Fig. 3: Comparison between the diffusion resistance coefficient derived from the GITT, ICI method and EIS. | Nature Communications

Fig. 3: Comparison between the diffusion resistance coefficient derived from the GITT, ICI method and EIS.

From: Rapid determination of solid-state diffusion coefficients in Li-based batteries via intermittent current interruption method

Fig. 3

The diffusion resistance coefficient (k) in NMC811 in Cell 1 during charging and discharging are plotted against the OCP of the electrode (E) in a, b, respectively. The GITT data were fitted with data selection interval 5–40 s. The EIS results are derived from the linear relationship between k and the coefficient of the Warburg element (σ, \({{{{{\rm{k}}}}}}={{{{{\rm{\sigma }}}}}}\sqrt{8/{{{{{\rm{\pi }}}}}}}\)). The maximum of the y-axis is set to 30 Ω s−0.5 to show the differences of the data above 3.7 V. Due to a technical issue, the spectra below 3.8 V in the first charge were not properly collected, but it was solved afterwards. The analysis of the difference between the values derived from the GITT and ICI methods can be found in Supplementary Fig. 11. The error bars originate from the standard deviation of linear regression.

Back to article page