipole or oxygen partial charge could reverse the FEME/DPE ordering. The authors should validate the FEME model (for example, against experimental density and against DFT-computed dipole moments or Li+ binding geometry) or explicitly quantify the sensitivity of the FEME-versus-DPE coordination numbers to the force-field charges.
  3. [§3.3.2, Table 6] The DFT binding-energy evidence for the FEME < DPE ordering is not strong enough to serve as independent corroboration. Table 6 gives Li+(FEME)1 binding energy of –0.531 eV versus –0.561 eV for Li+(DPE)1, a difference of 0.03 eV, which is within the typical error of PBE-D3 on vacuum cluster models. The calculations are performed without solvation and without higher-level electronic-structure benchmarks. This does not disprove the ordering, but it cannot rescue the MD result if the force-field bias is of comparable magnitude. The paper should either present a higher-level benchmark (e.g., a correlated wavefunction method or an implicit-solvation correction) or explicitly state that the FEME-versus-DPE binding-energy difference is below the expected accuracy of the method.
  4. [Abstract, §3.3, Table 4] There is an internal inconsistency between the abstract/conclusions and the data in Table 4. The abstract and conclusions state that the dominant solvation structure in the ether-based electrolytes is Li+(FSI–)3(solvent)1 for both DPE and FEME. Table 4, however, lists for FEME+1 M LiFSI the most frequent structure as Li+(FSI–)5(FEME)0 (24.00%), with Li+(FSI–)3(FEME)1 second at 22.67%. The dominance of Li+(FSI–)3(FEME)1 holds at 1.8 M and 4 M but not at 1 M. This discrepancy should be corrected in the text, and the claim that the primary solvation structure remains nearly unchanged across concentrations needs to be reconciled with the 1 M FEME speciation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Equations 1–7] The text refers to 'Equations 1 to 7' but the displayed equations are not numbered in the manuscript; adding visible equation numbers would help the reader connect the text to the functional forms.
  2. [Table 1] The density units are given as g/m3 with values such as 736 × 10^3 and 132 × 104. These are more naturally expressed in g/cm3 (0.736 and 1.32 g/cm3), and the entry for EC appears to contain a typographical error in the power of ten.
  3. [Acknowledgements] There is a repeated 'the' in 'This work used resources of the the HPC cluster Wulver'; it should read 'of the HPC cluster Wulver'.
  4. [§3.3] The sentence 'This can usually leads to a lower Li+ transference number' contains a subject–verb agreement error ('can usually leads').
  5. [§3.2] The statement that the RDF and CN cutoffs 'correspond to the distance at the maximum peak' for the RDF and the first minimum for the CN is standard, but the values in Table 3 would be easier to interpret if each CN cutoff were explicitly tied to the corresponding RDF plot in Fig. 6 or Fig. 7.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FEME/DPE solvation rankings are computed outputs from external transferable force fields and DFT, not fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (weak solvating power of DPE and FEME, and FEME < DPE) are read directly from MD-derived coordination numbers, RDF peak heights, and DFT binding energies. No target quantity is used to define the model inputs: the OPLS-AA/LigParGen parameters and the ionic-liquid LiFSI parameters are transferable external parameter sets, and no parameter was fitted to the FEME solvation data being claimed. The solvation species classifications come from standard first-shell RDF cutoffs, and the DFT values are validated against literature benchmarks generated with the same or different functionals/software by other groups. There are no self-citations by the authors that carry a load-bearing argument, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The reported limitation that FEME has no dedicated experimental validation and the inconsistency between the abstract's dominant structure at 1 M and Table 4 are correctness/reliability concerns, not circularity. Because the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no equation reduces a prediction to an input, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hand-fitted parameters or fitted constants were identified; the paper uses standard MD/DFT settings and literature force fields. The load-bearing assumptions are force-field transferability, vacuum-cluster DFT reliability, RDF cutoff definitions, and simulation-length adequacy. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption OPLS-AA force field, with LigParGen solvent parameters and ionic-liquid ion parameters, accurately describes Li+-solvent and Li+-anion coordination in DPE, FEME, and EC/DEC electrolytes.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; all RDF, coordination-number, and aggregate-speciation results depend on this transferability, and no FEME-specific force-field validation is provided.
  • domain assumption PBE with DFT-D3 dispersion, applied to neutral and charged clusters in vacuum, gives trustworthy relative binding energies and electronic structure for Li+ solvation clusters.
    Invoked in Sections 2.2 and 3.3.2; vacuum clusters omit bulk solvation and counterion screening, yet binding-energy ordering is used to rank solvating power.
  • domain assumption The first minimum after the first RDF peak is an unbiased definition of the primary solvation shell for all ion-solvent and ion-ion pairs.
    Used in Section 3.2 to compute coordination numbers and to assign SSIP/CIP/AGG; the percentages in Figures 9 and 10 depend on these cutoffs.
  • domain assumption One 5 ns production run, with properties averaged over the last 1 ns, samples the equilibrated solvation ensemble.
    Section 2.1 and Section 3.2; time-block consistency is asserted, but no replicate runs or formal convergence metrics are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computational Study of Li+ Solvation Structures in Fluorinated Ether, Non-Fluorinated Ether, and Organic Carbonate-Based Electrolytes at Low and High Salt Concentrations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VUNNR7S

