Stabilizing Lithium-Metal Host Anodes by Covalently Binding MgF₂ Nanodots to Honeycomb Carbon Nanofibers

Constructing lithiophilic carbon hosts has been regarded as an effective strategy for inhibiting Li dendrite formation and mitigating the volume expansion of Li metal anodes. However, the limitation of lithiophilic carbon hosts by conventional surface decoration methods over long-term cycling hinders their practical application. In this work, a robust host composed of ultrafine MgF2 nanodots covalently bonded to honeycomb carbon nanofibers (MgF2/HCNFs) is created through an in situ solid-state reaction. The composite exhibits ultralight weight, excellent lithiophilicity, and structural stability, contributing to a significantly enhanced energy efficiency and lifespan of the battery. Specifically, the strong covalent bond not only prevents MgF2 nanodots from migrating and aggregating but also enhances the binding energy between Mg and Li during the molten Li infusion process. This allows for the effective and stable regulation of repeated Li plating/stripping. As a result, the MgF2/HCNF-Li electrode delivers a high Coulombic efficiency of 97% after 200 cycles, cycling stably for more than 2000 h. Furthermore, the full cells with a LiFePO4 cathode achieve a capacity retention of 85% after 500 cycles at 0.5C. This work provides a strategy to guide dendrite-free Li deposition patterns toward the development of high-performance Li metal batteries

Dietary intake per day and Cardiometabolic traits of children by their dietary patterns.

<p>Plus-minus values are means ± SD.</p>*<p>There are significant difference among different patterns using GLM with p value <0.05, after adjustment for gender, age, by using general linear model factorial analysis, while, the school in study center was treated as a random effect variable.</p>abc<p>Values with different superscripts in the same row were significantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test at p<0.05.</p

Prevalence and odds ratio (<i>OR</i>) of obesity and related cardiometabolic disorders according to dietary patterns.

<p>Model 1: Logistic regression random-effects model adjusted for gender and age;</p><p>Model 2: Logistic regression random-effects model adjusted for Model 1 variable and feeding types, birth weight, parents’ weight, parents’ educational level, average family income per month per capita and study center (school in center);</p><p>Model 3: Logistic regression random-effects model adjusted for Model 2 variable and total energy intake (kcal/d) and physical activity energy expenditure (quartile).</p

Classification of subjects by cluster analysis using factor score.

<p>Plus-minus values are means ± SD.</p>*<p>p<0.05 by analysis variance.</p>abc<p>Values with different superscripts in the same row were significantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test at p<0.05.</p

Characteristics of the subjects by gender.^*

*<p>means ± standard deviation (SD).</p><p><i>P</i> values for sex differences are based on t tests.</p

Pattern loadings of the four major factor solutions after oblique rotation.

<p>Pattern loadings of the four major factor solutions after oblique rotation.</p

Characteristics of the study subjects according to dietary patterns.

§<p>There was significant difference among different patterns using chi-square test.</p

Cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) by city in the nutrition & PA combined intervention group.

<p>^a For BMI, BAZ and overweight & obesity prevalence, the ‘effect’ means BMI, BAZ and overweight & obesity prevalence reduction (post intervention vs before intervention) in intervention group compared with that of in the control group, respectively. ^b ALL CER was presented in US dollars. ^c O & B means overweight & obesity. ^d Total’ means the average effect of four intervention centers (Jinan, Guangzhou, Harbin, Shanghai), Chongqing was excluded here because the intervention in this city was not effective (p>0.05). </p

Characteristics of the subjects at baseline by group.

<p>^a^b: Percentage shared the different letter means significant difference at baseline among groups in Beijing, p<0.05. ^* Significant difference (p<0.05) between control and Nutrition & PA intervention group. ^c statistical analysis and compare between intervention group with it’s control group. No superscript means no significant difference among groups.</p

The costs of development and evaluation of the program (RMB (US dollars)^<b>*</b>).

*<p>US dollars was calculated by Jan, 2010 exchange rate (6.8).</p