ABSTRACT
The pervasive dissolution of transition metal fluoride (TMF) cathodes presents a fundamental barrier to their application in high‐voltage thermal batteries and other Li+‐conducting systems. Herein, we report a novel selective confinement strategy inspired by ion sieving to overcome this challenge by constructing a sub‐nanoporous carbon interface in situ on CoF2 particles. Derived from a covalent organic framework (COF), this interface features precisely defined 0.54 nm pores that exploit the size difference between Li+ ions (∼0.15 nm) and dissolved transition metal fluoride derived complex ions (∼0.8 nm), effectively confining the active material while enabling unimpeded ionic conduction. This tailored design successfully suppresses cathode shuttling effect, enabling a thermal battery that delivers an exceptional discharge plateau >2.5 V, a high specific capacity of 365 mAh g−1, and a remarkable specific energy of 882 Wh kg−1 at 100 mA cm−2. Mechanism studies confirm the dissolved transition metal fluoride derived complex ions as CoCl4 2− and efficient confinement of it. This work provides a general and effective interface engineering strategy for unlocking the full potential of metal fluoride cathodes in advanced energy storage.
Keywords: covalent organic frameworks, selective confinement, sub‐nanopore, thermal battery, transition metal fluoride cathodes
Dissolution and shuttling of TMF cathodes hinders high‐voltage thermal batteries. A novel selective confinement strategy using a sub‐nanoporous COF‐derived carbon interface (0.54 nm pores) on CoF2 suppresses cathode material shuttling. Size‐selective confinement blocks large dissolved ions (∼0.8 nm) while allowing Li⁺ passage, enhancing thermal battery performance with high‐voltage, capacity, and energy density.

1. Introduction
A thermal battery is a type of thermally activated primary battery, primarily used in military applications such as power sources for weapon systems [1, 2, 3]. Leveraging molten salt electrolytes, thermal batteries offer ultrahigh power output, excellent safety performance, and an ultralong shelf life. However, with the continuous advancement of modern weapon systems, conventional metal sulfide‐based systems are increasingly unable to meet the demand for higher voltage and power output. For instance, traditional sulfides like FeS2, CoS2, and NiS2 exhibit discharge plateaus below 2 V [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. More critically, these sulfides are prone to thermal decomposition at operating temperatures exceeding 550°C, leading to reduced discharge capacity and increased safety risks.
Recently, transition metal fluorides (TMFs), which operate via conversion reactions, have garnered significant attention due to their high theoretical operating voltages—a result of the strong electronegativity of fluoride ions coupled with exceptional thermal stability [9, 10]. Considered promising next‐generation cathode materials, TMFs offer high gravimetric capacities (e.g., 712 mAh g−1 for FeF3, 553 mAh g−1 for CoF2, and 528 mAh g−1 for CuF2), high theoretical voltages (2.74 V for FeF3, 2.85 V for CoF2, and 3.55 V for CuF2), and the ability to operate stably at temperatures up to 800°C [11, 12]. Nonetheless, TMFs suffer from limitations such as poor electronic conductivity, complex and costly synthesis routes, and dissolution in electrolytes, which hinder their practical application not only in thermal batteries but also in other lithium‐ion conducting systems like lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs) [13, 14]. Dissolution is particularly problematic in thermal batteries due to the high operating temperatures and strong solvation power of molten salts, causing significant degradation in discharge performance and failure to reach theoretical potentials [15]. To date, limited progress has been made in addressing these challenges in thermal battery systems, primarily owing to their inherent complexities.
Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate TMF dissolution and shuttling in LIBs. Most methods focus on constructing a cathode‐electrolyte interphase (CEI) between the TMF cathode and the electrolyte [16, 17]. For example, a dense NiO layer has been applied to CuF2 electrodes to prevent direct contact with the electrolyte [18]. However, such dense CEI layers increase lithium‐ion transport resistance, resulting in sluggish reaction kinetics unsuitable for the ultrahigh power output required in thermal batteries. Alternatively, nanoporous carbon interlayers have been used to encapsulate TMFs like CoF2 and FeF3 for high‐rate LIBs [19, 20]. Nevertheless, the large pore sizes in these matrices are ineffective at preventing TMF dissolution in thermal batteries, given the small ion size and extremely low viscosity of molten salt electrolytes [21]. Recently, hydrogel layers have also been explored as barriers between TMFs and organic electrolytes, utilizing strong chelation interactions between metal ions and sodium alginate to confine active materials [22, 23]. Unfortunately, these hydrogels cannot withstand the high operating temperatures characteristic of thermal batteries. Therefore, it is crucial to develop new strategies specifically tailored to the unique features of thermal batteries to address the dissolution and shuttling of active materials, thereby enabling the development of next‐generation high‐voltage, high‐power‐density thermal batteries.
In this work, we introduce the concept of an ion sieve [24] in the construction of the cathode‐electrolyte interphase by exploiting the significant size difference between dissolved metal fluoride‐based complex ions (e.g., CoCl4 2−, ∼0.8 nm) [25, 26] and charge‐carrying lithium ions (0.15 nm) [27] in molten salt electrolytes (Figure 1). A covalent organic framework (COF)‐derived sub‐nanoporous interface with a uniform sub‐nano pore size of 0.54 nm was constructed in situ on the surface of a fluoride cathode. This design effectively confines metal fluoride‐derived complex ions within the cathode region while allowing unimpeded transport of conductive ions. Consequently, by effectively addressing the dissolution and shuttling of TMFs in molten salt electrolytes, we achieved a high discharge voltage plateau exceeding 2.5 V and a high specific capacity of over 360 mAh g−1 (cutoff voltage of 2 V) at a current density of 100 mA cm− 2 for a thermal battery using CoF2 as the cathode material.
FIGURE 1.

Illustration of size selective transmission of ions between electrolyte and cathode enabled by sub‐nanoporous interface.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. COF‐Derived Sub‐Nanoporous Carbon Materials
Porous materials with narrow pore size distributions are demanded for the construction of a sub‐nanoporous interface. COFs are typically covalently linked nanoporous materials with precise pore sizes mostly larger than 1 nm [28, 29, 30], which are too large to restrict the mobility of cobalt complex ions [24, 31]. Furthermore, the working temperature of thermal batteries is typically above 500°C, which is near or above the decomposition temperature of most COFs [32, 33, 34]. Thus, we reduced their pore size to the sub‐nanometer scale and simultaneously improved their high‐temperature stability through carbonization [35, 36, 37], obtaining COF‐derived sub‐nanoporous carbon (CSC). TAPB‐BTCA COF was selected due to its small intrinsic pore size and well‐controlled polymerization kinetics suitable for nanocomposite construction. TAPB‐BTCA COF was synthesized via the polymerization of 1,3,5‐tris(4‐aminophenyl)benzene (TAPB) and 1,3,5‐benzenetricarbaldehyde (BTCA) monomers using a Reversible Polycondensation‐Termination (RPT) strategy, following our previous work [38, 39, 40, 41, 42] (Figure S1).
The chemical structure and crystallinity of the as‐synthesized TAPB‐BTCA COF were characterized prior to carbonization. Fourier transform infrared (FT‐IR) spectroscopy confirmed the formation of imine bonds, evidenced by a peak at 1624 cm−1 (Figure S2). High crystallinity was demonstrated by powder X‐ray diffraction (PXRD). A strong peak at 5.5°, along with well‐defined high ordered diffraction peaks at 9.45°, 10.9°, and 14.45°, were observed in the PXRD pattern, matching well with the (100), (110), (200), and (210) crystal planes of a simulated A‐A stacking model (Figure 2a) [38]. TAPB‐BTCA COF exhibited a type‐I N2 adsorption‐desorption isotherm (Figure 2b). The Barrett‐Emmett‐Teller (BET) surface area was calculated to be 468 m2 g−1, with a pore volume of 0.23 cm3 g−1 and a mean pore size of 1.6 nm determined by the nonlocal density functional theory method (Figure 2b). This pore size agrees with the 1.6 nm interplanar spacing calculated from the main XRD peak at 5.5°. Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) revealed that TAPB‐BTCA COF possesses a pompon‐like spherical morphology composed of interwoven nanoflakes (Figure S3).
FIGURE 2.

Characterizations of COF‐derived sub‐nanoporous carbons. (a) Experimental and simulated PXRD patterns of TAPB‐BTCA COF. (b) Nitrogen adsorption and desorption isotherms at 77 K and pore width distribution for TAPB‐BTCA COF. (c) Raman spectrums of CSC500, CSC600, CSC700 and CSC800. (d–f) Nitrogen adsorption and desorption isotherms at 77 K (d), BET surface areas and pore volumes (e), and pore width distributions (f) for CSC500, CSC600, CSC700, and CSC800. (g) Structure illustrations for carbonization process of TAPB‐BTCA COF. (h) FESEM images of TAPB‐BTCA COF, CSC500, CSC600, CSC700, and CSC800.
COF‐derived sub‐nanoporous carbons were prepared by direct carbonization of the precursor TAPB‐BTCA COF under an argon atmosphere. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) showed that TAPB‐BTCA COF undergoes a rapid weight loss centered at 524°C in an inert atmosphere, followed by two moderated weight loss zones around 590°C and 740°C, yielding a stable carbon residue of ∼62% after 800°C (Figure S4). Based on this, carbonization temperatures of 500°C, 600°C, 700°C, and 800°C were selected for CSC fabrication. Four CSCs were fabricated from the TAPB‐BTCA COF precursor at these temperatures, designated as CSC500, CSC600, CSC700, and CSC800, respectively. The graphitization process was monitored by Raman spectroscopy (Figure 2c). Obvious baseline drift due to fluorescence was observed in the spectra of CSC500 and CSC600, indicating the retention of aromatic conjugated structures from the original COF (Figure S5). This fluorescence disappeared in CSC700 and CSC800, suggesting the loss of the aromatic structure. Graphitic structure formation began at 600°C, as confirmed by the appearance of distinct D and G bands around 1350and 1590 cm−1, respectively. Peak analysis of CSC700 presented a narrower D1 peak and weaker D4 and D3 peaks, indicating less amorphous and disordered graphitic lattice [43].
The evolution of sub‐nanopores from the original nanopores was studied using N2 physisorption. All CSCs exhibited type‐I sorption isotherms with steep nitrogen uptake at low relative pressure (P/P0< 0.01), indicative of abundant micropores (Figure 2d). The BET surface area and pore volume initially decreased to 192.6 m2 g−1 and 0.12 cm3 g−1 for CSC500 from the original 468 m2 g−1 and 0.23 cm3 g−1 of the COF, due to structural degradation at 500°C (Figure 2e). The pore size distribution for CSC500 showed peaks at 1.0 nm and 1.5 nm (Figure 2f), attributed to newly collapsed and residual COF pores, respectively. The BET surface area and pore volume increased with graphitization from 500°C to 700°C, reaching 699 m2 g−1 and 0.3 cm3 g−1 for CSC700, even exceeding the values for the precursor COF. This suggests the generation of abundant new sub‐nanopores, evidenced by a narrow pore size distribution centered at 0.54 nm for CSC600 and CSC700. However, further increasing the carbonization temperature to 800°C decreased the BET surface area and pore volume to 502 m2 g−1 and 0.23 cm3 g−1, likely due to C─N bond decomposition and pore collapse. The sub‐nanopore evolution is illustrated in Figure 2g: new graphitized structures with sub‐nanopores generated below 600°C, are enhanced at 700°C, and partially degrade at 800°C, consistent with the three weight loss peaks in the TGA curve (Figure S4). Notably, these structural changes occurred primarily at the micro‐scale, as the overall pompon‐like morphology was well preserved during carbonization (Figure 2h; Figure S6), likely because gases generated during carbonization could easily escape through the open pore structure of the COF. This ability to generate sub‐nanopores while maintaining morphology enables the in situ construction of a sub‐nanoporous interface on fluoride cathode surfaces.
2.2. Construction of CoF2@CSCs
To better confine dissolved transition metal fluoride derived complex ions within the cathode region, a plum pudding@shell structure (Figure 3a) was designed to thoroughly cover cathode materials, ensuring confinement under harsh discharge conditions of high‐temperature and current density. CoF2 nanoparticles were selected as the fluoride cathode due to their high theoretical voltage and specific capacity [11, 44, 45]. The CoF2 nanoparticles were first synthesized via fluorosilicate decomposition at 260°C (Figures S7–S9). High crystallinity was confirmed by sharp XRD diffraction peaks (Figure 3b). The CoF2 particles exhibited a micro‐sized rod‐like assembly structure composed of nanorods with a diameter of 20 nm and a length of 80 nm (Figure 3c; Figure S10). After dispersing the CoF2 particles into the TAPB‐BTCA COF polymerization solution and carefully controlling the polymerization kinetics via the RPT strategy, the COF formed not only an outer shell around the micro‐assemblies but also filled the gaps between the CoF2 nanorods (Figure S11). The final CoF2@CSC plum pudding@shell structures were obtained after carbonization in argon and subsequent fluorination with NF3. The CSC content was tuned by varying the concentration of CoF2 particles in the COF polymerization solution and confirmed by elemental analysis. Five CoF2@COF composites with different CSC contents (11, 15, 19, 24, and 27 wt.%) were prepared after carbonization at 700°C, designated as CoF2@CSC700‐11, CoF2@CSC700‐15, CoF2@CSC700‐19, CoF2@CSC700‐24, and CoF2@CSC700‐27, respectively. CoF2 component were confirmed as high crystalline by XRD patterns with sharp characteristic peaks (Figure 3b; Figure S12). The different CSC contents were also evidenced by TGA in air, showing a sharp weight loss after approximately 400°C (Figure 3d). XRD confirmed that all CoF2@CSC700 composites contained highly crystalline CoF2, with diffraction peaks matching its standard PDF card (PDF#76‐0652) (Figure 3b; Figure S12).
FIGURE 3.

Characterizations of CoF2@CSC700s. (a) Illustration of plum pudding@shell structure of the CoF2@CSC700 composites. (b–d) XPD patterns (b), FESEM images (c), and TGA thermograms (d) of bared CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700s. (e) TEM and EDS elemental mapping images of CoF2@CSC700‐24. (f) HRTEM, FFT, and reversed FFT images for CoF2@CSC700‐24.
The plum pudding@shell structure of the CoF2@CSC700 composites was confirmed by electron microscopies. At low CSC content, the CSC primarily filled the gaps between the CoF2 nanorods (Figure 3c; Figure S13). As the CSC content increased, a continuous shell layer with the characteristic nanoflake morphology of TAPB‐BTCA COF became increasingly evident on the exterior of the micro‐rod assemblies. For representative CoF2@CSC700‐24, TEM imaging and energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (EDS) elemental mapping (Figure 3e) showed good overlap of Cobalt (Co) and Carbon (C) signals within the CoF2 assembly zone, consistent with the plum pudding structure. A shell region of ∼200 nm thickness, consisting primarily of carbon, was observed surrounding the assembly. High‐resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) images of CoF2@CSC700‐24 further confirmed the structure, showing crystalline CoF2 nanoparticles surrounded by amorphous carbon. Selected area fast Fourier transform (FFT) and inverse FFT patterns revealed lattice fringes with spacings of 0.342, 0.227, and 0.273 nm, corresponding to the (110), (111), and (101) crystal planes of CoF2 (PDF#76‐0652), respectively.
2.3. Electrochemical Performance of the CoF2@CSCs Cathodes
The electrochemical performances of CoF2@CSC composites as cathodes were evaluated in single‐cell thermal batteries using LiCl‐LiF‐Li2SO4 electrolyte and a Li‐B alloy anode. Discharge profiles (voltage vs. specific capacity based on CoF2 active mass) were recorded at a constant current density of 100 mA cm−2 and a temperature of 500°C. First, composites with similar CSC content (∼21–23 wt.%) but carbonized at different temperatures (CoF2@CSC500‐21, CoF2@CSC600‐22, CoF2@CSC700‐22, CoF2@CSC800‐23) were tested to evaluate the influence of the carbon structure (Figure S14). All discharge curves showed a single dominant voltage plateau followed by a sharp drop to 1.0 V. The voltage plateaus for CoF2@CSC500‐21 and CoF2@CSC600‐22 were 2.38 and 2.39 V, respectively, lower than the 2.46 V observed for an unmodified CoF2 cathode (Figure 4a,b), which we attribute to the poor electronic conductivity of the amorphous carbon formed at lower carbonization temperatures. This issue was significantly alleviated in composites carbonized at 700°C and 800°C, where graphitization dominated, resulting in higher discharge plateaus of 2.54 V for both CoF2@CSC700‐22 and CoF2@CSC800‐23, exceeding that of bare CoF2. Furthermore, all CoF2@CSC cathodes delivered higher specific capacities (measured at a 2.0 V cutoff) than the bare CoF2 cathode (243 mAh g−1), which we attribute to the confinement effect of the CSC layer (discussed later). Among them, CoF2@CSC700‐22 exhibited the best performance, delivering a specific capacity of 363 mAh g−1 at the 2.0 V cutoff (Figure 4a,b), likely due to the largest pore volume and specific surface area of CSC700. Based on these results, 700°C was selected as the optimal carbonization temperature.
FIGURE 4.

Electrochemical performances of CoF2@CSC composites as cathodes. (a,b) Discharge profiles of voltage vs. specific capacity (based on CoF2 active mass) (a) and their summary (b) for bared CoF2, CoF2@CSC500‐21, CoF2@CSC600‐22, CoF2@CSC700‐22, and CoF2@CSC800‐23 cathodes. The discharge current density was kept constant at 100 mA cm−2. Specific capacity was based on 2.0 V cut off voltage. (c,d) Discharge profiles of voltage vs. specific capacity (based on CoF2 active mass) (c) and their summary (d) for commercial CoF2, bared CoF2, CoF2@CSC700‐11, CoF2@CSC700‐15, CoF2@CSC700‐19, CoF2@CSC700‐24, and CoF2@CSC700‐27. Specific capacity and energy are both based on 2.0 V cut off voltage. (e) Ashby chart comparing plateau voltages, specific capacities, and specific energies with reported data in the literature. Data is according to the literatures: NiCl2‐xBrx [46], NiCl2‐film [47], NiCl2‐MLG‐PMO [48], NiCl2‐C3N4 [49], NiCl2‐N‐Doped Carbon [50], Ni1‐xCuxCl2 [1], NiCl2‐NiO [51], NiCl2‐Nanosheets [52], CoxNi1‐xCl2 [53], NiCl2‐TiN‐MgO [54], NiF2 [55], FeF3 [56], NiF2‐NC [57], CuF2@C [58], NiF2‐La [59], NiF2‐GF [60], and CoF2‐commercial. (f) Discharge profiles of voltage vs. specific capacity at different constant current densities for CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathode.
A thicker CSC interface should better confine complex ions but may also increase Li+ diffusion resistance. To optimize this trade‐off, the electrochemical performance of CoF2@CSC700 composites with different CSC contents (11–27 wt.%) was evaluated. Their discharge curves are shown in Figure 4c (see three replicates for each curve in Figure S15) and summarized in Figure 4d. All CoF2@CSC700 composites showed higher voltage plateaus (2.50–2.54 V) compared to bare CoF2, indicating enhanced conductivity from CSC‐700. All composites also exhibited higher specific capacities (at 2.0 V cutoff) than both synthesized and commercial CoF2, with a maximum of 365 mAh g−1 for CoF2@CSC700‐24. The specific energy also peaked for CoF2@CSC700‐24 at 882 Wh kg−1, which is 49.2% and 101.8% higher than the synthesized and commercial CoF2 references, respectively. An Ashby chart comparing the discharge performance of this work against other high‐voltage thermal battery cathode materials from the literature is presented in Figure 4e. To the best of our knowledge, our CoF2@CSC700 cathodes demonstrate superior electrochemical performance, with CoF2@CSC700‐22 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 showing the highest specific capacity and specific energy with plateaus above 2.5 V, highlighting their potential as cathode systems for next‐generation thermal batteries.
The discharge performance of CoF2@CSC700‐24 under high current densities is shown in Figure 4f. The voltage plateaus decreased slightly to 2.45 V and 2.39 V at 300 and 500 mA cm−2, respectively, due to increased concentration polarization. The specific capacities decreased to 308 and 240 mAh g−1 at these current densities, demonstrating considerable tolerance for high‐rate discharge.
2.4. CoF2 Dissolution Mechanism and Suppression by CSC
To understand CoF2 dissolution during high‐temperature operation and the role of CSC, post‐mortem analysis was conducted on fully discharged and cooled cells. Dissolved species shuttle within the molten salt and precipitate upon electrolyte solidification during cooling. The spatial distribution of elements across the cell cross‐section was analyzed using FESEM and EDS elemental mapping (Figure 5a,b). The boundary between the cathode and electrolyte was identified by the distribution of Magnesium (Mg) from the MgO binder, which remains solid during the whole discharge process. For the cell with a bare CoF2 cathode, cobalt was clearly observed shuttling into the electrolyte zone, forming an enrichment layer approximately 300 µm thick, as characterized by EDS line scans (Figure 5c). EDS quantitative analysis within a selected zone (Figure 5a) indicated a cobalt content of 18.8 wt.% in this enrichment zone. In sharp contrast, for the cell using CoF2@CSC700‐24 as the cathode, this shuttling was significantly suppressed, resulting in a thinner enrichment zone (∼150 µm, Figure 5b,c) with a lower cobalt content of 10.6 wt.% (Figure 5d). We further employed X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) to measure the carbon/cobalt (C/Co) ratio of cathodes after complete discharge, a technique that probes elemental compositions within a depth of approximately 10 nm. Following full discharge, the CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathode exhibited a C/Co ratio of 207.5:1—significantly higher than the 51.8:1 ratio of the bare CoF2 cathode (Figure S16). This result indicates that cobalt is effectively confined within the CSC interface during the discharge process.
FIGURE 5.

Post‐mortem analysis of dissolved species shuttling within the molten salt. (a,b) FESEM and elemental mapping images of thermal battery cross sections using bared CoF2 (a) and CoF2@CSC700‐24 (b) as cathode. (c) EDS line scan profiles at marked positions of thermal battery cross sections using bared CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 as cathodes. (d) Cobalt contents for the marked zones of thermal battery cross sections using bared CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 as cathodes. (e,f) Cobalt contents (f) for electrolyte enrichment zones at different discharging stages (e) of thermal batteries using bare CoF2 as cathode. (g) GITT curves of single‐cell thermal batteries with bare CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathodes, respectively. (h) Li+ ion diffusion coefficient at different current steps.
To investigate the dissolution timeline, cells with bare CoF2 cathodes were sampled at different stages: immediately after incubating at 500°C (point #1), mid‐discharge plateau (point #2), and end of the discharge plateau (point #3) (Figure 5e). Significant cobalt shuttling was observed at all three stages, with cobalt content in the electrolyte enrichment zone ranging between 18.5–23.5 wt.% (Figure 5f; Figure S17), indicating that dissolution and shuttling occur rapidly upon electrolyte melting, even before discharging begins. This premature displacement of active material significantly reduces the achievable specific capacity and energy.
To further investigate the impact of the CoCl4 2− shuttling effect on electrochemical performance, we conducted Galvanostatic Intermittent Titration Technique (GITT) measurements on single‐cell thermal batteries equipped with bare CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathodes, respectively. As shown in Figure 5g, the CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathode exhibited a significantly lower cell voltage drop following current loading, indicating diminished ohmic and charge transfer resistances. Notably, the CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathode demonstrated an ultra‐stable Li+ ion diffusion coefficient throughout the discharge process, whereas the bare CoF2 cathode displayed a drastically fluctuating Li+ ion diffusion coefficient—a distinction we attribute to the effective suppression of the shuttling effect and the establishment of stable lithium‐ion transmission channels enabled by the highly porous CSC interface. To investigate the structural stability of the pores, we subjected CSC700 to treatment with NF3 at 280°C for 2 h, followed by soaking in an argon atmosphere at 500°C for 0.5 h to simulate the subsequent multi‐step preparation process and the 500°C operating temperature of the battery. Post‐treatment characterization revealed that the pore size of the treated CSC700 remained virtually unaltered, with the distribution still centered at 0.5 nm as determined by CO2 physisorption at 273 K (Figure S18).
Recognizing that dissolved metal fluoride species are key, we investigated the dissolution mechanism of CoF2 in the molten salt electrolyte. A mixture of CoF2 and electrolyte was prepared by grinding at room temperature (CoF2+E‐RT) and then annealed at 500°C for 20 min under argon (CoF2+E‐A). The color changed from pink to violet after annealing (Figure 6a), characteristic of CoCl2. Thermodynamic calculation using the FactSage software predicted the conversion of CoF2 with LiCl to form CoCl4 2 − at 500°C to be favorable, with a Gibbs free energy of −37.9 kJ mol−1 (Figure 6a), suggesting anion exchange due to the high ionicity of the metal‐fluorine bond. This conversion was further evidenced by XRD phase analysis (Figure 6b); after annealing, characteristic peaks of CoF2 diminished considerably, while new peaks corresponding to CoCl2 appeared. This conversion can further be proved by the XRD pattern of both bared CoF2 and CoF2@CSC700‐24 cathodes after totally discharged, majorly showing metal Co and LiF (Figure S19). Thus, the primary dissolved species is identified as CoCl4 2 − [26], with an estimated diameter of ∼0.8 nm [25], which can be effectively confined by the 0.54 nm pores of the CSC.
FIGURE 6.

Dissolution mechanism of CoF2 in the molten salt electrolyte. (a) photos of CoF2+E‐RT and CoF2+E‐A and reaction equation with calculated Gibbs free energy of the annealing process. (b) XRD patterns of CoF2+E‐RT and CoF2+E‐A. (c) DSC curves of pure electrolyte and mixture of electrolyte with CoF2 at 3:7 weight ratio. (d) Calculated phase diagram of electrolyte using FactSage.
This conversion reaction not only affects the cathode but also alters the electrolyte composition by consuming Cl− and releasing F−. This shift can change the thermal properties of the electrolyte, a critical parameter for thermal batteries. The ternary LiCl‐LiF‐Li2SO4 electrolyte used has a single melting point, confirmed experimentally by DSC (melting peak at 430.1°C) and simulatively by FactSage (eutectic point at 430.2°C). However, after mixing with CoF2 (3:7 weight ratio), the melting behavior changed significantly, showing a broad melting range with four endothermic peaks centered at 471.1°C, 480.9°C, 503.1°C, and 531.5°C (Figure 6c). This is attributed to the deviation from the eutectic composition, creating a solid‐liquid coexistence region as illustrated in the phase diagram (Figure 6d). Understanding this dissolution mechanism and its impact on both cathode and electrolyte provides new insight into the performance limitations of metal fluoride cathodes in thermal batteries.