@misc{pith2026250111932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computational Study of Li+ Solvation Structures in Fluorinated Ether, Non-Fluorinated Ether, and Organic Carbonate-Based Electrolytes at Low and High Salt Concentrations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VUNNR7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11932}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the solvation structure of electrolytes is crucial for optimizing the performance and stability of lithium-ion batteries. Novel electrolytes are essential for enhancing electrolyte structure and ensuring better integration with modern electrode systems. Herein, we report a novel weakly solvated ether electrolyte (WSEE) composed of a pure fluorinated ether solvent, which results in an anion-rich solvation structure even at a low salt concentration of 1 M. To explore this, we selected the advanced fluorinated solvent 2,2-difluoroethyl methyl ether (FEME) and compared it with dipropyl ether (DPE), ethylene carbonate (EC), and diethyl carbonate (DEC). The prepared electrolyte systems include DPE with 1 M, 1.8 M, and 4 M LiFSI; FEME with 1 M, 1.8 M, and 4 M LiFSI; and a 1:1 vol% EC/DEC mixture containing 1 M LiPF6. In this work, we comprehensively investigate the Li+ solvation structures using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Our computational findings indicate the presence of large ion aggregates (AGGs) in each DPE- and FEME-based electrolyte, while SSIPs (68%) are the dominant species in the mixed EC/DEC electrolyte. Notably, the formation of large ion aggregates is more pronounced in FEME-based electrolytes. We find that, similar to DPE, the FEME solvent also exhibits weak solvating power across all examined salt concentrations. More specifically, we find that FEME has weaker solvating power than DPE. This behavior is predicted by MD simulations, which indicate a strong preference for Li+ ions to coordinate with FSI- anions within the primary solvation shell. Furthermore, the quantum mechanical features of the Li+ solvation structures in these electrolytes are analyzed in detail using DFT. We anticipate that this study will provide valuable insights into the Li+ solvation structures in DPE, FEME, and EC/DEC electrolytes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11932 by the authors.

Figure 8
Figure 8. Our findings reveal that DPE and FEME electrolytes are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Xu, Chemical reviews, 2004, 104, 4303–4418

    1 K. Xu, Chemical reviews, 2004, 104, 4303–4418. 2 M. Armand and J.-M. Tarascon, nature, 2008, 451, 652–657. 3 J. B. Goodenough and Y. Kim, Chemistry of materials, 2010, 22, 587–603. 4 J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, nature, 2001, 414, 359–367. 5 B. Scrosati, J. Hassoun and Y.-K. Sun, Energy & Environmen- tal Science, 2011, 4, 3287–3295. 6 M. Li, J. Lu, Z. ...

    work page 2004

  2. [20]

    Dokko, D

    123 K. Dokko, D. Watanabe, Y. Ugata, M. L. Thomas, S. Tsuzuki, W. Shinoda, K. Hashimoto, K. Ueno, Y. Umebayashi and M. Watanabe, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B , 2018, 122, 10736–10745. 124 D. Yu, D. Troya, A. G. Korovich, J. E. Bostwick, R. H. Colby and L. A. Madsen, ACS Energy Letters, 2023, 8, 1944–1951. 125 Y. Ugata, S. Sasagawa, R. Tatara, K. Ue...

