Cells were manufactured according to the method section using the AUTOBASS system. Some cells failed in the formation or resulted in a short circuit after assembly, likely due to a shift of electrodes upon crimpring. All cells that passed formation passed through the 200 1C/1D tests and IR drop tests. In the first cycle the formation voltage exhibited large amounts of noise, likely attributable to gas formation as observed in previous studies on this material . The analysis in Figure therefore shows the differential capacity analysis of the second formation cycle. Shown are the base dQ/dV plots i.e. the average dQ/dV of a batch of seven cells that did not have any additive in the electrolyte. This is compared at different additive weight ratios in the electrolyte to two mass loadings on the electrodes in blue (loading of 1 mAh/cm 2 ) and red (loading of 3 mAh/cm 2 ) in a balanced cell i.e. the anode and cathode have the same capacity per area. It is evident from Figure that adding different amounts of additive to the electrolyte leads to changes in the shape of the differential capacity. The most prominent difference is observed at the charge peaks at 3.65 V and 3.85V that alter their intensity with different additive amounts. A almost volcano like behavior can be observed for the discharge peak for FEC at 3.85 V that first decreases in intensity and then increases again at higher FEC wt.-% loadings. Overall this plot provides very strong evidence that the electrodes surface area should always be considered when working with additives. The differential capacity here is scaled gravimetrically to allow a unified view of the problem.