3. Conclusion
In summary, we developed a selective confinement strategy using a sub‐nanoporous interface to address the dissolution issue of metal fluoride cathodes in thermal batteries employing molten salt electrolytes. The interface was constructed by in situ growth and carbonization of a COF layer on CoF2 particles, resulting in a plum pudding@shell structure for the CoF2/CSC composites. Detailed characterization confirmed the chemical composition, porous structure, and morphology of the interface. The corresponding thermal battery cells exhibited excellent electrochemical performances, achieving record‐high specific capacity and specific energy among reported high‐voltage thermal battery cathodes. Mechanistic studies demonstrated the effectiveness of the sub‐nanoporous interface in suppressing the shuttling of dissolved metal fluoride species, identified as CoCl4 2− through experimental and computational studies. This work provides valuable insights into the dissolution mechanism of metal fluorides in molten salts and offers an effective design strategy for next‐generation metal fluoride cathodes, applicable not only to thermal batteries but also to other Li+‐conducting battery systems.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Supporting file: advs73541‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the startup funding (E52R7201) form Institute of Process Engineering.
Contributor Information
Yongping Zhu, Email: ypzhu@ipe.ac.cn.
Song Wang, Email: wangsong@ipe.ac.cn.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Yao B., Fu L., Gui Y., Zhu J., Yang W., and Zhou L., “Low‐Temperature Preparation Copper‐Doped Nickel Chloride Cathode for Thermal Battery Overcomes the Energy‐Power Trade‐off,” Small Structures 5 (2024): 2300376, 10.1002/sstr.202300376. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Bu X.‐Y., Zhu Y.‐L., Wang C.‐J., Li W., Xia Y., and Zhao Y., “1T‐VS 2 @V 2 O 3 Synergistic Nanoarchitecture‐Based Lamellar Clusters as the High Conductivity Cathodes of Thermal Batteries,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 16 (2024): 7200–7210, 10.1021/acsami.3c16991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Wu Q., Wang X., Qin Y., Shi B., Xiang B., and Zou X., “Low‐mutual Solubility NiCl2‐based Cathodes with High Stability for Thermal Battery,” Chemical Engineering Journal 507 (2025): 160556, 10.1016/j.cej.2025.160556. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Masset P. J. and Guidotti R. A., “Thermal Activated (“thermal”) Battery Technology,” Journal of Power Sources 177 (2008): 595–609, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.11.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ning H., Liu Z., Xie Y., and Huang H., “CoS 2 Coatings for Improving Thermal Stability and Electrochemical Performance of FeS 2 Cathodes for Thermal Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165 (2018): A1725, 10.1149/2.0321809jes. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Xie S., Deng Y., Mei J., Yang Z., Lau W.‐M., and Liu H., “Facile Synthesis of CoS2/CNTs Composite and Its Exploitation in Thermal Battery Fabrication,” Composites Part B: Engineering 93 (2016): 203–209, 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.03.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Yao B., Fu L., Liao Z., et al., “H2S sensing Material Pt‐WO3 Nanorods with Excellent Comprehensive Performance,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds 900 (2022): 163398, 10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.163398. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Guo H., Tang L., Tian Q., et al., “Cobalt‐Doped NiS 2 Micro/Nanostructures with Complete Solid Solubility as High‐Performance Cathode Materials for Actual High‐Specific‐Energy Thermal Batteries,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12 (2020): 50377–50387, 10.1021/acsami.0c13396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Hua X., Eggeman A. S., Castillo‐Martínez E., et al., “Revisiting Metal Fluorides as Lithium‐ion Battery Cathodes,” Nature Materials 20 (2021): 841–850, 10.1038/s41563-020-00893-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Wang F., Kim S.‐W., Seo D.‐H., et al., “Ternary Metal Fluorides as High‐energy Cathodes with Low Cycling Hysteresis,” Nature Communications 6 (2015): 6668, 10.1038/ncomms7668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Wu F. and Yushin G., “Conversion Cathodes for Rechargeable Lithium and Lithium‐ion Batteries,” Energy & Environmental Science 10 (2017): 435–459, 10.1039/C6EE02326F. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Wu F., Maier J., and Yu Y., “Guidelines and Trends for next‐generation Rechargeable Lithium and Lithium‐ion Batteries,” Chemical Society Reviews 49 (2020): 1569–1614, 10.1039/C7CS00863E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Huang Q., Turcheniuk K., Ren X., et al., “Cycle Stability of Conversion‐type Iron Fluoride Lithium Battery Cathode at Elevated Temperatures in Polymer Electrolyte Composites,” Nature Materials 18 (2019): 1343–1349, 10.1038/s41563-019-0472-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Wu R., Bo X., Zhao S., et al., “Transition Metal Fluorides as Advanced Cathodes for Lithium/Sodium‐Ion Batteries: Rational Enhancement Strategies and Underlying Electrochemical Mechanisms,” Advanced Functional Materials 35 (2025): 2424603, 10.1002/adfm.202424603. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Asl H. Y. and Manthiram A., “Reining in Dissolved Transition‐metal Ions,” Science 369 (2020): 140–141, 10.1126/science.abc5454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Olbrich L. F., Xiao A. W., and Pasta M., “Conversion‐type Fluoride Cathodes: Current state of the Art,” Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 30: 100779, 10.1016/j.coelec.2021.100779. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Di L., Yufang C., Weiwei S., et al., “Cathode Electrolyte Interface Engineering by Gradient Fluorination for High‐Performance Lithium Rich Cathode,” Advanced Energy Materials 13 (2023): 2301765, 10.1002/aenm.202301765. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Seo J. K., Cho H.‐M., Takahara K., et al., “Revisiting the Conversion Reaction Voltage and the Reversibility of the CuF2 Electrode in Li‐ion Batteries,” Nano Research 10 (2017): 4232–4244, 10.1007/s12274-016-1365-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Wu F., Srot V., Chen S., et al., “Metal–organic Framework‐derived Nanoconfinements of CoF2 and Mixed‐conducting Wiring for High‐performance Metal Fluoride‐lithium Battery,” ACS nano 15 (2020): 1509–1518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Du K., Tao R., Guo C., et al., “In‐situ Synthesis of Porous Metal Fluoride@Carbon Composite via Simultaneous Etching/Fluorination Enabled Superior Li Storage Performance,” Nano Energy 103 (2022): 107862, 10.1016/j.nanoen.2022.107862. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Nunes V., Queirós C., Lourenço M., Santos F., and De Castro C. N., “Molten Salts as Engineering Fluids—A Review,” Applied Energy 183 (2016): 603–611, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Xia J., Wang Z., Rodrig N. D., et al., “Super‐Reversible CuF 2 Cathodes Enabled by Cu 2+ ‐Coordinated Alginate,” Advanced Materials 34 (2022): 2205229, 10.1002/adma.202205229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Zhou X., Xiao S., Yang D., et al., “High‐Performance Pomegranate‐like CuF 2 Cathode Derived from Spent Lithium‐Ion Batteries,” Angewandte Chemie 136 (2024): 202409255, 10.1002/ange.202409255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Chen L., Shi G., Shen J., et al., “Ion Sieving in Graphene Oxide Membranes via Cationic Control of Interlayer Spacing,” Nature 550 (2017): 380–383, 10.1038/nature24044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Garci F., Chebbi H., Rouzbeh N., et al., “Structure, Optical and Magnetic Properties of the Pyridinium Cobaltate (C6H9N2)2[CoCl4],” Inorganica Chimica Acta 539 (2022): 121003, 10.1016/j.ica.2022.121003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26. LeCroy G. S., Malakkal L., Woods M. E., Yang Q., Beeler B., and Gakhar R., “Versatile Cell Design for Molten Fluoride Salt Spectroscopy: Investigating Metal‐Ion Speciation in Molten Fluoride Salts,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 147 (2025): 24814–24824, 10.1021/jacs.5c07007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Wang Y., Wang Y., Liu J., et al., “Preparation of Carbon Nanosheets from Petroleum Asphalt via Recyclable Molten‐salt Method for Superior Lithium and Sodium Storage,” Carbon 122 (2017): 344–351, 10.1016/j.carbon.2017.06.086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Feng X., Ding X., and Jiang D., “Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Chemical Society Reviews 41 (2012): 6010–6022, 10.1039/c2cs35157a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Tan K. T., Ghosh S., Wang Z., et al., “Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers 3 (2023): 1, 10.1038/s43586-022-00181-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Diercks C. S. and Yaghi O. M., “The Atom, the Molecule, and the Covalent Organic Framework,” Science 355 (2017): aal1585, 10.1126/science.aal1585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wang P., Wang M., Liu F., et al., “Ultrafast Ion Sieving Using Nanoporous Polymeric Membranes,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 569, 10.1038/s41467-018-02941-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Côté A. P., Benin A. I., Ockwig N. W., O'Keeffe M., Matzger A. J., and Yaghi O. M., “Porous, Crystalline, Covalent Organic Frameworks,” science 310 (2005): 1166–1170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Guan X., Li H., Ma Y., et al., “Chemically Stable Polyarylether‐based Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Nature Chemistry 11 (2019): 587–594, 10.1038/s41557-019-0238-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Evans A. M., Ryder M. R., Ji W., et al., “Trends in the Thermal Stability of Two‐dimensional Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Faraday Discussions 225 (2021): 226–240, 10.1039/D0FD00054J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Zhang W. D., Zhou L., Shi Y. X., et al., “Dual‐Atom Catalysts Derived from a Preorganized Covalent Organic Framework for Enhanced Electrochemical Oxygen Reduction,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62 (2023): 202304412, 10.1002/anie.202304412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Sun J., Klechikov A., Moise C., Prodana M., Enachescu M., and Talyzin A. V., “A Molecular Pillar Approach To Grow Vertical Covalent Organic Framework Nanosheets on Graphene: Hybrid Materials for Energy Storage,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 57 (2018): 1034–1038, 10.1002/anie.201710502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Seo J.‐M., Noh H.‐J., Jeon J.‐P., et al., “Conductive and Ultrastable Covalent Organic Framework/Carbon Hybrid as an Ideal Electrocatalytic Platform,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 144 (2022): 19973–19980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Wang S., Zhang Z., Zhang H., et al., “Reversible Polycondensation‐termination Growth of Covalent‐organic‐framework Spheres, Fibers, and Films,” Matter 1 (2019): 1592–1605. [Google Scholar]
- 39. Wang S., Yang Y., Liu P., et al., “Core‐shell and Yolk‐shell Covalent Organic Framework Nanostructures with Size‐selective Permeability,” Cell Reports Physical Science 1 (2020): 100062. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Wang S., Yang Y., Zhang H., et al., “Toward Covalent Organic Framework Metastructures,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 143 (2021): 5003–5010, 10.1021/jacs.0c13090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Wang S., Zhang C., Zhang Z., et al., “Asymmetrical Exchange of Monomers for Constructing Hollow Nanoparticles and Antifragile Monoliths,” Matter 4 (2021): 618–634, 10.1016/j.matt.2020.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Wang S., Reddy V. A., Ang M. C.‐Y., et al., “Single‐Crystal 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks for Plant Biotechnology,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 145 (2023): 12155–12163, 10.1021/jacs.3c01783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Sadezky A., Muckenhuber H., Grothe H., Niessner R., and Pöschl U., “Raman Microspectroscopy of Soot and Related Carbonaceous Materials: Spectral Analysis and Structural Information,” Carbon 43 (2005): 1731–1742, 10.1016/j.carbon.2005.02.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Liu M., Ma J., Zhang X., et al., “Regulating of Lithium‐Ion Dynamic Trajectory by Ferromagnetic CoF 2 to Achieve Ultra‐Stable Deep Lithium Deposition over 10000 h,” Advanced Functional Materials 35 (2025): 2416527, 10.1002/adfm.202416527. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Kong L., Liu M., Huang H., Xu Y., and Bu X. H., “Metal/Covalent‐Organic Framework Based Cathodes for Metal‐Ion Batteries,” Advanced Energy Materials 12 (2022): 2100172, 10.1002/aenm.202100172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Tang J., Nong Y., Ran L., et al., “Enhancement the Discharge Capacity of NiCl2‐xBrx Thermal Battery by Inhibition Overflow of Electrolyte,” Ionics 31 (2025): 7057–7067, 10.1007/s11581-025-06410-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Yao B., Fu L., Zhu J., Yang W., and Zhou L., “Thermostable Nickel Chloride Film as High Specific Power Cathode for Thermal Battery,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 17 (2025): 10662–10673, 10.1021/acsami.4c19755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Liang Z., Jin C., Chang Y., Zhang X., Zhu Y., and Du Y., “Heterostructure and Carbon Modification Regulate FeF3/Molten Salt Electrolyte Interface in High‐specific‐energy Thermal Batteries,” Electrochimica Acta 536 (2025): 146732, 10.1016/j.electacta.2025.146732. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Sun H.‐P., Gao W.‐X., Yuan L.‐Y., et al., “Facile Fabrication of NiCl2/G‐C3N4 Composite as High‐performance Cathode Material for Thermal Battery,” Electrochimica Acta 512 (2025): 145420, 10.1016/j.electacta.2024.145420. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Yuan L.‐Y., Ge Y.‐X., Gao W.‐X., et al., “Nanoscale N‐Doped Carbon/NiCl 2 Nanocomposite as High Conductivity Cathode for Thermal Battery,” ACS Applied Nano Materials 7 (2024): 25944–25953, 10.1021/acsanm.4c05088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Yao B., Fu L., Gui Y., et al., “Instantaneous Activation of NiCl 2 Cathode towards Thermal Battery by Constructing NiCl 2 –NiO Heterojunction,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 11 (2022): 199–207, 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05227. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Luo Z., Lin X., Tang L., et al., “Novel NiCl2 Nanosheets Synthesized via Chemical Vapor Deposition with High Specific Energy for Thermal Battery,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12 (2020): 34755–34762, 10.1021/acsami.0c05751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Ge Y.‐X., Luo C.‐X., Zheng X., and Liu J.‐K., “CoxNi1‐xCl2 allomeric Nanosheets with High Specific Surface Area and Excellent Energy Storage Performance for Cathode Materials of Thermal Batteries,” Journal of Power Sources 584 (2023): 233598, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233598. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Chen F., Jiang C., Cao S., Xu L., and Zhang C., “Synergetic Effect of Functional Additions on Li/NiCl2 Thermal Battery with Enhanced Discharge Performance,” Materials Letters 320 (2022): 132371, 10.1016/j.matlet.2022.132371. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Chang Q., Luo Z., Fu L., et al., “A New Cathode Material of NiF2 for Thermal Batteries with High Specific Power,” Electrochimica Acta 361 (2020): 137051, 10.1016/j.electacta.2020.137051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Li M., Song Q., Xie H., Cui Y., Ning Z., and Yu K., “Microstructure Control of Iron Trifluoride for Thermal Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society 172 (2025): 040518, 10.1149/1945-7111/adc955. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Qiao S., Kang M., Zhao Z., et al., “Polypyrrole‐derived N Doped Carbon Nanoparticle as Addictive for High‐performance Thermal Batteries with NiF2 Electrode,” Materials Letters 384 (2025): 138121, 10.1016/j.matlet.2025.138121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Ma S., Cao Y., Li H., Qiu J., Zhao Y., and Cui Y., “CuF2@C Composites with Inhibited Side‐reactions Enables Enhanced Electrochemical Performance in Thermal Batteries,” Materials Letters 366 (2024): 136507, 10.1016/j.matlet.2024.136507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Xiao Z., Zhu J., Yang W., Zhou L., and Fu L., “A Novel Thermal Battery Based on Fluoride Ion Conduction,” Electrochimica Acta 508 (2024): 145263, 10.1016/j.electacta.2024.145263. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Xiao Z., Wang X., Xiang Y., et al., “Graphite Fluoride Interface Blocking for Higher Capacity Fluoride Ion Thermal Batteries,” Journal of Materials Chemistry A 13 (2025): 29528–29537, 10.1039/D5TA04298D. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supporting file: advs73541‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