    work page 2018

  3. [44]

    Holoubek, H

    113 J. Holoubek, H. Liu, Z. Wu, Y. Yin, X. Xing, G. Cai, S. Yu, H. Zhou, T. A. Pascal, Z. Chen et al., Nature energy, 2021, 6, 303–313. 114 H. Li, Y. Kang, W. Wei, C. Yan, X. Ma, H. Chen, Y. Sang, H. Liu and S. Wang, Nano-Micro Letters, 2024, 16,

    work page 2021

  4. [197]

    115 X. Cao, P. Gao, X. Ren, L. Zou, M. H. Engelhard, B. E. Matthews, J. Hu, C. Niu, D. Liu, B. W. Arey et al. , Pro- + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 1–18 | 17 ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2021, 118, e2020357118. 116 B. Koo, H. Lee, S. Hwang, J. Lee, Y.-K. Han, K. H. Ahn, C. Lee and H. Lee, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C,...

    work page 2021

  5. [299]

    Piao, H.-R

    53 Z. Piao, H.-R. Ren, G. Lu, K. Jia, J. Tan, X. Wu, Z. Zhuang, Z. Han, C. Li, R. Gao et al., Angewandte Chemie, 2023, 135, e202300966. 54 T. Zhou, Y. Zhao, M. El Kazzi, J. W. Choi and A. Coskun, Angewandte Chemie International Edition , 2022, 61, e202115884. 55 H. Chen, K. Chen, L. Luo, X. Liu, Z. Wang, A. Zhao, H. Li, X. Ai, Y. Fang and Y. Cao, Angewand...

    work page 2023

  6. [868]

    Xu, Chemical reviews, 2014, 114, 11503–11618

    46 K. Xu, Chemical reviews, 2014, 114, 11503–11618. 47 K. Xu, A. von Cresce and U. Lee,Langmuir, 2010, 26, 11538– 11543. 48 Y. Liu, Y. Zhu and Y. Cui, Nature Energy, 2019, 4, 540–550. 49 Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Shi, F. Qi, X. Gao, H. Yang, H.-M. Cheng and F. Li, Advanced Energy Materials, 2021, 11, 2100935. 50 W. Zhang, T. Yang, X. Liao, Y. Song and Y. Zhao, ...

    work page 2014

  7. [1254]

    Reichardt, The Journal of Organic Chemistry , 2021, 87, 1616–1629

    44 C. Reichardt, The Journal of Organic Chemistry , 2021, 87, 1616–1629. 45 Z. Li, H. Rao, R. Atwi, B. M. Sivakumar, B. Gwalani, S. Gray , K. S. Han, T. A. Everett, T. A. Ajantiwalay , V. Murugesan et al., Nature Communications, 2023, 14,

    work page 2021

  8. [1695]

    Nosé, Molecular physics, 1984, 52, 255–268

    81 S. Nosé, Molecular physics, 1984, 52, 255–268. 82 G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B, 1996, 54, 11169– 11186. 83 J. Harl, L. Schimka and G. Kresse, Physical Review B, 2010, 81, 115126. 84 P. E. Blöchl, Physical review B, 1994, 50, 17953. 85 G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Physical review b, 1999, 59,

    work page 1984

Show all 22 references
  1. [1758]

    86 J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Physical review let- ters, 1996, 77,

    1996

  2. [1780]

    121 P. Zhou, X. Zhang, Y. Xiang and K. Liu, Nano Research, 2023, 16, 8055–8071. 122 S. Krämer, D. Weintz, M. Winter, I. Cekic-Laskovic and M. Grünebaum, Encyclopedia, 2025, 5,

    2023

  3. [2021]

    Ryckaert, G

    78 J.-P. Ryckaert, G. Ciccotti and H. J. Berendsen, Journal of computational physics, 1977, 23, 327–341. 79 W. Shinoda, M. Shiga and M. Mikami, Physical Review B , 2004, 69, 134103. 80 W. G. Hoover, Physical review A, 1985, 31,

    1977

  4. [2148]

    + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 1–18 | 15 22 A. V. Cresce, S. M. Russell, O. Borodin, J. A. Allen, M. A. Schroeder, M. Dai, J. Peng, M. P. Gobet, S. G. Greenbaum, R. E. Rogerset al., Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2017, 19, 574–586. 23 S. Hwang, D.-H. Kim, J....

