Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates anodic corrosion response in aluminum alloy electrodes, suggesting formulation impact.
Anodic corrosion of Al alloy electrodes limits their use as anodes in alkaline aluminum–air batteries. Na2SO4- and Al2(SO4)3-containing formulations were compared at matched nominal sulfate-group inputs but different formulation-derived Na and Al inputs. Aqueous 2 M NaOH was mixed with 0.3 M Na2SO4 or 0.1 M Al2(SO4)3 solution at NaOH:additive-solution volume ratios of 7:3, 5:5, and 3:7, and Al–Mg–Sn–Gd–P alloy electrodes were evaluated in a three-electrode configuration. All galvanostatic tests passed the same external charge of 160 mAh. Mass-loss-normalized anodic charge (QΔm) is reported as an operational metric normalized by the net post-discharge electrode mass decrease, not as conventional battery capacity or efficiency. The Al2(SO4)3-containing formulations showed higher QΔm values; at the 3:7 ratio, QΔm increased from 917 to 1894 mAh g−1. Potentiodynamic polarization yielded lower polarization-derived apparent corrosion current densities and higher polarization resistances, while potentiostatic electrochemical impedance spectroscopy showed larger interfacial impedance responses in the Al2(SO4)3-containing series. Scanning electron microscopy showed electrolyte-dependent post-discharge morphologies. These results establish sulfate-source-dependent differences in anodic, polarization, impedance, and morphological responses under matched nominal sulfate-group input without isolating the effect of a single Na- or Al-containing species, establishing the presence or chemical identity of a distinct interfacial film, or demonstrating improved full-cell performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: