KEYWORD: Composite Nanofiber Membranes

Article 1:

Electrospun cellulose polymer nanofiber membrane with flame resistance properties for
lithium-ion batteries

Salient points

The PVDF/TPP/CA membrane exhibits increased porosity, which enhances the absorption of
electrolytes and facilitates ion transport. It also shows significantly improved thermal
stability, ensuring safer operation, and has superior wettability for electrolytes, promoting
efficient ion conduction. Additionally, this membrane is designed with enhanced flame
resistance, addressing important safety issues associated with lithium-ion batteries (LIBs).
Batteries that incorporate this membrane demonstrate outstanding electrochemical
performance and cycle stability, leading to improved efficiency and longevity. In summary,
these hybrid organic cellulose-based composite polymer membranes present considerable
promise as advanced separators for safer and more efficient LIBs.
Methodology

The PVDF/TPP/CA composite membranes were fabricated using a one-step electrospinning

technique. Microstructure and elemental composition were analyzed through FE-SEM and
EDS, while fiber diameters were measured using Nano-measurer software. FT-IR identified
functional groups present in the membranes. Electrochemical properties, including ionic
conductivity and stability, were assessed using EIS (0.01 Hz–100 kHz) and LSV (3–5.5 V),
respectively. Battery performance was tested in CR2025 coin cells with LiFePO₄ cathodes
and lithium anodes. Mechanical strength was evaluated with a tensile tester, and porosity was
measured via n-butanol immersion.

Agreeable points
The PVDF/TPP/CA composite membrane demonstrated superior electrochemical
performance compared to traditional PE membranes by improving ionic conductivity and
lowering internal resistance. Batteries using the composite showed better cycle stability, with
86.9% discharge capacity retention after 100 cycles versus 72.1% for PE, attributed to
enhanced electrolyte retention. The membrane also achieved higher porosity (90%) and
electrolyte uptake (301%), supporting findings that greater porosity improves battery
performance. Incorporating CA improved thermal stability, maintaining dimensional integrity
at elevated temperatures, and enhanced wettability, with a contact angle of 14.6° compared to
46.0° for PE, contributing further to improved ionic conductivity.

Conflicting points
The PVDF/TPP/CA composite membrane achieved a high porosity of 90% and electrolyte
uptake of 301%, outperforming traditional PE membranes and addressing possible
underestimations in earlier studies. The inclusion of CA and TPP, along with electrospinning,
contributed to these improvements. CA also enhanced thermal stability, with the composite
resisting dimensional changes up to 160 °C, compared to 120 °C for PE. Superior wettability
was observed, with contact angles of 24.6° for PVDF and 14.6° for the composite, enhancing
electrolyte absorption and battery performance factors that earlier research may have
overlooked. Batteries with the PVDF/TPP/CA membrane exhibited excellent electrochemical
properties and cycle stability, surpassing the performance of membranes lacking this
composite design.

Article 2:

Piezoelectric Nanogenerator Based on Electrospinning PVDF/Cellulose Acetate Composite

Membranes for Energy Harvesting

Salient points

The paper reports the development of flexible piezoelectric nanogenerators fabricated by

electrospinning PVDF/cellulose acetate (CA) composite membranes with a 9:1 mass ratio
using an 18 kV voltage, 0.4 mL/h flow rate, and 15 cm tip-to-collector distance, achieving
enhanced β-phase content and producing an output voltage of 7.5 V and a short-circuit
current of 2.1 μA under 2 N mechanical stress at 1 Hz, sufficient to light nine LEDs.

Methodology

Electrospinning technique was used to fabricate fiber membranes.

XRD and FTIR spectroscopy analyzed piezoelectric behavior enhancement.

Agreeable points

The findings regarding the piezoelectric properties of PVDF/CA composite membranes align
with other studies that highlight the advantages of using organic piezoelectric polymers for
energy harvesting applications. The enhancement of piezoelectric behavior due to the
increase in β-phase in PVDF/CA electrospun fiber membranes is consistent with previous
research that emphasizes the importance of phase composition in improving piezoelectric
performance. The output voltage and short-circuit current generated by the PVDF/CA fibers
under mechanical stress demonstrate a significant improvement compared to pure PVDF
fibers, which supports findings from other studies that report similar enhancements in
composite materials.

Conflicting points

The study shows that PVDF/CA composite fibers have much higher output than pure PVDF,
but some research says pure PVDF is already good enough for low-power uses, so adding CA
might not always be needed. Although this paper highlights electrospinning as the key to
better piezoelectric performance, other studies suggest that casting can also give similar or
even better results, meaning the fabrication method might not matter as much. Also, while the
study credits the higher β-phase for better energy harvesting, other research points out that β-
phase alone isn’t enough the overall structure and crystallinity of the polymer are just as
important
Article 3:

Investigation of the physico-mechanical properties of electrospun PVDF/cellulose

(nano)fibers

Salient points

The study reveals that incorporating cellulose nanofibers into polyvinylidene fluoride
(PVDF) not only enhances its electro-activity and mechanical properties but also influences
its molecular conformation through the modulation of hydroxyl groups. Specifically, while
electrospinning appears effective in promoting crystallinity and the formation of β-crystals,
the presence of cellulose minimally affects the overall β-phase content. Furthermore,
increased cellulose content is linked to improved thermal stability, modulus, and tensile
strength, alongside a rise in dielectric permittivity; however, the material's relaxation
phenomena remain largely unchanged.

Methodology

Electrospinning was used to prepare PVDF/cellulose fibrous films.

Commercial reagents and chemicals were utilized in the study

Agreeable points
The study showed that the addition of cellulose barely affected the formation of beta crystals
in PVDF when using electrospinning. This result is similar to other studies that used different
methods. In both this work and previous research, it appears that the improvement in beta-
phase content comes mainly from how the polymer chains line up during electrospinning, not
directly from the cellulose. Also, the study found that PVDF with added cellulose had better
thermal stability, and its strength and stiffness increased, which agrees with earlier findings
that highlight the support provided by cellulose in polymer materials.

Conflicting points
The study showed that adding cellulose had almost no effect on the formation of beta crystals
in PVDF during electrospinning. This is in contrast with other research where cellulose was
found to significantly boost beta-crystal formation when different preparation methods such
as solution casting with uniformly rod-like cellulose were used. In those studies, the
improved beta phase was attributed to the interaction between the hydroxyl groups on
cellulose and the fluorine atoms in PVDF, which forced the polymer chains into a trans-
configuration. However this study suggests that the increase in crystallinity is mainly due to
the electrospinning process itself, rather than the presence of cellulose. The study observed
that the thermal stability of PVDF composites increased with cellulose content, but this
finding may differ from other studies that did not report such an increase, indicating potential
discrepancies in the effects of cellulose on thermal properties based on different
methodologies
Article 4:
Electrospun Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF)/Cellulose Acetate/Ammonium Polyphosphate
(APP) Composite Membrane Acting as Separator for Lithium Ion Battery

Salient points

The research demonstrates the advancement in lithium-ion battery technology through the
development of an innovative composite membrane separator. Synthesized via
electrospinning, the membrane incorporates polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), cellulose
acetate, and ammonium polyphosphate, with carefully optimized processing parameters.
Material characterization conducted through scanning electron microscopy and infrared
spectroscopy revealed the membrane's structural and chemical properties. The composite
membrane exhibited excellent porosity and electrolyte uptake characteristics, ultimately
demonstrating superior electrochemical performance and cycling stability when implemented
in battery assemblies, marking a significant contribution to energy storage technology
advancement.

Methodology
A one-step electrospinning technique was adopted, with conditions optimized by varying
precursor solution concentration. Membranes were characterized using scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) and infrared spectroscopy (IR). Porosity, electrolyte uptake, wettability,
thermal stability, and tensile properties were measured. Finally, batteries were assembled to
evaluate the membranes' electrochemical performance.

Agreeable points

The study shows that separator films are key to improving lithium-ion battery performance
and lifespan, a finding supported by other research that points to the importance of effective
separators for battery safety and cycle life. The use of electrospun membranes in this work
follows a promising approach validated by prior studies, which suggest that advanced
membrane materials can boost the electrochemical performance of batteries. Moreover,
optimizing the electrospinning conditions, especially the concentration of the precursor
solution, aligns with other findings that link these parameters to the quality of the membranes
produced

Conflicting points

The research challenges several studies about battery separators. Unlike earlier studies that
didn't think separator materials were that important for battery performance, this study shows
they're crucial for making batteries work better and last longer. The researchers created a
special membrane using PVDF/cellulose acetate with ammonium polyphosphate that
performed much better than previous studies had achieved. What's particularly interesting is
that they found it's not just what materials you use, but how you make them is one of the
important parameters, the way they spun the materials using electrospinning made a big
difference in making the separator stronger and more fire-resistant. They also discovered that
adding certain materials (cellulose acetate and ammonium polyphosphate) made the separator
better at holding electrolyte liquid and staying stable at high temperatures, which goes against
what other researchers had found before.

Article 5:

Electrospun cellulose acetate/poly(vinylidene fluoride) nanofibrous membrane for polymer

lithium-ion batteries

Salient points

This study focuses on developing membranes for lithium-ion batteries using blends of
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) and cellulose acetate (CA). Various performance metrics
were investigated, revealing that an optimal CA:PVdF ratio of 2:8 offers the best results. The
resulting gel polymer electrolyte (GPE) demonstrates high mechanical strength and excellent
ionic conductivity. Batteries utilizing this GPE exhibit superior cyclic stability, achieving a
specific capacity of 204.15 mAh g⁻¹ and a lithium capacity utilization rate of 74.94%.

Methodology

The membranes were prepared via electrospinning and characterized using scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) for morphology, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) for
chemical structure, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) for thermal properties, and X-ray
diffraction (XRD) for crystallinity. Membrane porosity and hydrophilicity were evaluated
through porosity measurement and water contact angle analysis, respectively. Electrolyte
uptake and mechanical properties were assessed for performance and strength, while AC
impedance measured ionic conductivity. Electrochemical performance was analyzed using
linear sweep voltammetry and charge-discharge cycle tests.

Agreeable points

The study confirms that the CA/PVdF-based gel polymer electrolyte (GPE) offers superior
properties, consistent with research highlighting the benefits of polymer blends in batteries.
The Li/GPE/LiCoO₂ battery achieved a specific capacity of 204.15 mAh g⁻¹ and a lithium
capacity utilization rate of 74.94%, aligning with studies on optimizing polymer
compositions for better efficiency. The enhanced thermal stability of the CA/PVdF
membranes, resisting shrinkage at higher temperatures, also supports previous findings on
improving battery component durability through polymer incorporation.

Conflicting points

The reported specific capacity of 204.15 mAh g⁻¹ and lithium capacity utilization rate of
74.94% may conflict with other studies showing lower typical values for LiCoO₂ cathodes,
possibly due to different experimental conditions. While the CA/PVdF-based GPE showed
excellent ionic conductivity and thermal stability, other research suggests traditional polymer
electrolytes can perform similarly under certain conditions, questioning the universal
superiority of blended polymers. Additionally, the claim of superior cyclic stability at room
temperature may not align with studies indicating performance variations based on different
cycling and temperature conditions.
KEYWORD: Boron nitride

Article 1: Thermal Transport Properties of Boron Nitride-Based Materials: A Review

Salient Points
A review article that gives an overview of how boron nitride (BN) materials perform
in terms of thermal transport. It emphasizes that BN allotropes, like hexagonal BN, cubic BN,
and others, have excellent thermal conductivity and insulation. It discusses that BN materials
are not just good for conducting heat, but it also stays stable under high temperatures, and are
not electrically conductive, which makes them very useful for electronics. It also shows how
different BN shapes (like nanotubes, ribbons, dots, etc.) behave depending on structure and
purity.

Methodology
This article is a review paper, wherein the authors did not conduct their own
experiments. What they did instead is they summarized a bunch of other research papers
about BN's thermal conductivity, thermoelectric efficiency (ZT), and structural forms. They
grouped the findings based on the shape and structure of BN and compared results from
existing data.

Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 5, as both pointed out that the alignment and structure
of BN greatly influence how well it can transfer heat, and that hexagonal BN (h-BN) is
especially good in thermal conduction.
Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 3, where it pointed out that hybrid BN materials need other
fillers like graphene to achieve good thermal results. This article suggests pure BN materials
already have impressive thermal properties on their own.
Article 2:

Electrospinning of Boron Nitride Nanofibers with High Temperature Stability

Salient Points
This article focused on making boron nitride nanofibers using electrospinning. It
covers how to develop a fiber with very high temperature resistance, and they noticed that the
fibers that has been fabricated don’t break down easily, even when heated up to around
920°C. The BN fibers demonstrated useful properties like high surface area and excellent
heat stability, which means they can be used in aerospace and filtration at high temperatures.

