Assesses how irradiation impacts lithium–air battery performance, implying optimal dosages improve energy efficiency.
The effect of irradiation dose on the performance of lithium–air batteries was investigated using a coupled electrochemical–defect evolution model. The model describes oxygen and lithium transport, lithium peroxide precipitation, and Butler–Volmer electrochemical kinetics. Irradiation-induced defects are treated as a dynamic variable that modifies diffusivity, exchange current density, and specific surface area through a biphasic mechanism. Numerical simulations were performed under control, low-dose, medium-dose, and high-dose conditions to characterize the full dose-dependent behaviour. The results reveal a nonlinear response. In the control case, current, power, and capacity remain minimal due to slow electrochemical kinetics. Low-dose irradiation enhances reaction activity while preserving transport. This produces modest increases in peak current and power and dramatic gains in capacity and energy that increase by more than 1500% relative to control. Medium and high doses generate sharp current and power spikes, but these are not sustained. In such cases, lithium peroxide formation collapses, capacity and energy drop to nearly zero, and the electrolyte potential diverges as defect densities exceed 10²² m⁻³. The study establishes irradiation as a double-edged influence on lithium–air batteries. At low doses, defects improve kinetics and product formation within an optimal defect window. At higher doses, excessive defects suppress transport and lead to performance failure. The novelty of this work lies in unifying irradiation physics with lithium–air battery modeling, to our knowledge, a biphasic window has not been reported in the Li–air literature. This provides new theoretical insight and practical guidance for the design of irradiation-assisted energy storage systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akintunde et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: