Towards environmentally sustainable battery anode materials : life cycle assessment of mixed niobium oxide (XNO™) and lithium‑titanium-oxide (LTO)

Electric mobility has proven to be essential for the carbon neutrality of the transport sector. However, several studies have demonstrated the environmental costs linked to the supply of rechargeable batteries, which should not be overlooked. The supply of some elements has raised concerns, either because they are associated with environmental and social risks, or because they are considered critical raw materials due to their concentrated geographical supply. It is therefore important to look for innovative technologies capable of reducing the demand for traditional battery raw materials and technologies, but that also have lower environmental impacts linked to their supply. Niobium has been reported to improve the performance of battery components and could (partially) replace some traditional battery materials, but little is known about the environmental impacts of niobium-based battery materials. This study compares two commercial lithium-ion battery anode materials, namely lithiumtitanate (LTO) and an innovative mixed niobium oxide anode material (ECA-302, a formulation of XNOTM). Life cycle assessment is employed to quantify the environmental impacts of both technologies, taking into account impacts on global warming potential (GWP), acidification, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation (POF) and the use of fossil resources. The impacts were quantified by mass (1 kg anode material) and functionality (1 kWh delivered/cycle life), using primary industrial data for ECA-302 and literature-adapted data for the LTO. Results show that ECA-302 performs better than LTO considering both the material mass and energy delivery per cycle levels. The GWP for the supply of the ECA-302 was 51% lower than the LTO, but the most remarkable differences were observed for POF, for which ECA-302 had an impact about 72% lower than LTO at the production stage and 77% lower at the energy delivery. The results also indicate that 20% less ECA-302 material is needed to deliver 1 kWh over the cycle life of the battery compared to LTO

A 2D Cd(II)-MOF as a multifunctional luminescencent sensor for nitroaromatics, iron(III) and chromate ions

<p>A Cd(II)-MOF, {[Cd(L)(4,4′-bipy)]·H₂O·DMF}_n (<b>1</b>) (L = nicotinic acid (2,4-dihydroxybenzylidene)-hydrazide and 4,4′-bipy = 4,4′-bipyridine), has been synthesized and characterized by microanalyses, FTIR, TGA, and single-crystal X-ray diffraction. Additionally, powder X-ray diffraction was performed to check the phase purity of the synthesized compound. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction reveals that <b>1</b> has a 2D grid network. Photoluminescent sensing of nitrobenzene, Fe(III) and CrO₄²⁻ ions indicates that <b>1</b> could be a candidate for developing selective luminescent sensors for these species. Theoretical calculations have been performed to gain insight into the possible mechanism of quenching effect in emission on addition of nitrobenzene in <b>1</b> which supports the mechanism operating through ground state charge transfer between <b>1</b> and nitrobenzene.</p

Anti-inflammatory Effects of Rebamipide According to Helicobacter pylori Status in Patients with Chronic Erosive Gastritis: A Randomized Sucralfate-Controlled Multicenter Trial in China-STARS Study

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of rebamipide on symptom, histology, endogenous prostaglandin, and mucosal oxygen free radicals in chronic erosive gastritis (CEG) patients by using sucralfate as a control. The trial also examined whether Helicobacter pylori infection would affect rebamipide-induced protection. A total of 453 endoscopy-confirmed CEG patients from 11 hospitals in China were enrolled in the study. They randomly received either rebamipide (100 mg t.i.d) or sucralfate (1.0 t.i.d) for 8 weeks with a ratio of 3:1. Per-protocol analysis (n = 415) showed the accumulated symptom score in the rebamipide group dropped from 5.54 +/- 0.97 to 0.80 +/- 0.47 after 8 weeks (P < 0.001 versus control). The endoscopic inflammation score in rebamipide group also decreased from 2.65 +/- 0.09 to 0.60 +/- 0.10, which showed better effects than sucralfate. It was shown a significant improvement (P < 0.01) in prostaglandin E2 (PGE(2)) contents in rebamipide-treated subjects mucosa (225.4 +/- 18.3 pg/g versus 266.7 +/- 14.7 pg/g) compared with that in sucralfate group after 8 weeks of treatment. Malondialdehyde (MDA) contents were significantly depressed both in the trial and control group. When Helicobacter pylori infection was considered, no statistically difference was found in the effect of rebamipide on either symptom or inflammation scores. In conclusion, Rebamipide demonstrated a stronger suppressive effect on the mucosal inflammation in chronic erosive gastritis than sucralfate. The gastroprotection induced by rebamipide is not influenced by H. pylori infection, which indicates its usage in the treatment of H. pylori-associated CEG