Methodology
The researchers used a mixture of boric acid and melamine to make the BN precursor,
then mixed it with a polymer solution and performed electrospinning. After that, the fibers
were heat-treated in two stages, first in air, then in nitrogen, to improve stability. They
analyzed the fibers using microscopes and thermal tests.
Agreeable Points
It is same as Article 1 where both recognized that the structure of BN materials gives
them high thermal resistance. It also agrees with Article 4, which in this article, it found that
BN’s heat stability depends on how it’s dispersed or shaped.
Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 5, where it focused more on bulk orientation and alignment
in composites, while this article focused on individual nanofibers. This article says BN’s long
fiber shape helps with heat resistance, but Article 5 emphasized more on particle orientation.

Article 3:

Synergistic Effect of Hybrid Fillers of Boron Nitride, Graphene Nanoplatelets, and Short
Carbon Fibers for Enhanced Thermal Conductivity and Electrical Resistivity of Epoxy
Nanocomposites

Salient Points
This article covers mixing of BN with other stuff like graphene and carbon fibers to
make epoxy materials that are better at transferring heat and still act as electrical insulators. It
discusses that using a combination of these fillers creates a 3D network that helps the heat
flow faster without making the material conductive. Even at low filler amounts, the material’s
thermal conductivity increased a lot, which is good for electronics.

Methodology
The researchers used mechanical mixing and chemical surface treatment to combine
graphene, BN, and carbon fibers into an epoxy resin. Then they tested its thermal
conductivity, electrical resistivity, and heat stability.

Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 4, wherein both showed that BN works really well
when it is mixed properly with other materials to improve thermal conductivity. It also agrees
with Article 5 about the importance of how BN is placed or structured inside the matrix.

Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 1, which focused only on pure BN materials being enough
for good heat transfer. This article shows that BN alone isn’t enough and that you need to
combine it with other fillers to reach the desired properties.

Article 4:

Thermal Conductivity of Boron Nitride Reinforced Polyethylene Composites

Salient Points
This article covers how BN particles can be added to polyethylene to increase the
thermal conductivity of the plastic. It shows that how the BN is spread or arranged, really
matters. It discusses that if BN particles are surrounding the plastic granules in a special way,
the overall heat transfer becomes much better. Furthermore, using large-sized HDPE particles
increased thermal conductivity even more.
Methodology
The researchers mixed the BN into HDPE using two different methods which are
powder mix and melted mix. They tested thermal conductivity at different BN contents and
HDPE particle sizes.
Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 3, where both concluded that proper dispersion and
hybrid arrangements, like mixing BN with something else or arranging it around matrix
particles, helps improve thermal conductivity.

Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 2, which emphasizes individual fiber structure and
stability, while this article discusses more about particle shape and matrix dispersion in
plastic bulk materials.
Article 5:

Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Composites with Oriented Boron Nitride

Salient Points
This article focuses on the orientation of BN in polymer composites. It shows that
when BN is aligned in a certain direction (in-plane), the thermal conductivity is significantly
higher compared to when it’s randomly placed or out-of-plane. The type of polymer (whether
it has more OH groups) and the amphiphilic agent used also affect how well the BN can align
and therefore how much heat it can carry.

Methodology
The researchers made several polymer composites with BN and tested the difference
between various orientations and matrix types. They also used agents to help with the
orientation. The thermal conductivity was measured and compared with the predictions from
the theoretical models.

Agreeable Points
It is same as Article 1, wherein both acknowledged that BN’s orientation and shape
play a key role in improving thermal conductivity. It also agrees with Article 3 that structure
and direction matter a lot in heat transfer.

Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 2, which focused on how BN nanofiber’s structure affects
oxidation resistance, and not the orientation in a composite. On the other hand, Article 5 is
more concerned with flat layers and alignment, which is a whole different setup.
KEYWORD: Thermal stability

Article 1: Progress in Thermal Stability of All‐Solid‐State Li‐Ion Batteries

Salient points

A review article that emphasizes that thermal safety is one of the biggest challenges of
lithium ion batteries, especially the ones that is using liquid electrolytes, due to their
flammable and volatile nature. To resolve this problem, the common solution is by promoting
all solid state lithium-ion batteries (ASSLIBs). Batteries that are using solid electrolytes
(SEs), such as polymers, oxides, and sulfides, has demonstrated an improved thermal
stability. This review article provides a comprehensive overview of how each type of SEs
behaves under high temperatures and identifies that oxide SEs are generally offering the best
thermal stability, while polymers and sulfides have their own limitations depending on
composition and structure.

Methodology

This article is a review paper, which means that the authors only compiled the findings from
various experimental and theoretical studies. They just categorized and compared the SE
types based on the reported decomposition temperatures, structural degradation modes, and
performance under heat.

Agreeable Points

It has the same result as Article 3, where both found that oxide SEs have the best thermal
stability among the solid electrolytes. It also has the same result as Article 4, where both
confirmed that sulfide SEs, though conductive and efficient, are less thermally stable than
oxides.

Conflicting Points

It conflicts from Article 5, which explains that even though oxide SEs can handle high
temperatures, they might still cause some problems when they touch other battery parts, like
the cathode. While this article mostly discussed only about how stable SEs are by themselves
and doesn’t focus on these kinds of reactions that can happen inside the actual battery

Article 2:

Recent Advances in the Fabrication of Advanced Composite Membranes

Salient Points
A review article that discusses the different ways of making an advanced composite
membrane, especially those that are being used in separation and filtration applications. One
of the main points in this article is that, combining polymers with fillers like inorganic
materials or nanoparticles, can improve the overall thermal stability of the membrane. It also
mentioned that using fabrication methods like sol-gel or physical blending, helps in
dispersing fillers better, which will result in a stronger and more heat-resistant membranes. It
also noted that how the membrane is made can also affect how it performs under high
temperatures.

Methodology
Since this is also a review paper, the authors didn’t conduct any experiments. What
they did instead is they summarized a bunch of other research papers about membranes and
grouped them according to what method was used to fabricate them. Then, they compared
how the membranes turned out, like how stable or unstable they are under heat, based on
those fabrication processes.

Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 4, wherein both articles explained how adding fillers
and designing the membrane in a smart way can really improve its thermal resistance. Also
same with Article 3, where they both said that structure plays a big part in thermal
performance, especially in composite membranes.

Conflicting Points
It’s different from Article 1 because it is more focused on battery electrolytes, while this
article is focused on membranes used for filtration or separation. So even though both are
talking about thermal stability, they are looking at it from two different applications and
materials.

Article 3:

Nanoporous Composite Proton Exchange Membranes: High Conductivity and Thermal

Stability

Salient Points

This article explains how using nanoporous materials inside the proton exchange
membranes (PEMs) can make them work better under high temperature. Sulfonated MCM-41
is used as a filler to improve not just conductivity, but also the membrane’s ability to stay
stable even when the temperature increases. It is said that the nanoporous design helps hold
the shape of the membrane and keeps it from degrading. Furthermore, this article really
shows that with the right design and materials, PEMs can become more heat-resistant.

Methodology
The researchers prepared membranes by mixing the sulfonated MCM-41 with the
polymer. They alsp tested the membranes by using tools like thermogravimetric analysis
(TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and other methods to check how much
temperature the membranes can handle before breaking down.

Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 2, wherein both articles found that adding fillers,
especially the right type like nanoporous ones, makes membranes better at handling heat. It’s
also same as Article 4 where they agree that smart design, either by adding stuff or choosing
the right polymer, helps improve stability.
Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 5, which focused more on nanomaterials’ internal structure
like grain size and defects, while this article didn’t really care about those things. It was more
about the membrane's structure and how the nanopores help, instead of the microstructure of
individual materials.

Article 4:

Influence of Polymer Structure on Thermal Stability of Composite Membranes

Salient Points
This article discusses how the structure of polymers, especially if it's aromatic or not,
can change the way membranes behaves under high temperature. It shows that membranes
made from fully aromatic polyamides lasted longer and it didn’t break down as fast as the
ones made from aliphatic or alicyclic structures. It demonstrates that the more rigid and stable
the polymer’s molecular structure is, the better it can handle high temperatures. This article
shows that it doesnt always need to add fillers to make membranes heat-resistant, sometimes
just choosing the right kind of polymer is enough.

Methodology
The researchers made different thin-film composite membranes by using interfacial
polymerization, then tested them under high temperatures. They observed how well the
membranes could still reject salt, and maintain performance even after being exposed to heat.
They compared the thermal stability of the membranes based on what type of polymer
structure was used.
Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 2, as both of them shows that polymer structure (or
adding fillers) can really affect how stable the membrane is under heat. It also agrees with
Article 3, where structure and design were also seen as important factors.
Conflicting Points
It’s different from Article 1 because this article focuses more on how polymer choice
itself affects thermal stability, even without combining it with other things like solid
electrolytes or batteries. In addition, article 1 doesn’t mention much about polymer structure,
just about the general performance of different SEs.

Article 5:
Review of Thermal Stability of Nanomaterials

Salient Points
A review article that covers how nanomaterials, especially nanostructured metals and
alloys, react to high temperatures. It discusses that the smaller the grains and the more grain
boundaries there are, the more the material tends to break down or change when heated. It
also shows other ways to slow this down, like by engineering the grain boundaries or using
thermodynamic modeling to predict how stable a nanomaterial will be. In summary, it
focuses more on internal microstructure and what makes some nanomaterials stronger or
weaker under heat.

Methodology
Since this is also a review paper, the authors didn’t conduct any experiments. What
they did instead is combined the results from different research articles that studied how
nanomaterials behave thermally. They discuss thermodynamic approaches and experimental
results on abnormal grain growth, radiation exposure, and oxidation resistance.

Agreeable Points
It has the same result as Article 1, wherein both discusses the importance of material-
level thermal behavior. It also agrees with Article 4 in the sense that both are saying how
structure (either polymer or crystal) affects stability.

Conflicting Points
It is different from Article 3, as it focused more on building strong membranes with
nanopores, while this article focused more on how thermal behavior is affected from the
inside of the material (like grain boundaries), and not so much about external membrane
design or additives.
KEYWORD: LIB Separator

Article 1:

A review of electrospun separators for lithium-based batteries: Progress and application

prospects

Salient Points:

Polyolefin separators are increasingly seen as inadequate to meet the performance and
safety demands of advanced lithium-based batteries. In contrast, electrospun nanofiber
membranes present a promising alternative due to their controllable structure, cost-
effectiveness, and multifunctional properties. This review examines electrospinning
technology in detail, discusses enhancement strategies, and highlights the remaining
challenges in applying these separators to lithium-ion (LIBs) and lithium-sulfur (Li–S)
batteries.

Methodology:

The methodology for producing battery separators includes both traditional and
emerging techniques. The dry process, involving uniaxial and biaxial stretching of polyolefin
films, creates microporous structures—uniaxial stretching provides strength in one direction,
while biaxial stretching offers isotropic strength with higher tensile strength in the transverse
direction. The wet process mixes polyolefin resin with a pore-forming agent, extrudes it into
a film, and biaxially stretches it; the agent is then removed to produce a separator with
controllable porosity, improved mechanical strength, and reduced thickness. Additionally,
emerging methods such as phase inversion, melt-blown techniques, and wet-laid nonwoven
processes are being developed to create lightweight, high-performance separators. These
methods emphasize control over porosity, manufacturing efficiency, and reduced energy
consumption, though they often involve trade-offs in terms of solvent usage, mechanical
strength, and longer production times.

Agreeable Points:
It has the same result as Article 3 and 5, wherein these articles support electrospinning
as a highly effective approach for producing high-performance LIB separators. Same as
Article 4, this study recognizes mechanical failure or breakdown under thermal/mechanical
stress as a safety-critical issue.

Conflicting Points:

This study conflicts with Article 5, where the P10N6 separator already shows
excellent mechanical and electrochemical performance (95% capacity retention after 50
cycles). This study also highlights challenges in electrospinning, particularly regarding
stringent quality control, process reproducibility, and characterization limitations which is in
conflict with Article 3 and Article 5, which present electrospun separators (PDLLA-CNC and
PVDF) as already high-performing and effective, with less emphasis on reproducibility
issues.
Article 2:

From separator to membrane: Separators can function more in lithium ion batteries

Salient Points:

In the past, separators were often overlooked in lithium-ion battery research, receiving
less attention than electrodes and electrolytes despite playing a crucial role in battery
operation. However, improving only the electrodes and electrolytes is insufficient;
transforming inert separators into functional membranes is essential for addressing challenges
related to energy efficiency, durability, and safety. Smart, polymer-based separators that are
rationally designed can significantly enhance ion transport, interfacial compatibility, and
overall battery safety.

Methodology:

The methodology involves several strategies to improve lithium-ion battery

separators. First, polyolefin separator modifications—such as grafting functional monomers
or applying ceramic and polymer coatings—are used to enhance electrolyte wettability,
compatibility, and the thermal stability of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)
separators. Second, a functionalization strategy is employed, where separators are coated with
materials like lithiumzeolite to address issues that electrodes and electrolytes alone cannot
resolve, such as hydrofluoric acid (HF) formation and metal ion migration. Finally, there is a
shift toward new materials, with ongoing research focusing on developing separators beyond
traditional polyolefins to improve ion transport, increase safety, and better integrate with
advanced electrode and electrolyte systems.

Agreeable Points:

This article advocates for turning inert separators into functional membranes to
address durability, ionic conductivity, and safety. It is the same with Article 3 where
electrospun PVDF separators with tailored properties for enhanced safety and performance
and Article 5 where CNCs in PDLLA separators improved wettability and electrochemical
performance.

Conflicting Points:

Article 2 focuses on materials and functionality, not computational tools, which is in

conflict with article 4 where it heavily focuses on FEA, CFD, and MD modeling to guide
separator design. This Article sees LIB separator as emergent. It conflicts Article 3 and 4,
which already feature sophisticated modeling and material innovation, implying the field is
already welldeveloped.

Article 3:

Electrospun PVDF-Based Polymers for Lithium-Ion Battery Separators: A Review

Salient Points:
 Electrospun PVDF-based separators are important in lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) due
to their high surface area, porosity, and thermal stability, all of which contribute to improved
battery safety and performance. The paper focuses on key processes such as electrospinning
preparation, the optimization of process parameters, and post-treatment methods that
influence the structure and properties of these separators. While challenges still exist in the
development of PVDF separators, ongoing advancements indicate strong potential for their
future use in high-performance and secure LIB applications.

Methodology:

The methodology centers around the electrospinning process, which is widely used to
fabricate PVDF-based nanofiber separators with high porosity, large surface area, and tunable
morphology, thereby enhancing electrolyte wettability and thermal stability. Supplementary
techniques, such as template synthesis and phase separation, are also employed to create
porous structures in the separators, providing additional design flexibility and the ability to
fine-tune performance. Additionally, parameter optimization is a key focus, involving precise
control over structural features—such as thickness, pore size, porosity, and contact angle—as
well as performance metrics like ionic conductivity, tensile strength, and thermal stability
during the solution preparation, spinning, and post-treatment stages, in order to meet the
safety and efficiency requirements of lithium-ion batteries.

Agreeable Points:
Article 3 emphasizes electrospinning as a reliable method for creating high-porosity,
thermally stable PVDF-based separators. It is the same with Article 1 and 5 where it
highlights fabricating electrospun separators with improved performances. It is also the same
with Article 1, 4, and 5 where all highlighted electrolyte wettability and ion transport as key
benefits of advanced separators.

Conflicting Points:
Article 3 is centered on PVDF, while Article 2 explores polyolefins and ceramic
coatings, suggesting a broader material base. Article 5 uses biodegradable PDLLA and CNCs,
stressing sustainability and biocompatibility. Article 3 focuses entirely on experimental
fabrication and property optimization, with no mention of simulation tools. It conflicts with
Article 4, which heavily emphasizes numerical modeling (e.g., FEA, CFD, MD) to guide
separator development.

Article 4:

A Review on Lithium-Ion Battery Separators towards Enhanced Safety Performances and

Modelling Approaches

Salient Points:

Separators play a critical role in lithium-ion battery safety by serving as both physical
barriers between electrodes and ionic conductors that enable battery operation. To enhance
their performance, new materials have been investigated, focusing on improving electrical
stability and resistance to fire or explosions. Additionally, recent advancements in numerical
modeling and benchmarking of key separator properties are helping guide the design of more
effective and safer separators for future battery technologies.

Methodology:

The methodology began with a comprehensive literature review and synthesis,

compiling and comparing existing research on lithium-ion battery (LIB) separators,
particularly their influence on battery performance and safety. Computational modeling
techniques were then utilized, including mathematical modeling, finite element analysis
(FEA), computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, to
predict separator properties such as microstructure, thermal and ion transport behavior,
mechanical stress response, and degradation patterns. Lastly, separator performance
evaluation.
Agreeable Points:

Article 4 identifies LIB separator failure during thermal runaway as a key safety issue,
recommending enhanced thermal properties. It is the same with Article 1,2, and 3 where all
emphasize thermal stability as essential for safer LIBs. Article 4 discusses that separators are
equally critical as electrodes and electrolytes for battery efficiency and life. It agrees with
Article 1,2, and 3 where all these articles shared view that separator design directly affects
performance and should not be overlooked.

Conflicting Points:

Article 4 centers on finite element analysis (FEA), molecular dynamics (MD), and
CFD to simulate separator behavior. It conflicts with Articles 1, 2, 3, and 5, which are entirely
experimental and do not integrate computational modeling into their work.

Article 5:
Cellulose Nanocrystals as Additives in Electrospun Biocompatible Separators for Aprotic
Lithium-Ion Batteries

Salient Points:

This study investigated electrospun PDLLA scaffolds enhanced with cellulose

nanocrystals (CNCs) for use as separators in lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). The morphology
and electrochemical properties of the separators were characterized using techniques such as
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier-transform infrared
spectroscopy (FTIR), and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Among the tested
variants, the P10 series demonstrated promising electrochemical stability and performance,
making it suitable for LIB applications, while the P12 series did not show comparable results.

Methodology:

The methodology involved several key techniques. Electrospinning was used to

prepare solutions by dissolving PDLLA in HFP and CNCs in HFP, followed by magnetic
stirring and sonication. The electrospinning process was carried out on a copper plate using a
high-voltage generator. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed using a Siemens
D5000 Diffractometer to characterize both the CNC powder and the electrospun scaffolds.
ATR-FTIR spectroscopy was used to record spectra of the electrospun scaffolds with a Jasco
J-460 instrument. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was employed to analyze the
scaffolds, using a Jeol 7800F prime-EDS, with image processing done via ImageJ software to
measure fiber diameter and porosity. A swelling test was conducted by immersing the
membranes in a 1 M LiPF6 EC:DMC electrolyte, and the swelling percentage was calculated
based on the difference in the wet and dry membrane masses. Finally, electrochemical
analysis was carried out using linear sweep voltammetry (LSV), cyclic voltammetry (CV),
and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) to evaluate electrochemical stability and
impedance, while performance tests were conducted in full lithium-ion cells with
galvanostatic cycling.

Agreeable Points:

Article 5 evaluates electrolyte uptake, impedance, cycling stability, and capacity

retention. It is the same with Article 1 which analyzes electrolyte uptake, mechanical
strength, and performance. It also the same with Article 2 which connects separator properties
with battery safety and performance. Article 5 introduces PDLLA and cellulose nanocrystals
(CNCs) as biocompatible and sustainable materials which aligns with Article 1 and 2 that
emphasizes developing safer, more functional separator materials.

Conflicting Points:

Article 5 conflicts with Article 2,3, and 4 because it focuses on eco-friendly PDLLA
and CNCs, emphasizing sustainability while these articles primarily explore synthetic,
petrochemicalbased materials. The use of PDLLA/CNC separators which are less
conventional, and only tested on a small-scale conflicts with Articles 1 and 3, which focus on
well-established materials like PVDF and polymers commonly used in commercial
separators.
KEYWORD: Electrospinning

Article 1:

The History of Electrospinning: Past, Present, and Future Developments

Salient Points:
This article highlights the rapid progress of electrospinning in fabricating fibers with
unique morphologies at micro- to nanoscale diameters. Key advancements have focused on
upscaling production, developing 3D nanofibrous structures, and creating novel fiber
configurations. The study provides a comparative analysis of various electrospinning
techniques, assessing their apparatus types, outputs, and efficiency. While needleless and
other innovative methods have improved fiber production rates, challenges like scalability,
consistency, and sustainability remain. Future developments aim to address these issues, with
a focus on industrial-scale production, sustainable practices, and overcoming current
technical limitations.

Methodology:

The study began with a comprehensive literature review, systematically collecting

published research on electrospinning from its early developments to recent innovations,
selecting sources based on their relevance, quality, and impact. A comparative analysis was
then conducted by evaluating various electrospinning techniques according to apparatus type,
fiber output, scalability, and practicality, using specific performance criteria. In the critical
evaluation, the authors assessed the advantages and limitations of each method, considering
factors such as cost-effectiveness, scalability, and real-world applicability through both
qualitative and quantitative data. The historical context was explored by reviewing previous
studies to trace the evolution of electrospinning technologies and understand how challenges
were overcome through innovation and refinement. Finally, the future outlook was developed
by synthesizing insights from the literature, identifying current research gaps, and proposing
directions for future work with an emphasis on industrial scalability, sustainability, and
technological advancement.

Agreeable Points:

Article 1 aligns with Article 2 in highlighting electrospinning as a key method for

creating nanofibers with high surface area and porosity, making them ideal for uses such as
filtration, tissue engineering, and drug delivery. Similarly, Articles 1 and 3 emphasize
electrospinning’s capability to precisely control fiber diameter and produce advanced
structures like hollow nanofibers, enhancing their functionality across different applications.
In addition, Articles 1, 4, and 5 collectively stress the importance of electrospinning in battery
technology, particularly for developing nanofibers that enhance electrochemical performance,
conductivity, and overall efficiency.

Conflicting Points:
 Article 1 differs from Article 3 regarding filtration efficiency; while Article 3 asserts
that electrospun nanofiber membranes surpass commercial HEPA filters, Article 1 does not
specifically address this point. Additionally, Article 1 discusses difficulties associated with
needle-based electrospinning, a topic not covered in Article 4, which instead centers on
enhancing ionic conductivity in inorganic solid-state electrolyte fibers through
electrospinning. Moreover, Article 1 raises concerns about the operational challenges and
environmental impact of needleless electrospinning, issues that are not directly mentioned in
Articles 2, 3, or 5, which concentrate more on technological and material innovations in
electrospinning applications.
Article 2:

Electrospinning: Processes, Structures, and Materials

Salient Points:

Article 2 emphasizes electrospinning as an accessible and economically viable

technique for the fabrication of nanofibers exhibiting substantial surface area and porosity,
facilitating meticulous modulation of fiber dimensions and morphology via the optimization
of parameters and the design of equipment. It presents a comprehensive examination of the
electrospinning methodology, encompassing the various determinants that affect fiber
development and architecture. The article further investigates the extensive array of both
polymeric and nonpolymeric substances employed, in addition to the incorporation of fillers
aimed at augmenting fiber properties and functionality through the application of electric
fields. Finally, it deliberates on methodologies for enhancing production scalability to fulfill
industrial requirements.

Methodology:

The methodology started with a meticulous literature review to analyze critical

dimensions of the electrospinning methodology, encompassing apparatus configuration,
influencing parameters, and selection of materials. It systematically investigates the impact of
various polymeric and non-polymeric substances, in conjunction with diverse fillers, on fiber
morphology and operational efficacy. The research further delineates the technological
progression of electrospinning, underscoring significant innovations and their implications
for performance enhancement. Moreover, it addresses the complexities associated with
scaling the process, providing valuable perspectives on the transition from experimental
settings to largescale industrial production. A comparative analysis of electrospinning
techniques is presented, evaluating their respective advantages, constraints, and
appropriateness for a wide array of applications.
Agreeable Points:

Article 2 concurs with Article 1 on the significance of fine-tuning electrospinning

parameters to regulate fiber morphology and attain the specific properties needed for diverse
applications. Both Articles 2 and 3 stress the adaptability and increasing relevance of
electrospun nanofibers, noting their wide-ranging applications from filtration to drug
delivery. Articles 2 and 5 also highlight electrospinning's contribution to enhancing
electrochemical performance in battery systems, particularly by improving nanofiber
flexibility and minimizing volume expansion.

Conflicting Points:

Article 2 highlights the use of additives like nanoparticles and metal oxides to
improve nanofiber properties—such as hydrophilicity and antibacterial effects—a topic not
directly explored in Article 1, which instead concentrates on challenges related to operation
and largescale production. While Article 2 emphasizes the need to scale up electrospinning
for realworld use, this contrasts with Article 4’s narrower focus on enhancing ionic
conductivity in solid-state electrolytes, without addressing broader scalability concerns.
Additionally, Article 2 does not cover the comparison between needle-based and needleless
electrospinning methods, a subject that Article 1 discusses in terms of limitations regarding
scalability, cost, and environmental impact.

Article 3:
Recent update on electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: current trends and their
applications
Salient Points:

This research underscores the notable progress achieved in both electrospinning and
nonelectrospinning methodologies for the synthesis of nanofibers, emphasizing their
manufacturing simplicity and extensive applicability. It systematically evaluates the
apparatus, processing parameters, and materials utilized, detailing how these elements affect
the properties of nanofibers. The manuscript investigates a diverse array of applications—
including intelligent mats, filtration systems, energy storage solutions, electronic devices, and
biomedical scaffolds—and delineates the most recent advancements in nanofiber technology.
It concludes by identifying prevailing challenges, proposing viable solutions, and
contemplating future opportunities for commercialization and industrial scaling.

Methodology:

The electrospinning process involves applying a high voltage to a polymer solution or

melt, creating a liquid jet that stretches into ultrathin nanofibers. This technique can produce
various nanostructures, including 0D (nanoparticles), 1D (nanofibers, nanotubes), 2D (films),
and 3D (polycrystals). First discovered by Formhals in 1934, the process is influenced by
factors such as applied voltage, nozzle-collector distance, flow rate, solution conductivity,
viscosity, and polymer concentration. Common polymers used in electrospinning include
PGA, PLGA, PLLA, PDLLA, PVA, PEG, cellulose acetate, polystyrene, and poly-ε-
caprolactone. The methodology also includes emulsion electrospinning, where two
immiscible solutions form an emulsion that is pushed through a syringe, with the potential
difference between the needle and collector causing fiber formation. This method produces
core-shell nanofibers with functional materials like proteins and peptides, and uses
surfactants like sodium dodecyl sulfate for interface stabilization. Characterization of the
electrospun nanofibers is carried out using techniques such as scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and vibrating
sample magnetometer (VSM) to assess their structure and morphology.

Agreeable Points:

Article 3 aligns with Article 1 in emphasizing electrospinning’s capability to control

fiber diameter and fabricate specialized structures such as hollow nanofibers, thereby
broadening their application potential across multiple fields. Similarly, Articles 3 and 5 stress
the value of electrospinning in developing flexible, porous, and composite nanofiber
structures that enhance electrochemical performance in rechargeable batteries. Articles 1 and
3 also underscore the increasing significance and versatility of nanofibers in industrial
settings, especially for applications in filtration and therapeutic delivery systems.

Conflicting Points:

Article 3 discusses how electrospun membranes surpass commercial HEPA filters in

performance, a point not mentioned in Article 1, which primarily focuses on advancements in
electrospinning and the refinement of processing parameters. Additionally, Article 3 examines
the incorporation of carbon nanotubes into nanofibers to develop lightweight, bullet-resistant
materials—an aspect not covered in Article 1, which emphasizes scalability and technique
optimization instead. Furthermore, Article 3 does not address the environmental or economic
issues associated with needleless electrospinning, topics that are specifically discussed in
Article 1.

Article 4:

Electrospun inorganic solid-state electrolyte fibers for battery applications

Salient Points:
The paper discusses the use of electrospinning to synthesize inorganic solid-state
electrolyte (SSE) fibers, particularly focusing on Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), for all-solid-state
batteries. Electrospinning allows for better control of crystallite size and reduced calcination
temperatures, which lowers production costs compared to traditional high-temperature
synthesis methods. The study explores the parameters affecting fiber morphology, sintering
conditions, and the integration of these fibers into inorganic polymer composite SSEs. While
LLZO is the primary focus, other electrospun inorganic electrolyte fibers are also discussed,
along with the challenges and future directions for their use in battery applications.

Methodology:

The methodology in this study focuses on using electrospinning to create inorganic

solid-state electrolyte (SSE) fibers, with a particular emphasis on Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) for
all-solidstate batteries. Electrospinning helps to control the crystallite size of the material and
reduce the calcination temperature, offering a more cost-effective alternative to traditional
hightemperature synthesis methods. The process involves preparing a polymer solution or
melt containing the inorganic precursor, which is then spun into fibers. Key parameters
affecting fiber structure include the applied voltage, nozzle-collector distance, and solution
viscosity. The study also explores the sintering conditions—such as temperature and
duration—that influence the final fiber morphology and composition. These electrospun
fibers are then used to create inorganic polymer composite SSEs. The paper examines the
properties of these fibers, their impact on SSE performance, and the challenges in applying
them to battery technologies. Lastly, it reviews current research and proposes potential future
directions for advancing electrospun inorganic electrolyte fibers in energy storage
applications.

Agreeable Points:

Article 4 aligns with Article 1 in recognizing the role of electrospinning in advancing

nanofiber production for battery applications, especially in generating fibers that boost
electrochemical performance and ionic conductivity. Both articles highlight the potential of
electrospun fibers in developing composite solid-state electrolytes (SSEs), contributing to
improved battery efficiency. Additionally, Articles 4 and 5 both emphasize the advantages of
electrospinning in forming one-dimensional nanofiber structures that enhance the overall
performance of rechargeable batteries.

Conflicting Points:

Article 4 differs from Article 1 by concentrating on the use of electrospinning

specifically for inorganic solid-state electrolyte fibers, such as LLZO, whereas Article 1 takes
a broader approach, discussing electrospinning advancements across various materials
without a dedicated focus on battery-related SSEs. While Article 4 highlights efforts to
reduce calcination temperatures and improve ionic conductivity through electrospun fibers,
Article 1 is more concerned with scaling and optimizing the electrospinning process, without
addressing detailed improvements in ionic conductivity for solid-state electrolytes.
Furthermore, Article 4 does not address the environmental or economic challenges associated
with needleless electrospinning, which are key considerations in Article 1.
Article 5:

Advances in Electrospun Materials and Methods for Li-Ion Batteries

Salient Points:

This review highlights the advancements in electrospinning technology for enhancing

Li-ion batteries, particularly focusing on the development of nanofibers with improved
mechanical strength, rapid ion transport, and ease of production. Electrospun nanofibers are
emerging as a promising alternative to traditional battery materials, offering potential
applications in battery separators and electrodes, especially with the introduction of flame-
resistant core-shell nanofibers. The review also discusses the exploration of recycled waste
and biomass materials to improve the sustainability of the electrospinning process. By
examining recent developments in nanofiber morphology, manufacturing methods, and
materials, the study emphasizes the commercialization potential of electrospinning in
advancing battery technology.
Methodology:

The methodology of this review involves an in-depth examination of recent

developments in electrospinning technology for creating materials used in Li-ion batteries.
The authors explore different electrospinning methods to produce nanofibers with varying
structures for use in battery separators and electrodes, highlighting the role of flame-resistant
core-shell nanofibers in improving battery performance. The review also considers the
integration of sustainable materials, such as recycled waste and biomass, into the
electrospinning process to enhance its environmental sustainability. Additionally, emerging
manufacturing techniques and materials are discussed, focusing on their contribution to the
efficiency and commercialization potential of electrospun nanofibers in the battery industry.
Through this review, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the current trends and
future prospects of electrospinning for battery applications.

Agreeable Points:

Article 5 supports the view presented in Article 1 regarding the use of electrospinning
to create one-dimensional nanofibers that enhance rechargeable battery performance by
improving electrochemical characteristics and minimizing volume expansion. Additionally,
Articles 5 and 2 both emphasize the versatility of electrospinning in producing flexible,
porous, and composite nanofibers that advance a range of applications, including battery
systems. Both Articles 1 and 5 also underscore the increasing importance of electrospun
nanofibers in battery components, highlighting electrospinning's potential to contribute to
more efficient and sustainable battery technologies.

Conflicting Points:

While Article 5 is centered specifically on the development of nanofibers for

rechargeable battery applications, Article 1 takes a broader perspective, addressing additional
uses such as filtration and tissue engineering, which receive less attention in Article 5.
Furthermore, Article 5 does not address the specific economic and environmental concerns
associated with needleless electrospinning that are discussed in Article 1, instead
concentrating on the structural design and electrochemical performance of nanofibers.
References:

Li, Y., Hu, Q., Zhang, R., Ma, W., Pan, S., Zhao, B., Wang, Q., & Fang, P. (2022).
Piezoelectric Nanogenerator Based on Electrospinning PVDF/Cellulose Acetate Composite
Membranes for Energy Harvesting. Materials, 15(19), 7026.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15197026

Issa, A. A., Al Ali Al-Maadeed, M., Luyt, A. S., Mrlik, M., & Hassan, M. K. (2016).
Investigation of the physico-mechanical properties of electrospun PVDF/cellulose
(nano)fibers. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133(26).
https://doi.org/10.1002/APP.43594

Chen, Y., Qiu, L., Ma, X., Dong, L., Jin, Z., Xia, G., Du, P., & Xiong, J. (2020). Electrospun
cellulose polymer nanofiber membrane with flame resistance properties for lithium-ion
batteries. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115907

Ding, Z., Qiu, J., Jun, Z., & Sun, W. (2023). Electrospun Polyvinylidene Fluoride
(PVDF)/Cellulose Acetate/Ammonium Polyphosphate (APP) Composite Membrane Acting as
Separator for Lithium Ion Battery. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4563243

Kang, W., Xiaomin, M., Zhao, H., Ju, J., Yixia, Z., Yan, J., & Cheng, B. (2016). Electrospun
cellulose acetate/poly(vinylidene fluoride) nanofibrous membrane for polymer lithium-ion
batteries. Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 20(10), 2791–2803.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10008-016-3271-Y

Choi, Y. S., Yang, S. Y., Cho, H. R., Kim, J. H., & Jung, Y. C. (2019). Synergetic effect of
hybrid fillers of boron nitride, graphene nanoplatelets, and short carbon fibers for enhanced
thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity of epoxy nanocomposites. Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing, 119, 128–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.11.006
Huang, X., Zhi, C., Jiang, P., Golberg, D., Bando, Y., Tanaka, T., & Funahashi, R. (2014).
Thermal conductivity of polymer composites with oriented boron nitride. Thermochimica
Acta, 575, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2014.06.029

Yuan, Y., Liao, M., Wang, Z., Cheng, Y., Shen, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2019).
Electrospinning of boron nitride nanofibers with high-temperature stability. Scripta
Materialia, 170, 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2019.06.002

Yu, J., Wang, L., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Thermal conductivity of boron nitride reinforced
polyethylene composites. Materials Research Bulletin, 42(10), 1863–1873.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2006.11.047

Zhi, C., Shi, Y., Lin, Y., & Wang, X. (2019). Thermal transport properties of boron nitride-
based materials: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 116, 109622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109622
Keirouz, A., Wang, Z., Reddy, V. S., Nagy, Z. K., Vass, P., Buzgo, M., Ramakrishna, S., &
Radacsi, N. (2023). The History of Electrospinning: past, present, and future developments.
Advanced Materials Technologies, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.202201723

Bonakdar, M. A., & Rodrigue, D. (2024). Electrospinning: processes, structures, and

materials. Macromol—A Journal of Macromolecular Research, 4(1), 58– 103.
https://doi.org/10.3390/macromol4010004

Nadaf, A., Gupta, A., Hasan, N., Fauziya, N., Ahmad, S., Kesharwani, P., & Ahmad, F. J.
(2022). Recent update on electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: current trends and their
applications. RSC Advances, 12(37), 23808–23828. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2ra02864f

Sharma, J., Polizos, G., Jafta, C. J., Wood, D. L., & Li, J. (2022). Review—Electrospun
Inorganic Solid-State Electrolyte Fibers for battery applications. Journal of the
Electrochemical Society, 169(5), 050527. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac6c1c

Senthilkumar, S. H., Ramasubramanian, B., Rao, R. P., Chellappan, V., & Ramakrishna, S.
(2023). Advances in electrospun materials and methods for Li-Ion batteries. Polymers, 15(7),
1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15071622

Sun, X., Zhou, Y., Li, D., Zhao, K., Wang, L., Tan, P., Dong, H., Wang, Y., & Liang, J. (2024).
A review of electrospun separators for lithium‐based batteries: Progress and application
prospects. Carbon Energy, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/cey2.539

Song, Y., Sheng, L., Wang, L., Xu, H., & He, X. (2021). From separator to membrane:
Separators can function more in lithium ion batteries. Electrochemistry Communications,
124, 106948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elecom.2021.106948

He, J., Yang, L., Ruan, X., Liu, Z., Liao, K., Duan, Q., & Zhan, Y. (2024). Electrospun
PVDFBased Polymers for Lithium-Ion Battery Separators: A review. Polymers, 16(20), 2895.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16202895
Li, A., Yuen, A. C. Y., Wang, W., De Cachinho Cordeiro, I. M., Wang, C., Chen, T. B. Y.,
Zhang, J., Chan, Q. N., & Yeoh, G. H. (2021). A Review on Lithium-Ion Battery Separators
towards Enhanced Safety Performances and Modelling Approaches. Molecules, 26(2), 478.
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26020478

Laezza, A., Celeste, A., Curcio, M., Teghil, R., De Bonis, A., Brutti, S., Pepe, A., &
Bochicchio, B. (2023). Cellulose nanocrystals as additives in Electrospun biocompatible
separators for Aprotic Lithium-Ion batteries. ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 5(2), 1453–
1463. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.2c01956

Kim, H., Park, H. B., Shin, M. G., Lee, Y. M., & Freeman, B. D. (2013). Recent advances in
the fabrication of advanced composite membranes. Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 1(2),
446–470. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3TA01652H

Kim, S., Yoon, H., Jo, H. J., Kim, J., & Lee, Y. M. (2018). Nanoporous composite proton
exchange membranes: High conductivity and thermal stability. Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 539, 267–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.01.039

Lin, H., & Elimelech, M. (2005). Influence of polymer structure on the thermal stability of
thin-film composite membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 250(1-2), 261–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.02.012

Wang, X., Liu, Z., Xu, H., Wang, J., & Zhou, D. (2023). Progress in thermal stability of all‐
solid‐state Li‐ion batteries. InfoMat, 5(4), e12224. https://doi.org/10.1002/inf2.12224
Weertman, J. R. (2013). Review of thermal stability of nanomaterials. Journal of Materials
Science, 48(13), 4466–4473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-013-7836-1