    2017

  5. [2575]

    92 C. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Liu, L. Liu, X. Yin, Q. Hou, J. Fan, J. Yan, R. Yuan, M. Zheng et al., Nature Communications, 2024, 15,

    2024

  6. [3266]

    94 R. Atwi, M. Bliss, M. Makeev and N. N. Rajput, Scientific Reports, 2022, 12, 15760. 95 H. Yang, J. Ji, H. Li and B. Liang, Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 2023, 62, 6516–6524. 96 K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of applied crystallography , 2011, 44, 1272–1276. 9...

    2022

  7. [3865]

    Grimme, J

    87 S. Grimme, J. Antony , S. Ehrlich and H. Krieg, The Journal of chemical physics, 2010, 132, 154104. 88 J. Zhang, Y.-F. Zhang, Y. Li, Y.-R. Ren, S. Huang, W. Lin and W.-K. Chen, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , 2021, 23, 5143–5151. 89 X. Kou, Y. Ma, C. Pan, Y. Huang, Y....

    2010

  8. [4188]

    Chen, B.-H

    65 P.-P. Chen, B.-H. Zhang, Z.-A. Li, J.-T. Lei, J.-Z. Chen, Y.-L. Hou and D.-L. Zhao, Small, 2024, 20, 2403079. 66 Z. Li, J. Liu, X. Bi, Y. Qin and T. Gao, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2023, 11, 19996–20010. 16 | 1–18 + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 67 J. Moo...

    2024

  9. [4538]

    Martínez, R

    68 L. Martínez, R. Andrade, E. G. Birgin and J. M. Martínez, Journal of computational chemistry, 2009, 30, 2157–2164. 69 W. L. Jorgensen, J. D. Madura and C. J. Swenson, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1984, 106, 6638–6646. 70 W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell and J. Ti...

    2009

  10. [5555]

    Mynam, B

    33 M. Mynam, B. Ravikumar and B. Rai, Journal of Molecular Liquids, 2019, 278, 97–104. 34 X. Zhang and D. G. Kuroda, The Journal of chemical physics, 2019, 150, 184501. 35 M. J. Boyer, L. Vil ˇciauskas and G. S. Hwang, Physical Chem- istry Chemical Physics, 2016, 18, 27868–278...

    2019

  11. [5746]

    Jiang, T

    58 Z. Jiang, T. Yang, C. Li, J. Zou, H. Yang, Q. Zhang and Y. Li, Advanced Functional Materials, 2023, 33, 2306868. 59 X. He, Y. Zhang, K. Wang, B. Shan, M. Zhou, W. Wang and K. Jiang, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2022, 10, 23068– 23078. 60 N. Vangapally , D. Lusztig, S. ...

    2023

  12. [6292]

    93 M. Zhou, C. Ye and D. Xiang, Molecules, 2022, 27,

    2022

  13. [6807]

    15 Y. Chae, C. Lim, J. Jeon, M. Kim, K.-K. Lee, K. Kwak and M. Cho, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2022, 13, 7881–7888. 16 J. Lim, K.-K. Lee, C. Liang, K.-H. Park, M. Kim, K. Kwak and M. Cho, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2019, 123, 6651–6663. 17 K. Fulfer a...

    2022

  14. [8326]

    133 X. Chen, N. Yao, B.-S. Zeng and Q. Zhang, Fundamental Re- search, 2021, 1, 393–398. 134 S.-J. Yang, N. Yao, X.-Q. Xu, F.-N. Jiang, X. Chen, H. Liu, H. Yuan, J.-Q. Huang and X.-B. Cheng, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2021, 9, 19664–19668. 135 X. Chen, X.-Q. Zhang, H.-R....

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.