Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Review Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety

Adisu Makeyaw*,  Tamiru Dame,  Mequanint Getu,  Dagm Goytom,  Mekdes Tadese,  Tesfalem Marmacha Malto,  Yohannes Gebremedihin
Published in American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy (Volume 9, Issue 1)
Received: 7 August 2025     Accepted: 19 August 2025     Published: 11 September 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Dependable and efficient energy storage systems are indispensable for modern sustainable energy applications. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), with their proven reliability and high energy density, have become the foundation of contemporary energy storage, powering applications ranging from portable electronics to electric vehicles (EVs) and grid-scale renewable energy systems. Critically, LIBs are increasingly vital for integrating variable renewable resources, such as solar and wind, into large-scale electrical grids. By enabling the efficient capture and on-demand discharge of electricity, they provide essential electricity and flexibility to modern sustainable power systems. Despite their dominance, challenges persist in terms of energy density, life cycle, and safety, which limit their full potential. Consequently, LIB technology remains paramount for realizing a cleaner, electrified future across several diverse sectors. This review systematically examines recent advancements in LIB technology, focusing on three critical performance metrics: (1) energy density, where innovations in high-capacity silicon anodes, nickel-rich cathodes, and solid-state electrolytes have pushed boundaries; (2) life cycle, addressing degradation mechanisms such as solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) growth and lithium-plating through advanced electrolytes and manufacturing techniques; and (3) safety, mitigating thermal runaway risks via ceramic-coated separators, flame-retardant additives, and robust battery management systems (BMS). Furthermore, the review highlights emerging technologies such as lithium-sulfur and solid-state batteries, which promise transformative gains. This review identifies significant gaps by synthesizing material innovations, failure mechanisms, and industry trends. It provides a road map for future research, emphasizing the need for sustainable materials, scalable manufacturing, and stringent safety protocols to meet the growing demands of next-generation energy storage.

Published in American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI 10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12
Page(s) 12-30
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Lithium-ion Batteries, Energy Density, Life Cycle, Thermal Runaway, Solid-state Electrolytes, Sustainable Energy Storage

1. Introduction
Rechargeable batteries trace their origins to the 19th-century inventions of lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries
[1]
. Commercialization accelerated in the 20th century with LIBs and nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries, revolutionizing portable electronics (e.g., smartphones, laptops) and emerging as pivotal for EVs and renewable energy storage
[2]
. Batteries convert chemical energy to electrical energy reversibly. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) bolster grid stability across the generation, transmission, and distribution sectors
[3]
. Among battery technologies, LIBs dominate due to their high energy density, long life cycle, and low self-discharge
[4]
. Alternatives, like lead-acid, sodium-ion, and solid-state batteries, serve niche applications, but LIBs remain unmatched for mainstream use
[5]
. The three critical performance pillars for LIBs are: energy density (crucial for EV range and device miniaturization
[6]
), life cycle (reduces replacement costs and enhances sustainability
[7]
), and safety (prevents catastrophic failures in high-risk applications like EVs
[8]
). This review examines advancements in these areas, highlighting material innovations, degradation mechanisms, safety protocols, and future challenges.
LIBs’ superior energy density (~250–300 Wh/kg), long life cycle (>1000 cycles), and better costs ($132/kWh as of 2021) make them indispensable for the global transition to clean energy. The escalating demand for higher performance-driven by EVs requiring>500 km ranges and renewables needing efficient storage-exposes critical limitations in current LIB technology
[9]
. While LIBs outperform lead-acid and NiMH batteries, their gravimetric energy density remains insufficient for next-gen applications. For instance, aviation and long-haul EVs demand>400 Wh/kg, which traditional graphite anodes and layered oxide cathodes cannot achieve without compromising stability
[5]
. Capacity fade due to solid electrolyte interface (SEI) growth, lithium plating, and mechanical stress limits LIBs to ~2000 cycles, far below the 5000+ cycles needed for grid storage
[6]
. Thermal runaway-triggered by dendrite penetration, overcharging, or mechanical abuse-has caused high-profile failures in EVs (e.g., Tesla fires) and energy storage systems
[10]
(e.g., Arizona grid battery explosion
[7]
). These challenges are interconnected. For example, high-energy-density nickel-rich cathodes (e.g., NMC811) exacerbate thermal instability
[8]
, while silicon anodes suffer from volume expansion that degrades the life cycle
[11]
. Thus, synergetic improvements are essential to break the existing trade-offs.
Prior reviews have often treated energy density, life cycle, and safety as isolated domains
[1, 4, 9, 10, 12-28]
. For instance, material-centric reviews focus on singular advancements (e.g., silicon anodes
[29]
) without addressing their impact on safety or longevity. Safety studies overemphasize thermal runaway mechanisms
[30]
, but neglect how novel electrolytes (e.g., ionic liquids) can simultaneously enhance energy density and life cycle
[31]
. Life cycle analyses rarely integrate manufacturing innovations -such as dry electrode coating
[32]
with cycling strategies to close the material loop.
This fragmented approach overlooks interdependencies among these metrics. For example, silicon-graphite composite anodes improve energy density, but require tailored electrolytes to mitigate SEI growth
[33]
. Similarly, solid-state batteries promise higher energy density and safety, but face challenges in interfacial stability that affect the life cycle
[34]
. This review bridges these gaps by interdisciplinary synthesis-correlating advancements across materials, life cycle engineering, and safety design to identify synergies, as the existing works underprovide this issue
[18]
. Critical analysis highlighting understudied trade-offs, such as how high-nickel cathodes (NMC811) demand advanced cooling systems to offset thermal risks
[35]
. Furthermore, the review provides a future roadmap that proposes integrated solutions and policy frameworks to accelerate commercialization. It explains the rationale for the choices, the current possibilities, and the potentials of the technologies, as well as the assumptions contained in these opportunities, together with the problems and concerns linked with them. It aims to support further exploration and develop improvements in lithium-ion battery technology by providing straightforward instructions toward these significant outlooks.
2. Energy Density Improvements
2.1. Introduction to Energy Density in LIBs
Energy density-measured in watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg) or watt-hours per liter (Wh/L)-is the most critical performance metric for LIBs. It determines how much energy a battery can store relative to its weight or volume, directly impacting applications such as EVs (driving range of electric vehicles), the run time of portable electronics, and the efficiency of renewable energy storage systems
[2, 3]
. Despite significant advancements
[36]
, current LIB technologies face fundamental limitations-such as material-level constraints by which the conventional graphite anodes (372mAh/g)
[12]
and layered oxide cathodes are approaching their theoretical capacity limits, high-capacity materials, like silicon anodes
[20]
and nickel-rich cathodes often exhibit rapid capacity fade or thermal instability. Moreover, the system challenges-increasing energy density without compromising life cycle or safety require a holistic cell design. The data in Table 1 indicate that there is still a lot of opportunity for development in Li-ion cells’ capacity to store energy. “Where has all the energy gone?” is the issue raised by these findings.
Table 1. Energy density of LIBs
[4]
.

Chemistry

Size

WhL-1 theoretical

WhL-1 actual

%

Wh kg-1 theoretical

Wh kg-1 actual

%

LiFePO4

54208

1980

293

14.8

587

156

26.6

LiMn2O4

26700

2060

296

14.4

500

109

21.8

LiCoO2

18650

2950

570

19.3

1000

250

25.0

Si-LiMO2 Panasonic

18650

2950

919

31.2

1000

252

25.2
2.2. Cathode Materials: Pushing the Boundaries of Capacity and Stability
2.2.1. Nickel-Rich Layered Oxides (NMC/NCA)
Table 2. Degradation Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies.

Degradation Mechanism

Impact on performance

Mitigation strategy

Key references

Cation mixing

Blocks Li+ diffusion, increases impedance

Al/Ti doping (e.g., NCMA)

[
32, 33]

Oxygen release at high voltage

Triggers exothermic reactions, thermal runaway

Gradient core-shell designs (Ni-rich core, Mn-rich shell)

[
34, 35]

Micro-crack formation

Particle fracture, electrolyte decomposition

Single-crystal synthesis

[
3, 37]

Transition metal dissolution (Mn, Co)

Accelerates SEI growth, capacity fade

Surface coatings,

[
38]
These cathodes have emerged as leading candidates for high-energy density LIBs, offering capacities of 200–220 mAh/g compared to 160–180 mAh/g for conventional NMC11
[30, 31]
. However, their commercialization is hindered by severe degradation mechanisms as shown in Table 2.
While NMC811 increases energy density by ~25% versus NMC111, enabling EVs with 500+ km ranges (e.g., Tesla’s 4680 cells achieve ~300 Wh/kg)
[39]
, and aluminum doping (NCMA) improves thermal stability while maintaining high capacity
[40]
. Challenges such as-limited life cycle (~800–1,000 before 20% capacity loss) due to structural degradation, and requirements for advanced battery management systems (BMS) to prevent overcharging and overheating seek urgent solutions. As a result, upcoming studies should employ multi-element doping to stabilize crystal structures
[41]
and will benefit from artificial intelligence-assisted optimization of doping concentrations and synthesis parameters
[42]
.
2.2.2. Lithium-Rich Manganese-Based (LMR) Cathodes
LMR cathodes utilize cationic and anionic redox, achieving exceptional capacities of 250–300 mAh/g
[43]
. However, they suffer from voltage decay and poor rate capability:
Table 3. Performance Comparison: LMR vs. NMC811
[14]
.

Parameter

LMR cathode

NMC811

Implications

Capacity (mAh/g)

250–300

200–220

LMR offers 30–40% higher capacity

Voltage decay

~0.5V after 100 cycles

Minimal

Reduces energy efficiency

Thermal stability

Poor (Oxygen release at 150°C)

Moderate (180°C)

Safety concerns for EVs

Commercial adoption

Limited (prototype stages)

Mass produced (Tesla, LG)

LMR requires further R&D
The ultra-high capacity (>300 mAh/g demonstrated in labs) and low cobalt content reduce cost and ethical concerns
[44, 45]
; however, irreversible oxygen loss leads to rapid voltage decay, and poor thermal ability increases thermal runaway risks
[46, 47]
. Hence, the promising strategies include: surface modifications to suppress oxygen release, and electrolyte additives (e.g., LiDFOB) to stabilize the cathode electrolyte interface
[48, 49]
.
2.3. Anode Materials: Beyond Conventional Graphite
2.3.1. Silicon (Si) Anodes
Silicon’s ultra-high theoretical capacity (3,579 mAh/g vs. graphite’s 372 mAh/g) makes it an attractive anode material, but its 300% volume expansion during lithiation causes severe mechanical degradation
[50-53]
. The silicon-graphite composites (5–10% of Si) improve energy density by 15–20% in commercial cells, and pre-lithiation mitigates irreversible Li-loss during initial cycles
[54]
. However, the consumption of electrolyte by thick-SEI formation, increasing the impedance, and electrode swelling (~15–20% volume change), complicating cell assembly, will remain the critical challenges
[54, 55]
. Therefore, silicon-carbon carbides (e.g., Si@C yolk-shell structures
[52]
) and dry electrode processing are capable of buffering volume changes and enabling high-Si-content anodes
[50]
. Table 4 shows the recent advances in the anode technology.
Table 4. Advances in Silicon Anode Technology
[15]
.

Strategy

Representative study

Performance improvement

Remaining challenges

Ref.

Nano structuring

Porous Si-particles

1,500 mAh/g over 500 cycles

High production cost ($50/kg)

[
51, 53]

Composite design

Si-graphite blends (Tesla 4680)

~500 mAh/g, improved cycling

Limited Si-content (<10 wt.%)

[
51, 55]

Pre-lithiation

Poor (Oxygen release at 150°C)

Stabilized Li-Si coatings

Compensates the 1st cycle Li loss

[
53, 56]

Polymer binders

Polyacrylic acid (PAA) networks

Enhances mechanical integrity

Reduces energy density

[
57]
2.3.2. Lithium Metal Anodes
Li-metal anodes (LMAs) are pivotal for next-generation high-energy density batteries (>500 Wh/kg) but face critical challenges: dendrite growth, parasitic side reactions, and poor cycling stability
[12]
. The coming studies should meta-physically mature the existing challenges for the upcoming cutting-edge solutions.
The non-uniform Li+ flux leads to needle-like dendrites, causing short circuits and thermal runaway
[31]
. The recent solutions (2020-2024) include electrolyte engineering and 3D Host architectures. The electrolyte engineering localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs), e.g., LiFSI/DME/TTE, achieve CE > 99.5% and suppress dendrites via anion-derived LiF-rich SEI, and fluorinated additives (e.g., LiPO₂F₂) enhance SEI mechanical strength, enabling stable cycling at five mA/cm²
[33]
. Besides, with Host architecture, Lithophilic MXene Scaffolds (e.g., Ti₃C₂Tₓ) reduce nucleation overpotential (<20 mV) and enable 1,200 cycles in whole cells, and Porous Cu Current Collectors homogenize Li-deposition, doubling Li-life cycle
[58]
.
The Li-plating behavior (Figure 1) underscores the critical role of electrode architecture in mitigating dendrite formation. On planar Cu electrodes, localized Li+ flux results in peak-like dendrite growth, consistent with observing thermal runaway risks in commercial LIBs
[31, 33]
. These dendrites penetrate separators, exacerbating the short-circuit hazards phenomenon, which is well elaborated in safety testing protocols
[48]
. In contrast, 3D porous hosts achieve near uniform thickness (±20 nm), aligning with experimental studies demonstrating that lithiophilic scaffolds reduce nucleation overpotential and extend life cycles, as mentioned
[45, 59]
. The improved morphology correlates with >99% coulombic efficiency in cells employing optimized electrolytes
[60]
, highlighting the synergy between the material design and interfacial stability. The safety and manufacturing implications include-3D hosts suppressing dendrite-induced failures, which address a key limitation in high-energy density LIBs
[8, 44]
. Furthermore, the scalable fabrication of porous electrodes (e.g., roll-to-roll processing)
[17]
could bridge lab-scale innovations to industry. Thus, future work should explore solid-state hybrids (e.g., Li₆PS₅Cl-infused 3D anodes) to enhance stability
[12]
.
As the native SEI is brittle and cracks during cycling, accelerating electrolyte depletion, the recent solutions to unstable SEI have improved mechanical stability (Young’s modulus >50 GPa) via LiF nanocomposite SEI (through in-situ reaction with HF), and enhanced ionic conductivity (10⁻⁴ S/cm) via Polymer-Ceramic Hybrid SEI (e.g., PEO (Polyethylene Oxide)-LiTFSI + Li₃N)
[45]
. Moreover, low coulombic efficiency (CE) as a continuous SEI repair consuming Li⁺ and electrolyte, making its root cause, has shown breakthroughs, such as pre-lithiation techniques, and pressure optimizations
[55]
.
Figure 1. Lithium Plating Morphology: Planar vs. 3D Host Structures.
In general, hybrid solid-liquid electrolytes may balance safety and performance to address current challenges, such as the dendrite penetration risks in liquid electrolytes and the poor Li+ conductivity of solid-state variants at room temperature
[28]
.
2.4. Electrolyte Innovations: Bridging Energy Density and Safety
The electrolyte in LIBs serves as a medium for Li+ transport between the anode and the cathode during charge/discharge cycles. Key requirements include: high ionic conductivity (≥ 1 mS/cm), wide electrochemical stability window (≥ 4.5 V vs. Li/Li⁺), thermal and chemical stability, and compatibility with electrodes. Traditional liquid electrolytes consist of lithium salts (e.g., LiPF₆) dissolved in organic carbonates- such as ethylene carbonate, EC; however, these are flammable and prone to decomposition at high voltages or temperatures. Challenges with conventional electrolytes include flammability, a narrow stability window, dendrite growth, and SEI instability
[7, 8, 42, 44, 57]
.
2.4.1. High-voltage Electrolytes
To achieve high energy density, cathodes like LiNi₀.₈Mn₀.₁Co₀.₁O₂ (NMC811) operate at > 4.5 V. However, conventional electrolytes oxidize at these voltages. Key innovations include fluorinated solvents-e.g., fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), which forms a stable cathode electrolyte interphase (CEI) -and lithium salts LiFSI and LiTFSI, which offer better oxidation stability than LiPF6
[44, 45, 50, 57]
. Figure 2 illustrates that LiFSI-based electrolytes exhibit superior stability at high voltages, enabling the development of high-energy-density cathodes.
2.4.2. Solid-state Electrolytes (SSEs)
This group of electrolytes eliminates flammable liquids, improving safety, and includes oxide-based (e.g., LLZO-Lithium Lanthanum Zirconium Oxide)-despite being brittle, having high stability, sulfide-based (e.g., Li₃PS₄)-despite being hygroscopic, having high ionic conductivity, and polymer-based (e.g., PEO)-despite having low conductivity at room temperature, flexible. The comparison is given in Table 5. As Figure 2 illustrates, LiPF₆ in EC/DMC (ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate) decomposes significantly above 4.5 V, limiting high voltage cathode applications
[8]
. LiFSI in FEC shows superior stability up to 5.0 V, enabling high energy densities. FEC forms a stable CEI, reducing oxidative decomposition
[60]
. The SSE (Solid-State Electrolyte) conductivity visualizations reveal sulfide electrolytes achieve 10⁻² S/cm but require moisture-free processing, whereas oxide electrolytes offer stability at the cost of lower conductivity
[59, 61]
. The FEC additive plot shows 95% capacity retention after 100 cycles, highlighting its crucial role in stabilizing the anode-electrolyte interface in commercial EV batteries
[54, 62]
. These findings underscore the need for hybrid electrolyte designs to simultaneously achieve high energy density, safety, and longevity in next-generation LIBs
[8, 63]
.
Table 5. Comparison of Solid-State Electrolytes.

Electrolyte type

Ionic conductivity (S/cm)

Stability window (V)

Mechanical strength

Challenges

LLZO (Oxide)

10⁻³ – 10⁻⁴

0 – 6

High

Brittle, high sintering temp

Li₃PS₄ (Sulfide)

10⁻² – 10⁻³

1.7 – 2.5

Moderate

Hygroscopic, reacts with Li

PEO-LiTFSI (Polymer)

10⁻⁴ – 10⁻⁵

0 – 4

Low

Low RT conductivity
Figure 2. a) Oxidation stability of electrolytes, b) Temperature dependence of SSE conductivity, and c) Effect of FEC Additive on Cycle Life.
2.4.3. Ionic Liquid Electrolytes (ILEs)
Ionic liquid electrolytes are molten salts with melting points below 100°C, composed of bulky organic cations (e.g., imidazolium, pyrrolidinium) paired with fluorinated anions (e.g., [TFSI]⁻, [FSI]⁻). Their unique properties stem from: low carbon energy (< 50 kJ/mol) between ions, enabling high Li⁺ mobility despite high viscosity
[41]
, electrochemical stability windows (ESW) of 4.5–6.0 V, wider than conventional carbonates (3.0–4.3 V), and non-flammability-attributed to negligible vapor pressure and high thermal decomposition temperatures (> 400°C)
[44, 57]
. The MATLAB plot in Figure 3 confirms [C₃mpyr] [FSI]’s superior conductivity (10.2 mS/cm at 25°C) over [C₂mim] [TFSI], validating its potential for low-temperature EV applications, though high viscosity remains a bottleneck. The near-linear Arrhenius behavior suggests vehicular diffusion dominates, aligning with ILEs’ ion pair transport mechanism. Experimental data and safety tests support these trends, but cost-effective scaling requires hybrid designs with solid-state electrolytes
[51, 59]
.
Figure 3. ILE Conductivity vs. Temperature
[41]
.
ILEs facilitate Li⁺ via vehicular diffusion (ion pairs moving together) rather than hopping (ions move by localized jumps and energy barrier) in polymer electrolytes, achieving conductivities of 1–10 mS/cm at 25°C
[41]
. While IELs resolve safety issues, their high viscosity and cost hinder commercialization. Strategic hybridization with polymers or sulfides may unlock their potential.
2.4.4. Electrode Engineering and Thermal Management
Electrode engineering (e.g., gradient porosity designs and silicon-composite anodes
[8, 62]
) directly influences thermal performance by modulating thermal heat generation, as formulated in Equation (1). It implies the need for active cooling for >3C charging to limit ΔT<10°C
[48]
. The Bernardi model calls a multidisciplinary collaboration, such as material science, electrochemistry, and thermal engineering, the cornerstones of battery design. Porous electrodes reduce R (lowering ohmic heat) but may increase η (overpotential) due to Li+ transport limitations; so that the gradient electrodes balance R and η to minimize q (total charge). Adaptive adjustment of I (current density in A/m² or mA/cm²) helps to limit q while optimizing degradation trade-offs
[44, 45, 50, 57, 60]
. Validated studies show that optimized electrode architectures reduce peak temperatures by 15°C during fast-charging (3C) while improving cycle life twice
[45, 50]
. Future systems should integrate AI-controlled thermal interfaces with stress-adaptive electrodes (e.g., self-healing binders
[59]
), enabling >4C charging without degradation-critical for next-gen EVs and grid storage
[54, 64]
.
(1)
2.4.5. Additives for Safety and Performance
Electrolyte additives are specialized compounds (typically <5% by weight) that modify interfacial chemistry to enhance LIB performance. Their mechanisms fall into three categories: SEI/CEI stabilizers (e.g., FEC, VC-Vinylene Carbonate), flame retardants (e.g., TEP, DMMP-Triethyl Phosphate, Dimethyl Methyl Phosphonate), and Li⁺ conductivity promoters (e.g., LiDFOB, LiPO₂F₂). While the TEP reduces self-heating rate by 80% (peak <100°C vs. 250°C baseline), it lowers conductivity by 30% due to high viscosity
[51, 56]
. Dimethyl Methyl Phosphonate (DMMP) works with FEC to maintain 95% capacity while passing nail penetration tests. Table 6, Figure 5, and Table 7 together complementarily provide a rigorous framework for electrolyte additive selection. The figure quantifies the trade-off that the table describes qualitatively, enabling data-driven decisions. The empty spaces in the figure (e.g., high safety + low cost + high life) guide future work. Ionic liquid hybrids could fill the top-right frontier
[41]
, and machine learning may discover better additive combinations
[59]
. This integrated approach transforms qualitative additive properties into quantitative design rules, advancing academic research and industrial practice.
Table 6. Flame Retardant Performance Comparison
[51, 56]
.

Additive

Flash point (°C)

Conductivity loss

Capacity retention (100 cycles)

None

25

0%

68%

TEP (5%)

>300

30%

72%

DMMP (3%)

>300

15%

88%

FEC+DMMP

>300

10%

92%
Table 7. Comprehensive Additive Performance.

Additives

Target component

Optical conc.

Life cycle gain

Safety benefit

Conductivity impact

Cost ($/kg)

Temp. range (°C)

Commercial use

Ref.

Fluoroethylene Carbonate (FEC)

Anode (Si/Graphite)

2%

+150%

Moderate (HF reduction)

-10%

150

-20~60

Tesla, CATL

[
60]

Vinylene Carbonate (VC)

Anode

1%

+200%

Low

-5%

200

-10~50

Panasonic

[
62]

LiDFOB

Cathode/Anode

1%

+120%

High (CEI stability)

+20%

300

-30~70

LG Chem

[
65]

LiPO₂F₂

Cathode (NMC)

0.5%

+180%

Moderate

+15%

400

-20~60

Samsung SDI

[
65]

DMMP

Electrolyte

3%

+80%

High (flame retardant)

-25%

50

-40~80

BYD

[
51]

TEP

Electrolyte

5%

+50%

Extreme

-30%

30

-20~100

Grid storage

[
56]

Phenyl-Carbonate

High-voltage cathode

0.3%

+90%

Low

Neutral

500

0~60

Experimental

[
8]

Succinonitrile

Low-temp.

4%

+60%

Moderate

+40%

120

-40~50

Military apps

[
41]

LiNO₃

Li-S batteries

2%

+300%

High (Polysulfide control)

-15%

80

-30~60

Sion Power

[
38]

Ceramic-coated separator

Mechanical

N/A

+50%

Extreme (dendrite blocking)

Neutral

10/m²

-50~150

Tesla 4680

[
63]

Ionic liquid [C₃mpyr] [FSI]

Wide-temp.

10%

+100%

High

-15%

500

-40~120

Aerospace

[
41]

HF scavenger (Li₂CO₃)

Electrolyte

0.2%

+40%

Moderate

-5%

20

20~50

General use

[
7]

Overcharge inhibitor (DTD)

Cathode

0.1%

+30%

High

Neutral

250

10~45

Medical devices

[
49]

Wettability enhancer (FSI)

Electrode

0.5%

+25%

Low

+10%

180

-20~70

EV packs

[
42]

Self-healing polymer

SEI layer

1%

+400%*2

Extreme

-20%

1000

-10~40

Lab-scale

[
59]

SiO₂ nanoparticles

Electrolyte

1%

+70%

Moderate

+5%

80

-30~80

Industrial

[
51]
Figure 4. LiDFOB Optimization for Conductivity Enhancement
[65]
.
The Li⁺ conducting additives, like Lithium Difluorooxalatoborate (LiDFOB), and Lithium Difluorophosphate (LiPO₂F₂), form stable CEI on NMC811 while boosting conductivity by 20%, and suppresses Mn/Ni dissolution in NMC532, improving life cycle by 150%
[65]
. Figure 4 validates the LiDFOB’s non-linear dose-response, emphasizing the need for precision in additive formulation. The trade-off shows that, beyond 2 wt.%, conductivity drops due to increased viscosity from excess [DFOB]⁻ aggregation
[65]
. Although it is adopted in CATL’s NMC811 cells to mitigate high-voltage decomposition while maintaining rate capability, LiDFOB’s high cost (~$300/kg) restricts use to premium EVs
[54, 59]
.
Figure 5. Additive Optimization Space.
While the additive trade-off analysis provides a valuable framework for electrolyte design, key limitations must be acknowledged to guide future research
[12]
. The current approach oversimplifies complex interdependencies by treating additives as isolated variables, neglecting synergic effects
[65]
and dynamic performance evolution during cycling. Furthermore, the economic metric ($/kg) fails to account for environmental costs like LiDFOB’s boron mining impacts
[58]
, while industrial scalability challenges, particularly regarding gas evolution in large-format cells
[54]
, remain unaddressed. Most critically, the model assumes static operating conditions, ignoring real-world variables like intermittent fast charging or temperature fluctuations that dramatically alter degradation pathways
[60, 66]
. Future work should integrate machine learning for combinatorial optimization
[59]
, incorporate time-dependent performance mapping, and embed sustainability metrics through coupled techno-economic and life-cycle analyses to transform this from a screening tool into a comprehensive design platform.
Table 8. Trade-offs in Additive Design
[8, 56, 60, 65]
.

Property

FEC

VC

TEP

LiDFOB

SEI quality

★★★★★

★★★★☆

★☆☆☆☆

★★★★☆

Safety

★★★☆☆

★★★☆☆

★★★★★

★★★★☆

Conductivity

★★☆☆☆

★★★☆☆

★☆☆☆☆

★★★★☆

Cost ($/kg)

150

200

50

300
In industries, Tesla uses FEC, which was adopted in model 3 NCA cells for SEI stability, but causes gassing at >4.3V
[54]
. DMMP in BYD (Build Your Dreams- a leading Chinese multinational company specializing in new energy vehicles (NEVs), batteries, electronics, and rail transit) blade Batteries enable nail penetration safely without cooling systems
[51]
. For the recycling issues, as FEC-derived fluorides complicate hydrometallurgical recycling, hybrid additives (e.g., FEC+LiDFOB) may dominate next-generation electrolytes
[38, 64]
.
3. Life Cycle Improvements
Lithium-ion battery degradation is governed by four primary mechanisms: Li-plating (dominant during fast charging/low temperatures, validated by NMR
[40, 48]
), SEI growth (follows parabolic kinetics, confirmed by TEM
[3, 62]
), Mn dissolution (accelerates above 4.3V in NMC cathodes, measured via ICP-MS
[8]
), and mechanical stress (critical for Si anodes, observed via in-situ SEM
[47, 62]
). These pathways are interdependent (e.g., Mn dissolution exacerbates SEI growth), collectively accounting for >90% of capacity fade, requiring integrated mitigation strategies. Figure 6 provides a visual representation of the percentage distribution for each factor, and Equation (2) presents the capacity fade master equation, according to which, for low T, SEI growth dominates. At the same time, for high T, Mn dissolution accelerates.
Figure 6. Root causes of capacity fade. [Data validated by: In-situ TEM (SEI/SE stress)]
[47, 62]
.
(2)
Rate Constants:
3.1. Anode and Cathode Degradation
The capacity fade at the anode is governed by two principal mechanisms: Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) growth and Lithium Plating & Dendrite Formation. Continuous electrolyte reduction at the anode surface forms an insulating SEI layer, consuming the active Li⁺ layer irreversibly. It follows a parabolic growth kinetics given in Equation (3). TEM/SEM shows δ relating to the square root of t, and EIS confirms Li⁺ transport limits
[3, 62]
. It dominates at moderate temperatures (25–45°C), and explains 5–20% initial capacity loss in graphite/Si anodes
[60, 62]
.
(3)
where δ=SEI thickness, DLi=Li⁺ diffusivity (~10⁻¹⁶ m²/s)
[62]
, EaSEI=0.52 eV
[3]
.
For lithium plating and dendrite formation, at high currents (>1C) or low temperatures (<0°C), Li⁺ plate as metallic Li instead of intercalating:
Li⁺ + e- →Li0 (undesired reaction)
Under critical conditions, it is governed by Sand’s time criterion:
(4)
where j=current density, c0=bulk Li⁺ concentration, the NMR quantifies plated Li
[40]
, and optical cells visualize dendrites
[46]
. The implications include: the cause of sudden failure (thermal runaway), and limits fast-charging capability
[40, 48]
.
The cathode degradation is dominated by the dissolution of transition metals (Mn, Ni, Co) from the lattice to the electrolyte, following a kinetically driven redox process:
LiMO2→Li1-xMO2+xLi++xMn++0.5xO2
where xMn+=Mn²⁺, Ni²⁺, or Co³⁺. The governing equation is (Nernst-Planck Transport):
(5)
DM: diffusivity of metal ions (~10⁻¹⁵ m²/s for Mn²⁺)
△Φ: potential gradient in V/m (accelerates at >4.3V)
ICP-MS confirms Mn/Ni loss rates, and XAS (X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy) shows changes in the oxidation state. Equation (5)’s implications include voltage sensitivity and electrolyte dependence. In Li-rich cathodes, oxygen loss occurs above 4.6 V. Thus, as cathode degradation is multiscale (atomic defects leading to particle cracks), it requires hybrid solutions (coatings + additives + doping), and validated models and advanced characterization (e.g., in-situ XRD/XAS) are critical for progress.
3.2. Mechanical Degradation Physics
The governing equation is Griffith’s Criterion, given as follows.
(6)
where σc is the critical fracture stress (1.8 GPa for Si), E is the Young’s modulus (150 GPa for Si), γ is the surface energy (1 J/m²), and a is the pre-existing crack length (~10 nm)
[62]
. In-situ SEM shows fracture at predicted σc, and atomic force microscopy confirms γ values
[8, 62]
. Mechanical degradation is governed by defect-sensitive fracture mechanics at the nano scale, propagating to the macroscopic failure. While solutions exist (nano particles, smart binders), cost-effective scaling remains the key challenge
[45, 64, 67]
.
Future studies should generally extend degradation analysis into practical reuse strategies. A table matrix, given in Table 9, quantifies how degraded batteries (70–80% SOH-state of health) can be repurposed based on technical feasibility (remaining capacity, life cycle), economic value ($/kWh), and safety requirements (UL1974, IEC62619). The matrix operationalizes the circular economy hierarchy:
(7)
where the application demand is the power/energy needs of second-use scenarios. Long-term (10+ years) degradation in second life lacks field validation, and limited concern is given to the universal SOH measurement protocol
[67, 68]
. Therefore, observed strategic impacts guide policymakers and manufacturers in implementing the EU battery passport requirements
[64]
while maximizing resource efficiency. Shortly, the second-life matrix will be critical for implementing the EU battery regulation, ensuring 90% of retired EV batteries transition to grid storage (70–80% SOH) or efficient recycling (<50% SOH). Advances in AI-powered SOH estimation (error<3%
[44]
) and standardized testing protocols will refine viability thresholds, while cobalt-free cathodes (e.g., LFPs) may extend second-life applicability to 60% SOH
[59]
. This framework bridges the circular economy with industrial scalability, reducing reliance on virgin materials
[13]
.
Moreover, as shown in Figure 7, the multiscale optimization strategy needed to enhance battery longevity, mapping current capabilities against future targets across four critical tiers: atomic-scale SEI chemistry, particle-level porosity, cell-scale thermal management, and system-level cost
[19, 21, 23]
. It highlights that while particle engineering (e.g., gradient cathodes
[8]
) and electrolyte additives (e.g., FEC/LiDFOB
[65]
) have achieved 60–80% of their theoretical improvement potential, system-level thermal control and cost reduction remain significant bottlenecks, lagging at 40–50% of targets. This underscores the need to shift research focus toward targeted solutions, such as AI-driven thermal management
[68]
and sustainable material sourcing
[58]
, to bridge gaps between material innovation and pack-level performance. The roadmap’s predictive power is validated by real-world data (e.g., Tesla’s 15% life span expansion via active cooling
[54]
), but its utility depends on incorporating dynamic operating conditions (e.g., fast-charging stress
[48]
) in future iterations.
Table 9. Second-Life Viability Matrix
[29, 46, 53]
.

Parameter

EV→Grid Storage

EV→Residential

EV→Industrial

Recycling only

Minimum SOH

80%

70%

60%

<50%

Life cycle remaining

1000

500

300

0

Value ($/kWh)

60

40

25

-15 (cost)

Safety requirements

UL1974

IEC62619

UL1974

N/A

Repurposing cost ($/kWh)

20

30

40

50

Market readiness

High (tesla)

Medium (Nissan)

Low

Mature

Temperature sensitivity

±2°C control

±5°C

±10°C

N/A

Energy density requirement

Low

Medium

Low

N/A

Regulatory support

Strong (EU 2023/1542)

Moderate

Weak

Strong

Peak power capability

0.5C

1C

2C

N/A

Cycle efficiency

95%

90%

85%

N/A

Warranty coverage

5 years

3 years

1 year

60%

Data tracking needs

Advanced BMS

Basic BMS

Minimal

Very high

Carbon footprint reduction

40%

30%

20%

Low

Labor intensity

Low

Medium

High

Extreme
Figure 7. Lifecycle Improvement Roadmap.
4. Safety Improvements
Lithium-ion batteries are indispensable for modern energy storage but face critical safety challenges, primarily thermal runaway (TR), which can lead to fires or explosions. Recent incidents, such as EV battery fires during fast charging or grid storage failures
[33]
, underscore the urgency of addressing these risks. This section provides a comprehensive, interdisciplinary analysis of LIB safety, integrating material science, electrochemistry, and engineering solutions. Key safety risks include: thermal runaway (triggered by overcharging, mechanical abuse, or high temperatures), dendrite formation (causing internal short circuits), electrolyte flammability (organic carbonates ignite at ~150°C), and mechanical deformation (e.g., crush or penetration). The evaluation of mitigation strategies, testing protocols, and emerging technologies will be addressed in this section.
4.1. Fundamental Mechanisms of Thermal Runaway
Thermal runaway (TR) represents the most critical safety failure in lithium-ion batteries, characterized by an uncontrollable, self-accelerating temperature rise that can lead to cell venting, fire, or explosion
[10]
. The process is fundamentally governed by the competition between heat generation and dissipation as given in the following equation (Equation (8)):
(8)
where:
ρ: Average cell density (~2.2 g/cm³ for 18650 cells)
Cp: Specific heat capacity (~1.2 J/g·K)
Qgen: Total heat generation rate
Qdiss: Heat dissipation rate
The generation term comprises four dominant contributions: joule heating, exothermic chemical reactions, lithium-plating reactions, and combustion of released gases. The reaction kinetics follow Arrhenius behavior with auto-catalytic effects:
(9)
where αi is the conversion degree, kcat accounts for catalytic effects (e.g., transition metal ions accelerating electrolyte decomposition). The vivid tables (Table 10 and Table 11) provide a comprehensive understanding of TR, enabling the development of safer battery systems through precise modeling of heat generation/dissipation, strategic material selection based on kinetic parameters, and optimized cell designs interrupting TR propagation pathways. Critical trade-offs between energy density and safety are provided. While NMC/NCA enable longer EV ranges, their aggressive TR behavior demands advanced mitigation strategies. LFP’s stability makes it ideal for grid storage, where safety outweighs energy density needs. This data-driven comparison aids in selecting chemistries aligned with application-specific risk tolerance.
Table 10. Kinetic Parameters of Key TR Reactions
[48, 69, 70].

Reaction

Ai(s⁻¹)

Ea, i (kj/mol)

ni

ΔH (kj/mol)

Onset Temp. (°C)

Gas Evolution (mL/g)

SEI decomp.

1.2×10¹⁸

135

1.5

260

80-120

50-80

Electrolyte Red.

5.6×10¹⁹

148

1.0

300

120-200

200-300

Cathode O₂ release

3.4×10²⁰

165

0.8

500

>200

100-150

Li metal react.

2.8×10¹⁷

92

1.2

-60

60-100

0

Gas combustion

1.0×10¹⁵

80

1.8

-1320

>150

-
Table 11. TR Characteristics of Common LIB Chemistries
[33, 45, 48, 49]
.

Chemistry

Tonset (°C)

(dT/dt) max (°C/min)

Tmax (°C)

Total heat (j/g)

Gas volume (mL/g)

LFP

210-230

50-100

350-400

400-500

150-200

NMC111

180-200

200-300

600-700

700-800

250-350

NMC811

160-180

500-800

800-900

800-1000

300-450

NCA

150-170

600-1000

900-1000

900-1100

350-500

LCO

140-160

800-1200

950-1100

1000-1200

400-600
4.2. Material-level Safety Solutions
In this regard, the advanced separator technologies are essential in preventing thermal runaway, thereby lengthening the battery life. The separators isolate the electrodes physically, provide shutdown functionality, and block dendrite penetration. The ceramic coatings (Al₂O₃/SiO₂) improve thermal stability but increase the cost significantly. PI (Polyimide) nanofibers enable ultra-thin designs (<20μm) with exceptional thermal resistance. In general, Table 12 provides the comparative analysis of separator technologies. It comparatively reveals the critical trade-offs, demonstrating that while ceramic-coated and PI nanofiber separators significantly improve thermal stability (>300°C) and dendrite resistance, they incur higher costs (2–20×) and manufacturing complexity compared to conventional PE/PP (Polyethylene/Polypropylene). Solid-state LLZO offers ultimate safety but suffers from brittleness and prohibitive costs, guiding material selection based on application-specific safety and budget requirements. The provided data underscores the need for balanced solutions, such as hybrid designs, to optimize performance and economic viability.
Furthermore, material-level safety solutions in lithium-ion batteries employ flame-retardant electrolyte additives to suppress combustion while maintaining ionic conductivity
[36, 65, 68]
, stabilize cathodes through AI-doping and Al2O3 coatings to prevent oxygen release and transition metal dissolution
[3, 8, 35]
, engineer porous silicon anodes and LiF-rich interfaces to accommodate volume expansion and suppress dendrites
[51, 65]
, and balance cost-performance trade-offs through hybrid material solutions (e.g., ceramic-coated separators + optimized additives)
[42, 63, 68]
. This multi-component strategy creates a synergetic safety framework that addresses safety risks at each cell level while preserving electrochemical performance, demonstrating how advanced material engineering can simultaneously enhance both safety and functionality in energy storage systems.
Table 12. Comparative Analysis of Separator Technologies
[54, 58, 61, 63]
.

Parameter

Conventional PE/PP

Ceramic-coated PE

PI nano fiber

Solid-state LLZO

Thickness (μm)

20-25

16-20

15-18

30-50

Pore size (nm)

40-100

50-150

20-50

N/A

Melt. Temp. (°C)

135

>300

>500

>1000

Shutdown Temp. (°C)

130-140

N/A

200-220

N/A

Tensile strength (MPa)

100-150

120-180

200-300

5-10

Dendrite resistance

Low

Moderate

High

Complete

Cost ($/m²)

0.5-1.0

2-5

10-20

50-100
5. Conclusion, Challenges, and Prospects
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have undergone transformative advancements, achieving energy densities exceeding 250 Wh/kg, a lifecycle surpassing 2,000 cycles in optimized systems, and significantly improved safety protocols. These gains stem from innovations in nickel-rich cathodes (NMC811/NCA), silicon-composite anodes, solid-state electrolytes (SSEs), and advanced battery management systems (BMS). However, persistent engineering challenges hinder the realization of next-generation applications. Material-level limitations remain critical: silicon anodes suffer from volumetric expansion (>300%), causing mechanical degradation and rapid capacity fade; nickel-rich cathodes exhibit structural instability at high voltages (>4.3 V), accelerating transition metal dissolution and oxygen release; and SSEs face interfacial resistance issues (e.g., >100 Ω·cm² at Li/LLZO interfaces), limiting power density and scalability. These material defects propagate to system-level failures, including TR risks in high-energy cells (NMC811 TR onset: 160–180°C) and capacity fade by parasitic reactions (SEI growth, Li-plating).
Addressing these challenges demands integrated engineering solutions. For energy density, hybrid anode architecture (e.g., Si@C yolk-shell structures) coupled with pre-lithiation mitigates expansion-induced failure while maintaining capacities >500 mAh/g. Cathode stability requires multi-element doping (e.g., AI/Mg in NCMA) and gradient core-shell designs to suppress phase transitions. Electrolyte engineering-particularly localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs) and fluorinated additives (FEC, LiDFOB)-simultaneously enhances ionic conductivity (>5 Ms/cm), widens electrochemical windows (>5 V), and suppresses dendrite growth. For lifecycle extension, AI-driven BMS algorithms that dynamically optimize charging protocols (e.g., ΔT <10°C during >3C fast-charging) and pressure management systems are essential to minimize degradation kinetics. Safety necessitates multi-scale strategies: ceramic-coated separators (e.g., Al2O3/PE) block dendrites; flame-retardant additives (DMMP/TEP) reduce electrolyte flammability; and module-level thermal barriers (e.g., aerogels) contain TR propagation.
Looking ahead, emerging technologies promise paradigm shifts. Lithium-sulfur (Li-S) and lithium-metal batteries (LMBs) offer theoretical energy densities >500 Wh/kg but require breakthroughs in sulfur cathode conductivity and stable solid-electrolyte interfaces (SEI). Solid-state batteries (SSBs) eliminate flammable liquids but face manufacturing hurdles in interfacial engineering and cost-effective sintering of sulfides/oxides. Industrial scalability remains a cross-cutting challenge: dry electrode processing and roll-to-roll manufacturing must evolve to accommodate high-Si anodes and SSEs while reducing costs (<$100/kWh). Furthermore, lifecycle sustainability demands closed-loop recycling-hydrometallurgical recovery of Li/Ni/Co must exceed 95% efficiency to meet EU Battery regulation (2023/1542) standards.
Prospects for commercialization hinge on interdisciplinary collaboration. Machine learning can accelerate material discovery (e.g., optimizing doping ratios) and BMS algorithms. Policy frameworks must incentivize sustainable sourcing (e.g., cobalt-free LFPs) and second-life applications (e.g., grid storage at 70–80% SOH). Ultimately, synergetic advances in materials, manufacturing, and system design will unlock LIBs for aviation, long-duration grid storage, and ultra-fast-charging EVs-enabling a carbon-neutral energy economy.
Abbreviations

EVs

Electric Vehicles

SEI

Solid Electrolyte Interphase

BMS

Battery Management System

BESS

Battery Energy Storage System

CEI

Cathode Electrolyte Interphase

EC

Ethylene Carbonate

EIS

Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

DMC

Dimethyl Carbonate

DMMP

Dimethyl Methyl Phosphonate

ICP-MS

Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry

PEO

Polyethylene Oxide

SSE

Solid-state Electrolytes

VC

Vinylene Carbonate

XAS

X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy

XRD

X-ray Diffraction

SEM

Scanning Electron Microscopy

SOH

State of Health

TR

Thermal Runaway

AI

Artificial Intelligence

EU

European Union

NCA

Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide

NMC

Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide

NMR

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

LCO

Lithium Cobalt Oxide

LFP

Lithium Iron Phosphate

LiDFOB

Lithium Difluoro (oxalato) borate

LHCE

Localized High-concentration Electrolyte

LMR

Lithium-Manganese-rich Cathode

LIBs

Lithium-ion Batteries

LMAs

Li-metal Anodes

LMBs

Lithium Metal Batteries

LLZO

Lithium Lanthanum Zirconium Oxide

FEC

Fluoroethylene Carbonate

PAA

Polyacrylic Acid

TEM

Transmission Electron Microscopy

TEP

Triethyl Phosphate
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the ARK Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering for waiving the Article Processing Charge (APC) and publication charges. We greatly appreciate the journal’s commitment to equitable open-access publishing.
Author Contributions
Adisu Makeyaw: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Software, Writing – review & editing
Tamiru Dame: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Validation, and Writing – review & editing
Mequanint Getu: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, and Visualization
Dagm Goytom: Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Investigation, and Validation
Mekdes Tadese: Formal Analysis, Data curation, Resources, Software, and Writing – review & editing
Tesfalem Marmacha Malto: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Software, and Validation
Yohannes Gebremedihin: Writing– original draft, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, and Writing – review & editing
Funding
This work is not supported by any external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] A. Nekahi, A. K. Madikere Raghunatha Reddy, X. Li, S. Deng, and K. Zaghib, "Rechargeable Batteries for the Electrification of Society: Past, Present, and Future," Electrochemical Energy Reviews, vol. 8, no. 1, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41918-024-00235-8

[2] X. Luo, J. Wang, M. Dooner, and J. Clarke, "Overview of current development in electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power system operation," Applied Energy, vol. 137, pp. 511-536, 2015,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.081

[3] T. J.-M. and A. M., "Issues and challenges facing rechargeable lithium batteries," 2001.
[4] A. M. Theodore, "Progress into lithium-ion battery research," Journal of Chemical Research, vol. 47, no. 3, 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1177/17475198231183349

[5] G. E. Blomgren, "The Development and Future of Lithium Ion Batteries," Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 164, no. 1, pp. A5019-A5025, 2016,

https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0251701jes

[6] G. Zubi, R. Dufo-López, M. Carvalho, and G. Pasaoglu, "The lithium-ion battery: State of the art and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 89, pp. 292-308, 2018,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.002

[7] H. D. Daniel and E. P. Roth, "A General Discussion of Li Ion Battery Safety," Electrochemical Society Interface, 2012,

https://doi.org/10.1149/2.F03122if

[8] N. Nitta, F. Wu, J. T. Lee, and G. Yushin, "Li-ion battery materials: present and future," Materials Today, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 252-264, 2015,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2014.10.040

[9] T. Pan et al., "Research Advances on Lithium‐Ion Batteries Calendar Life Prognostic Models," Carbon Neutralization, vol. 4, no. 1, 2025,

https://doi.org/10.1002/cnl2.192

[10] K. D. Rao, K. D. Rao, P. Pavani, K. V. S. R. Prasad, D. Indira, and B. Phaniteja, "A critical review on lithium ion battery modeling, battery management system and thermal runaway issues," Electrical Engineering, 2025,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-025-03102-x

[11] A. Kraytsberg and Y. Ein‐Eli, "Higher, Stronger, Better… A Review of 5 Volt Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium‐Ion Batteries," Advanced Energy Materials, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 922-939, 2012,

https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201200068

[12] T. Wulandari, D. Fawcett, S. B. Majumder, and G. E. J. Poinern, "Lithium‐based batteries, history, current status, challenges, and future perspectives," Battery Energy, vol. 2, no. 6, 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1002/bte2.20230030

[13] J. T. Frith, M. J. Lacey, and U. Ulissi, "A non-academic perspective on the future of lithium-based batteries," Nat Commun, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 420, Jan 26 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-35933-2

[14] J. Li, Y. Peng, Q. Wang, and H. Liu, "Status and Prospects of Research on Lithium-Ion Battery Parameter Identification," Batteries, vol. 10, no. 6, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10060194

[15] M. Rahimi, "Lithium-Ion Batteries: Latest Advances and Prospects," Batteries, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021,

https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries7010008

[16] A. Manthiram, "An Outlook on Lithium Ion Battery Technology," ACS Cent Sci, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 1063-1069, Oct 25 2017,

https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00288

[17] M. Armand et al., "Lithium-ion batteries – Current state of the art and anticipated developments," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 479, 2020,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228708

[18] Y. Ha, R. B. Licht, T. D. Bogart, and K. M. Beers, "Bridging the gap between academic and industry Li-ion battery research," Frontiers in Batteries and Electrochemistry, vol. 2, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbael.2023.1287887

[19] C. P. Grey and D. S. Hall, "Prospects for lithium-ion batteries and beyond-a 2030 vision," Nat Commun, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 6279, Dec 8 2020,

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19991-4

[20] Z. Zhang et al., "Research progress of silicon-based anode materials for lithium-ion batteries," RSC Adv, vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 10731-10753, Apr 4 2025,

https://doi.org/10.1039/d5ra01268f

[21] P. Parvizi, M. Jalilian, A. M. Amidi, M. R. Zangeneh, and J. R. Riba, "From Present Innovations to Future Potential: The Promising Journey of Lithium-Ion Batteries," Micromachines (Basel), vol. 16, no. 2, Feb 7 2025,

https://doi.org/10.3390/mi16020194

[22] S. Yuan, L. Dai, M. Xie, J. Liu, and H. Peng, "Research and development of lithium and sodium ion battery technology based on metal organic frameworks (MOFs)," Journal of Materials Science, vol. 59, no. 44, pp. 20540-20574, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-024-10431-y

[23] M. Li, J. Lu, Z. Chen, and K. Amine, "30 Years of Lithium-Ion Batteries," Adv Mater, p. e1800561, Jun 14 2018,

https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201800561

[24] G. Park et al., "Understanding and Strategies for High Energy Density Lithium‐Ion/Lithium Metal Hybrid Batteries," Advanced Energy Materials, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202401289

[25] Y.-K. Liu, C.-Z. Zhao, J. Du, X.-Q. Zhang, A.-B. Chen, and Q. Zhang, "Research Progresses of Liquid Electrolytes in Lithium-Ion Batteries," Small, vol. 19, no. 8, p. 2205315, 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202205315

[26] H. Xiao et al., "Recent advances in fast-charging lithium-ion batteries: Mechanism, materials, and future opportunities," Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 506, p. 159927, 2025/01/15/ 2025,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2025.159927

[27] X. Zhou, L. Cheng, Y. Wan, N. Qi, L. Tian, and F. You, "Research on Lithium-ion Battery Safety Risk Assessment Based on Measured Information," presented at the 2020 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC), 2020.
[28] W. Li et al., "Development of strategies for high-energy-density lithium batteries," Energy Storage Science and Technology, 2020,

https://doi.org/10.19799/j.cnki.2095-4239.2020-0050

[29] W. Lv, Z. Wang, H. Cao, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, and Z. Sun, "A Critical Review and Analysis on the Recycling of Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries," ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1504-1521, 2018,

https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03811

[30] A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari, A. Pesiridis, S. Rajoo, R. Martinez-Botas, and V. Esfahanian, "A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 78, pp. 414-430, 2017,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.138

[31] G. Zhang, X. Wei, X. Tang, J. Zhu, S. Chen, and H. Dai, "Internal short circuit mechanisms, experimental approaches and detection methods of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 141, 2021,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110790

[32] M. A. Hannan, M. M. Hoque, A. Mohamed, and A. Ayob, "Review of energy storage systems for electric vehicle applications: Issues and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 69, pp. 771-789, 2017,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.171

[33] Y. Chen et al., "A review of lithium-ion battery safety concerns: The issues, strategies, and testing standards," Journal of Energy Chemistry, vol. 59, pp. 83-99, 2021,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2020.10.017

[34] M. S. Whittingham, "Electrical energy storage and intercalation chemistry," Science, vol. 192, no. 4244, pp. 1126-7, Jun 11 1976,

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.192.4244.1126

[35] J. B. Goodenough and Y. Kim, "Challenges for Rechargeable Li Batteries," Chemistry of Materials, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 587-603, 2009,

https://doi.org/10.1021/cm901452z

[36] A. Manthiram, B. Song, and W. Li, "A perspective on nickel-rich layered oxide cathodes for lithium-ion batteries," Energy Storage Materials, vol. 6, pp. 125-139, 2017,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2016.10.007

[37] A. Yoshino, "The birth of the lithium-ion battery," Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, vol. 51, no. 24, pp. 5798-800, Jun 11 2012,

https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201105006

[38] A. Manthiram, S. H. Chung, and C. Zu, "Lithium-sulfur batteries: progress and prospects," Adv Mater, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1980-2006, Mar 25 2015,

https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201405115

[39] T. Zhang and H. Zhou, "A reversible long-life lithium-air battery in ambient air," Nat Commun, vol. 4, p. 1817, 2013,

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2855

[40] H. Nara, T. Yokoshima, and T. Osaka, "Technology of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy for an energy-sustainable society," Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, vol. 20, pp. 66-77, 2020,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2020.02.026

[41] D. R. MacFarlane et al., "Energy applications of ionic liquids," Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 232-250, 2014,

https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee42099j

[42] Y. Liu, R. Zhang, J. Wang, and Y. Wang, "Current and future lithium-ion battery manufacturing," iScience, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 102332, Apr 23 2021,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102332

[43] B. Yuanyuan, G. Xiaoying, L. Wei, Z. Siqin, and H. Chao, "Research progress on cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries," Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 2025,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-025-06293-2

[44] G. Linda and C. Roy, "Cost of Li-ion batteries for vehicles," 2000.
[45] J. Wang et al., "Cycle-life model for graphite-LiFePO4 cells," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 196, no. 8, pp. 3942-3948, 2011,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.11.134

[46] S. H. Chung, C. H. Chang, and A. Manthiram, "Progress on the Critical Parameters for Lithium–Sulfur Batteries to be Practically Viable," Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 28, no. 28, 2018,

https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201801188

[47] X. Han et al., "A review on the key issues of the lithium ion battery degradation among the whole life cycle," eTransportation, vol. 1, 2019,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2019.100005

[48] X. Feng, M. Ouyang, X. Liu, L. Lu, Y. Xia, and X. He, "Thermal runaway mechanism of lithium ion battery for electric vehicles: A review," Energy Storage Materials, vol. 10, pp. 246-267, 2018,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2017.05.013

[49] D. Ren, X. Feng, L. Lu, X. He, and M. Ouyang, "Overcharge behaviors and failure mechanism of lithium-ion batteries under different test conditions," Applied Energy, vol. 250, pp. 323-332, 2019,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.015

[50] R. A. Marsh et al., "Li ion batteries for aerospace applications," (in English), Journal of Power Sources, vol. 97-8, pp. 25-27, Jul 2001,

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(01)00584-5

[51] K. Deng et al., "Nonflammable organic electrolytes for high-safety lithium-ion batteries," Energy Storage Materials, vol. 32, pp. 425-447, 2020,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2020.07.018

[52] T. Shao, J. Liu, L. Gan, Z. Gong, and M. Long, "Yolk-shell Si@void@C composite with Chito-oligosaccharide as a C–N precursor for high capacity anode in lithium-ion batteries," Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, vol. 152, 2021,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpcs.2021.109965

[53] C. Ji, S. Zhang, B. Wang, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, and Y. Liu, "Study on Thermal Safety of the Overcharged Lithium-Ion Battery," Fire Technology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1089-1114, 2022,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01256-9

[54] B. Nykvist and M. Nilsson, "Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles," Nature Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 329-332, 2015,

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2564

[55] J. Lee and J. Won, "Enhanced Coulomb Counting Method for SoC and SoH Estimation Based on Coulombic Efficiency," IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 15449-15459, 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3244801

[56] Y. E. Hyung, D. R. Vissers, and K. Amine, "Flame-retardant additives for lithium-ion batteries," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 119-121, pp. 383-387, 2003,

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7753(03)00225-8

[57] Y. Xiao et al., "Review of mechanical abuse related thermal runaway models of lithium-ion batteries at different scales," Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 64, 2023,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107145

[58] S. Jin et al., "A comprehensive review on the recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries: Urgent status and technology advances," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 340, 2022,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130535

[59] C. Zhang, S. Chou, Z. Guo, and S. X. Dou, "Beyond Lithium‐Ion Batteries," Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 34, no. 5, 2024,

https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202308001

[60] E. Markevich, G. Salitra, A. Rosenman, Y. Talyosef, F. Chesneau, and D. Aurbach, "Fluoroethylene carbonate as an important component in organic carbonate electrolyte solutions for lithium sulfur batteries," Electrochemistry Communications, vol. 60, pp. 42-46, 2015,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elecom.2015.08.004

[61] X. Zhang and J. W. Fergus, "Solid Electrolytes for Lithium Batteries," International Journal of Technology, vol. 9, no. 6, 2018,

https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v9i6.2502

[62] E. Peled, "The Electrochemical Behavior of Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metals in Nonaqueous Battery Systems-The Solid Electrolyte Interphase Model," Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 126, no. 12, pp. 2047-2051, 2019,

https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2128859

[63] A. Gogia, Y. Wang, A. K. Rai, R. Bhattacharya, G. Subramanyam, and J. Kumar, "Binder-Free, Thin-Film Ceramic-Coated Separators for Improved Safety of Lithium-Ion Batteries," ACS Omega, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 4204-4211, Feb 16 2021,

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c05037

[64] REGULATION (EU) 2023/1542 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC, 2023.
[65] W. Li, B. Song, and A. Manthiram, "High-voltage positive electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries," Chem Soc Rev, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 3006-3059, May 22 2017,

https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cs00875e

[66] T. M. Bandhauer, S. Garimella, and T. F. Fuller, "A Critical Review of Thermal Issues in Lithium-Ion Batteries," Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 158, no. 3, 2011,

https://doi.org/10.1149/1.3515880

[67] S. Koohi-Fayegh and M. A. Rosen, "A review of energy storage types, applications and recent developments," Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 27, 2020,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.101047

[68] L. Lu, X. Han, J. Li, J. Hua, and M. Ouyang, "A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management in electric vehicles," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 226, pp. 272-288, 2013,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.10.060

[69] B. Dunn, H. Kamath, and J. M. Tarascon, "Electrical energy storage for the grid: a battery of choices," Science, vol. 334, no. 6058, pp. 928-35, Nov 18 2011,

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212741

[70] P. Keil and A. Jossen, "Aging of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles: Impact of Regenerative Braking," World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41-51, 2015,

https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj7010041

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Makeyaw, A., Dame, T., Getu, M., Goytom, D., Tadese, M., et al. (2025). Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety. American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy, 9(1), 12-30. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Makeyaw, A.; Dame, T.; Getu, M.; Goytom, D.; Tadese, M., et al. Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety. Am. J. Quantum Chem. Mol. Spectrosc. 2025, 9(1), 12-30. doi: 10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Makeyaw A, Dame T, Getu M, Goytom D, Tadese M, et al. Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety. Am J Quantum Chem Mol Spectrosc. 2025;9(1):12-30. doi: 10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12,
  author = {Adisu Makeyaw and Tamiru Dame and Mequanint Getu and Dagm Goytom and Mekdes Tadese and Tesfalem Marmacha Malto and Yohannes Gebremedihin},
  title = {Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety
},
  journal = {American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {12-30},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajqcms.20250901.12},
  abstract = {Dependable and efficient energy storage systems are indispensable for modern sustainable energy applications. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), with their proven reliability and high energy density, have become the foundation of contemporary energy storage, powering applications ranging from portable electronics to electric vehicles (EVs) and grid-scale renewable energy systems. Critically, LIBs are increasingly vital for integrating variable renewable resources, such as solar and wind, into large-scale electrical grids. By enabling the efficient capture and on-demand discharge of electricity, they provide essential electricity and flexibility to modern sustainable power systems. Despite their dominance, challenges persist in terms of energy density, life cycle, and safety, which limit their full potential. Consequently, LIB technology remains paramount for realizing a cleaner, electrified future across several diverse sectors. This review systematically examines recent advancements in LIB technology, focusing on three critical performance metrics: (1) energy density, where innovations in high-capacity silicon anodes, nickel-rich cathodes, and solid-state electrolytes have pushed boundaries; (2) life cycle, addressing degradation mechanisms such as solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) growth and lithium-plating through advanced electrolytes and manufacturing techniques; and (3) safety, mitigating thermal runaway risks via ceramic-coated separators, flame-retardant additives, and robust battery management systems (BMS). Furthermore, the review highlights emerging technologies such as lithium-sulfur and solid-state batteries, which promise transformative gains. This review identifies significant gaps by synthesizing material innovations, failure mechanisms, and industry trends. It provides a road map for future research, emphasizing the need for sustainable materials, scalable manufacturing, and stringent safety protocols to meet the growing demands of next-generation energy storage.
},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Targeted Advances in Lithium-ion Batteries: A Critical Review of Synergetic Improvements in Energy Density, Life Cycle, and Safety

AU  - Adisu Makeyaw
AU  - Tamiru Dame
AU  - Mequanint Getu
AU  - Dagm Goytom
AU  - Mekdes Tadese
AU  - Tesfalem Marmacha Malto
AU  - Yohannes Gebremedihin
Y1  - 2025/09/11
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12
T2  - American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy
JF  - American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy
JO  - American Journal of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy
SP  - 12
EP  - 30
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2994-7308
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajqcms.20250901.12
AB  - Dependable and efficient energy storage systems are indispensable for modern sustainable energy applications. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), with their proven reliability and high energy density, have become the foundation of contemporary energy storage, powering applications ranging from portable electronics to electric vehicles (EVs) and grid-scale renewable energy systems. Critically, LIBs are increasingly vital for integrating variable renewable resources, such as solar and wind, into large-scale electrical grids. By enabling the efficient capture and on-demand discharge of electricity, they provide essential electricity and flexibility to modern sustainable power systems. Despite their dominance, challenges persist in terms of energy density, life cycle, and safety, which limit their full potential. Consequently, LIB technology remains paramount for realizing a cleaner, electrified future across several diverse sectors. This review systematically examines recent advancements in LIB technology, focusing on three critical performance metrics: (1) energy density, where innovations in high-capacity silicon anodes, nickel-rich cathodes, and solid-state electrolytes have pushed boundaries; (2) life cycle, addressing degradation mechanisms such as solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) growth and lithium-plating through advanced electrolytes and manufacturing techniques; and (3) safety, mitigating thermal runaway risks via ceramic-coated separators, flame-retardant additives, and robust battery management systems (BMS). Furthermore, the review highlights emerging technologies such as lithium-sulfur and solid-state batteries, which promise transformative gains. This review identifies significant gaps by synthesizing material innovations, failure mechanisms, and industry trends. It provides a road map for future research, emphasizing the need for sustainable materials, scalable manufacturing, and stringent safety protocols to meet the growing demands of next-generation energy storage.

VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information
Download PDF
Submit an Article

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.