The Structural Role of Carbon Black in Dry Electrode Processing

The conventional framing of carbon black in lithium-ion battery electrodes is electrochemical – it is an electronic conducting agent that enables the formation of the electrical wiring within an electrode. It has typically been specified by loading, surface area and subsequent powder or electrode resistivity. For wet slurry coating, this framing is broadly adequate. The solvent carries components into intimate contact and the carbon performs its conductivity function without much fanfare, or much else being asked of it. Dry electrode processing breaks this assumption.

The evidence is accumulating that in the absence of a solvent carrier; carbon black does something considerably more structural, particularly during processing.

Recent dry electrode literature is beginning to reveal a pattern that does not fit a pure conductivity model. The morphological grade of carbon black, not just its loading, has been shown to determine calendering quality and electrode density in dry NMC cathodes [1]. Mixing duration controls the extent and uniformity of PTFE fibrillation, which cannot be separated from how thoroughly carbon black is dispersed through the blend prior to calendering [2]. Going further still, the optimal calender pressure and pass number for the best mechanical film quality has been found to produce the worst sheet resistance [3] a result that makes no sense if carbon’s role were only electronic. The sequence in which components are blended matters too: introducing carbon black to active material before it meets PVDF produces measurably different electrode microstructures compared with the reverse, independent of final composition [4].

The physical basis for a structural role is not too difficult to intuit. PTFE fibrillation under shear requires particles to generate local stress concentrations that initiate fibril nucleation and propagation. Carbon black aggregates, with their high surface area and branched structure, provide ample sites for this. These nucleation sites determine not only how readily the blend fibrillates but how the resulting PTFE network distributes through the electrode volume. Using an Eirich EL5 mixer with a carefully sequenced five-step protocol, Horst’s team [5] showed that the opening step, when carbon black is combined with active material before any PTFE is introduced, is critical to electrode uniformity. That PTFE fibrillation can produce two distinct fibrous morphologies depending on these early processing conditions [6] underlines that the outcome is not determined by PTFE alone. Even in hybrid processes, where a high-shear dry pre-mix precedes conventional wet casting, the quality of the dry mixing stage and with it the carbon black dispersion propagates directly into the final electrode [7].

The most commercially significant corroboration comes from the recently published Tesla patent (US 2025/0364562 [8]), which carries the priority date of 18 April 2014, and also suggests these early developments began at Maxwell. Tesla/Maxwell had identified these effects over a decade before the academic literature began to describe them systematically. The two-stream cathode process described in the patent places carbon black with the active material in one stream, while PVDF (not PTFE) is jet-milled separately before the two streams are combined and the mixture fibrillated. This methodology deliberately positions carbon black on the surface of the active material before it ever encounters PTFE. The formulation also employs two distinct carbons: carbon black as the conductive process aid, and activated carbon as a potential porosity modifier within the binder system. A further observation of note is the modification of the binder system with a polyolefin, which reduced the number of calendering passes required from ten to three. No definitive mechanism is given, though it is consistent with a particle-level lubrication process of the type observed in other particulate systems. A recent review of the broader solvent-free landscape [9], covering Eirich-type mixing, spray-drying and extrusion routes, confirms that sensitivity to mixing sequence and carbon morphology is a consistent feature across all three process families and not a distinct artefact of any single equipment type.

Several studies propose alternatives to carbon black. Carbon nanotubes and graphene nanoplatelets can reduce electrode tortuosity and sheet resistance compared with carbon black systems, though they carry cost penalties and occupational handling considerations that remain under active investigation [10], [11]. Pre-formed carbon black and PTFE composites, or nanotube coatings applied directly to active material particles, can maintain electrode integrity at active material loadings above 98 wt% [12], [13], and the same patterns emerge in processes employing electrostatic screen printing rather than roller calendering [14].

These are real findings, but far from undermining the structural argument they reinforce it. In every case where carbon black is substituted or the process substantially modified, the electrodes in which carbon first contacts the active material surface, then the PTFE show the best mechanical properties during processing and the better electrochemical outcomes afterwards.

The practical significance of this distinction becomes acute at scale. Carbon black grade, loading and addition sequence are typically specified on the basis of target sheet resistance. If carbon black also governs fibrillation nucleation kinetics, fibril distribution, calendering efficiency and final film mechanical quality, then optimising for sheet conductivity alone is insufficient. There is, however, an encouraging coincidence – the carbon morphologies that most effectively promote mechanical performance (high surface area, branched aggregate) also tend towards the highest electrical conductivity. Both criteria can be co-optimised, and there are real opportunities in the deliberate modification of binder systems, in concert with carbon specification and process sequence, to shorten processing time and improve electrode quality simultaneously.

Solvent-free electrode manufacturing is advancing rapidly. The materials science of PTFE fibrillation is fascinating but reasonably well understood. What is less well understood is why process outcomes are so sensitive to the type of carbon used, when and how it is introduced, and when it first encounters PTFE. Until we can answer that question explicitly, formulation and scale-up decisions will rest on incomplete assumptions and require the kind of substantial trial-and-error optimisation that the decade-long gap between the Tesla priority date and the academic literature makes obviously clear. There are several nuances not dealt with here in detail. The main takeaway message is that carbon additives are becoming a critical lynch pin in dry processed electrodes. There is substantial headroom, both academic and industrial, in understanding and applying learnings in this area of electrode processing.

References

1. S. Z. Damnali, K. Mazloumi, B. Tekin, T. Woehrle, A. Hoffmann, and M. Hoelzle, ‘Effect of carbon black properties on dry electrode processing of cathodes for lithium-ion batteries’, J. Power Sources, vol. 646, p. 237243, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2025.237243.
2. R. Tao et al., ‘Unraveling the impact of the degree of dry mixing on dry-processed lithium-ion battery electrodes’, J. Power Sources, vol. 580, p. 233379, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233379.
3. C. Ma et al., ‘How Binder Nanofibration Affects the Active‐Material Microenvironment in Battery Electrodes?’, Adv. Funct. Mater., vol. 35, no. 2, p. 2412193, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1002/adfm.202412193.
4. A. Gyulai, W. Bauer, and H. Ehrenberg, ‘Dry Electrode Manufacturing in a Calender: The Role of Powder Premixing for Electrode Quality and Electrochemical Performance’, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 5122–5134, May 2023, doi: 10.1021/acsaem.2c03755.
5. M. Horst et al., ‘Effect of active material morphology on PTFE-fibrillation, powder characteristics and electrode properties in dry electrode coating processes’, Powder Technol., vol. 451, p. 120451, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2024.120451.
6. S. Lee, L. Su, A. Mesnier, Z. Cui, and A. Manthiram, ‘Cracking vs. surface reactivity in high-nickel cathodes for lithium-ion batteries’, Joule, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 2430–2444, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.006.
7. W. Bauer, D. Nötzel, V. Wenzel, and H. Nirschl, ‘Influence of dry mixing and distribution of conductive additives in cathodes for lithium-ion batteries’, J. Power Sources, vol. 288, pp. 359–367, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.04.081.
8. H. M. Duong, H. Feigenbaum, and J. Hong, ‘Dry energy storage device electrode and methods of making the same’, US20250364562A1, Nov. 27, 2025. Available: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250364562A1/en
9. G. A. B. Matthews, S. Wheeler, J. Ramírez-González, and P. S. Grant, ‘Solvent-free NMC electrodes for Li-ion batteries: unravelling the microstructure and formation of the PTFE nano-fibril network’, Front. Energy Res., vol. 11, p. 1336344, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2023.1336344.
10. B. Kim, D. K. Kim, J. Yu, and Y. Yoo, ‘Conductive Agent‐Controlled Tortuosity in Solvent‐Free Thick‐Film Electrodes for High‐Energy Lithium‐Ion Batteries’, ENERGY Environ. Mater., vol. 8, no. 5, p. e70019, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1002/eem2.70019.
11. C. Y. Lim, G. Park, and K. J. Lee, ‘Effect of carbon conductor dispersion and composition in dry cathode electrode on LiB performances’, Carbon Lett., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 675–685, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s42823-024-00812-3.
12. H. Choi et al., ‘A Solvent-Free Process Enabled by Polytetrafluoroethlyene/Carbon Black Composites for Fabricating Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries with a High Volumetric Energy’, J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 170, no. 9, p. 090511, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1149/1945-7111/acf525.
13. J. Shin, J. Lee, J. K. Seo, W. T. A. Ran, S. M. Hwang, and Y. Kim, ‘Carbon Nanotubes‐Coated Ni‐Rich Cathodes For The Green Manufacturing Process Of Lithium‐Ion Batteries’, Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 16061–16074, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1002/er.8266.
14. A. Yonaga et al., ‘Effects of dry powder mixing on electrochemical performance of lithium-ion battery electrode using solvent-free dry forming process’, J. Power Sources, vol. 581, p. 233466, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233466.