Talk:Lithium iron phosphate

Energy Density Confusion

In the opening paragraph the article states, "Lastly, LFP batteries tend to have superior power density in comparison to traditional [LiCoO2] li-ion," yet in second to last section the article states, "The energy density of LFP batteries is significantly lower than LiCoO2 (although well higher than its main competitor for safety and lifespan, the nickel-metal hydride battery)". Which is it? Which has a higher energy density, LFP or LiCoO2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.147.88 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also noted by IP inserted comment stating energy density of 60% - I replaced comment with "dubious" tag - Leonard G. (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Power density is different from energy density. Energy density is how many watt hours or other unit of energy the chemistry can hold in a unit of weight. Power density is how many watts(not watt hours) or other unit of power the battery can safely produce per unit of weight, regardless of how long it actually lasts.

Big chunk unsourced?

This article was expanded from 3.3K to 34K in one shot in November, 2008 ... including a block of references. A little Googling (and scrutiny of the style and punctuation of the text) suggests that the 30K chunk may have been machine-translated from another language. If so, I don't see a citation.
Since much of that material remains unsourced, I'm adding a -more footnotes- template. Much of it is far from standard-English, too, and looks like marketing background. Twang (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the chunk is still here (march 2014). I tagged the worst section as "Spam", hoping to attract the attention of motivated editors. But the whole thing look like a copy/past of a business magazine, combining condescending naming of big companies with original research/opinions about the state of "the market". I tried a google search as well: no idea of the source but this ugly stuff is now all around Internet thanks to 6 years of copy/paste from wikipedia !? 62.92.40.200 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature of LiFePO4

This paragraph seems highly dubious when referring specifically to an article on Lithium Iron Phosphate.

How on earth can the correct chemical formula for Lithium Iron Phosphate be LiMPO4 (instead of LiFePO4) where "The M of the chemical formula refers to any metal, including Fe, Co, Mn, Ti, etc. The first commercial LiMPO4 was C/LiFePO4 and therefore, people refer to the whole group of LiMPO4 as lithium iron phosphate".

That seems absurd - whereas the group may well be designated as LiMPO4, and may well be erroneously described in some circles as LiFePO4, surely that doesn't mean one shouldn't use LiFePO4 to describe the real Lithium Iron Phosphate. That's like saying because wolves are sometimes called dogs by some people, we should stop calling dogs "dogs" and call them canines instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.239.82 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some issues with this Article: 1. Written in the form of a personal commentary at certain places 2. Some lines sound like advertising/pompous statements 3. Should focus on Lithium Iron Phosphate and no digress into sub-categories that don't really exist. 115.113.135.227 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)DVD

I deleted much of this section to mention that related compounds exist. Open to discussion about whether "LiFePO4", "lithium iron phosphate", or "LFP" should be used throughout the article to refer to the compound. Aherthabey talk 10:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Description of crystalline lattice

The description of the crystalline lattice is very involved. A diagram would be very helpful.

Jimadilo (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded a cartoon image of the crystalline lattice to help illustrate the 1D channels, although future users are welcome to create more descriptive / useful schematics depicting the crystallite changes upon (de)lithiation, proposed mechanisms of two phase reaction, phase diagram, etc. Aherthabey talk 10:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

CAS report

• According to Chemical Abstracts, 15,145 reports have appeared on this material.
• If we confine our attention to reviews, per WP:SECONDARY, 24 reviews have appeared in the past 10 years. Those souces should be the focus of edits, not primary literature (unless we want some fractioon of 15,145 citations!). --Smokefoot (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The top most cited reviews are not mentioned in this article. ,

References

Ntt invented it

If we go by what the japanese version of this article says in 1995 Ntt filed a secret patent about their version of the cathode. If only by 1996 Padhi reported it's results we can say NTT discovered it firt. Okada Shigeto was a researcher at UT but he was the one that created the AyMPO4 material. Mirad1000 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Proposal: Clarification of the Use of the Term "LFP"

Original Sentence: "All may be referred to as 'LFP'."

Issue: This statement is an overgeneralization and lacks reliable sourcing. In academic and technical literature, the term LFP (lithium iron phosphate) specifically refers to LiFePO₄, the iron-based olivine compound. While related materials such as Li₁−ₓMFePO₄, LiFePO₄−zM, and AyMPO₄ share the same olivine-type crystal structure and may function similarly as cathode materials, referring to all of them as "LFP" is informal and non-standard, potentially misleading to readers.

Suggested Replacement: "Although the term 'LiFePO₄' (LFP) strictly refers to the iron-based compound, related olivine-type phosphates with similar structures—such as AyMPO₄, Li₁−ₓMFePO₄, and LiFePO₄−zM—are sometimes informally included under the LFP designation due to structural and electrochemical similarity."

Supporting References: Wang, J., & Sun, X. (2015). Olivine LiFePO₄: The Remaining Challenges for Future Energy Storage. Energy & Environmental Science, 8(4), 1110–1138. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EE04016C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaroslav Radomír (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit Notice: Clarification and Sourcing of Microwave-Assisted Synthesis Section

Context The previous description of "microwave process" in the synthesis methods section was vague and lacked citation. The term has now been clarified to “microwave-assisted synthesis”, with a more accurate technical explanation of the method and its relevance to LiFePO₄ production.

What Was Changed Replaced the ambiguous phrase “microwave process [vague]” with a properly defined entry:

Microwave-assisted synthesis: Applies microwave energy to accelerate chemical reactions, resulting in reduced synthesis time and energy consumption.

Added explanatory context regarding its advantages in large-scale, low-energy production of LiFePO₄ for HEV (hybrid electric vehicle) applications.

Source Provided A supporting source was added based on the following PDF:

Jugović, Dragana & Uskoković, Dragan A review of recent developments in the synthesis procedures of lithium iron phosphate powders Hosted at: https://web.mit.edu/~elsao/www/Articles/2009Jugovic%20A%20review%20of%20recent%20developments%20in%20the%20synthesis%20procedures%20of%20lithium%20iron%20phosphate%20powders.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com Originally published in Journal of Power Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaroslav Radomír (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit Note: Addition of Reliable Source on Lifecycle Cost Comparison

I have added a citation to the 2022 Grid Energy Storage Technology Cost and Performance Assessment, published by the U.S. Department of Energy, to support the statement regarding the lower total cost of ownership (TCO) of lithium-ion batteries compared to lead-acid batteries.

Why this matters: The original sentence stated:

"The cost of ownership when considering the lifecycle further increases the value of the lithium battery when compared to a lead acid battery."

This claim lacked an independent and reliable source. The DOE report is a government-published, neutral, and well-cited document that provides a comparative analysis of battery chemistries, including lifecycle costs. It explicitly states that lithium-ion technologies offer superior long-term economics due to:

- Higher energy efficiency

- Longer cycle life

- Lower maintenance

- Decreasing cost trends

Source details: Title: 2022 Grid Energy Storage Technology Cost and Performance Assessment Publisher: U.S. Department of Energy Date: December 2022 URL: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022%20Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20Technology%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Assessment.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaroslav Radomír (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that you should be extremely careful with self-citation. Many editors contribute to promote their work (WP:COI), which often is somewhat narrow academic stuff. Microwave synthesis for any commercial materials must be rare, but I am no expert. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite

I've rewritten the page extensively for readability and to highlight some of the important aspects of this material. Per Smokefoot's CAS report, I've tried to highlight and cite the reviews per WP:SECONDARY when possible.

Outstanding issues:

- The topical delineation between the "Application" section of this article, and what is covered in the Lithium iron phosphate battery article is wholly unclear to me. Can someone please provide some thoughts?

- The "Commercialization and intellectual property" section still needs many citations and additional context about the story of LFP's commercialization to be useful.