What’s the Story: From “What to Mix” to “How to Mix”
How uniformly a slurry is dispersed is a process variable that governs electrode quality, and 3,500bar ultra-high-pressure dispersion is an attempt to push the upper limit of that pressure. As of August 2026, however, no quantitative data has been disclosed showing how much this pressure changes cell performance. Taking as its starting point the “world’s first 3,500bar ultra-high-pressure dispersion technology” from Korean equipment maker Micronox, as introduced on the official K-BATTERY SHOW 2026 blog, this article organizes the relationship between dispersion pressure and cell performance using published research and patent literature.
Starting with the industry context: as competition in battery-material development intensifies, process technology for “mixing uniformly” is drawing attention on par with material performance itself. Even with the same cathode material and conductive additive, if particles remain clumped inside the slurry (a thick paste of active material, conductive additive, and binder mixed into a solvent), performance varies from spot to spot across the electrode. The more material compositions converge, the more the process becomes a means of differentiation.
The tension is that data does not yet back the intuition that “higher pressure is better.” Published research shows that even when high-pressure dispersion greatly changes particle size and viscosity, the difference in electrochemical performance can be limited depending on conditions. This article answers three questions: by what paths does dispersion pressure reach cell performance, how does 3,500bar differ from existing high-pressure dispersion, and where are the rights in this field concentrated — in equipment or in composition?
Basic Principle: The Force That Breaks Clumps and the Force That Re-Forms Them
In the slurry-mixing step, where active material, conductive additive, and binder are mixed into a solvent, low dispersion pressure lets particles clump together (agglomerate), creating localized zones of high resistance. High-pressure dispersion forces the slurry through a fine nozzle and uses the strong shear and collision energy generated there to physically break up these agglomerates and make the particle-size distribution more uniform.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from Jalowy et al., AppliedChem 5(4), 33 (2025)
As an analogy, it is similar to grinding clumped salt in a mortar into fine powder. The stronger the pressure, the finer and more uniform the grind. But the mortar has two pitfalls. Pound too hard and the salt crystals themselves shatter into unwanted fines; leave the ground powder sitting and it absorbs moisture and clumps again. Slurry is the same. Excessive energy may damage active-material particles or the structure of the conductive additive, and keeping the slurry uniform after dispersion is the job of dispersant and binder design, not pressure.
The paths by which dispersion state reaches cell performance can be grouped into three.
- Electron pathways: The conductive additive must be spread evenly so every active-material particle has a route for electrons. Clumped conductive additive isolates some particles.
- Coating quality: Uniform slurry viscosity and particle size keep coating thickness consistent and reduce defects during drying.
- Process economics: Lower viscosity allows higher solids content at the same flowability, which means less solvent to dry off.
The third path is often overlooked, yet it is the effect that shows up most clearly in numbers in published research. We return to this in the comparison below.
Comparison: Conventional Dispersion, 2,200bar High-Pressure Dispersion, and 3,500bar Ultra-High-Pressure Dispersion
On November 5, 2025, researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer IPA published in the journal AppliedChem a comparison of a water-based LFP (lithium iron phosphate) cathode slurry dispersed in two ways. One was dissolver mixing, using a high-speed rotating toothed disc; the other was wet jet milling, which forces the slurry through a micro-nozzle at up to 2,200bar. The table below adds the figures from this published study to the original comparison table.
| Item | Dissolver dispersion (Paste A) | Wet jet milling (Paste B) | Micronox ultra-high-pressure dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dispersion pressure | Mechanical stirring (6,000rpm) | 2,200bar | 3,500bar (announced) |
| Solids content (wt%) | 37.1 | 41.1 | Not disclosed |
| Median particle size D50 (µm) | 7.91 | 4.78 | Not disclosed |
| Dispersing + drying energy (kWh/kg) | 1.70 | 0.98 (42.4% saving) | Not disclosed |
| Discharge capacity at 0.1C (mAh/g) | ~111 | ~111 | Not disclosed |
| Discharge capacity at 1.0C (mAh/g) | 73.1±12.3 | 83.8±3.0 | Not disclosed |
Source: compiled by the editorial team from Jalowy et al., AppliedChem 5(4), 33 (2025) and the introduction on the official K-BATTERY SHOW 2026 blog
What this table says: 2,200bar high-pressure dispersion cut the median particle size by 39% and dispersing-plus-drying energy by 42.4%, but low-rate (0.1C) capacity was the same for both methods; the difference appeared at high rates such as 1.0C and in reduced scatter. For the 3,500bar method, none of these items has been disclosed yet.
The key point to read from this comparison is not a linear chain of “pressure → particle size → capacity.” A substantial share of the energy saving the researchers reported came from shorter dispersing time and higher solids content, and they concluded that the difference in electrochemical performance was limited. The study also analyzed intermediate pastes before the conductive additive (carbon black) was added, to look at the behavior of the LFP particles themselves, so it cannot be stretched into a conclusion about conductive-additive agglomeration.
Insight: the primary value of ultra-high-pressure dispersion is likely to lie in “variation and process cost” rather than “performance.” In the study above, what stands out as much as the difference in mean 1.0C capacity is that the standard deviation shrank from ±12.3 to ±3.0. From a mass-production standpoint, smaller cell-to-cell variation translates into lower sorting reject rates and less design margin at the pack level. So when evaluating 3,500bar technology, it is more realistic to ask first “how much do variation and process energy per kWh/kg fall” rather than “by what percentage does energy density rise.”
Patent Perspective: Rights Gather Around Nozzle Structure and Dispersion Composition, Not Pressure Figures
As at the time of the original article, no filed patent directly tied to Micronox’s 3,500bar technology can be confirmed from published patent information. Instead, we checked two documents on Google Patents that help gauge the rights landscape in this field.
(1) Prior-art reference point: KR100685540B1 (DSM IP Assets B.V.). Titled “Method for mixing or dispersing liquids,” it has a priority date of December 7, 1998, a filing date of December 6, 1999, and a grant date of February 22, 2007; its current status is Expired (fee related, anticipated expiration December 6, 2019). Restating claim 1, it is a method that, at 20-250°C and 50-2,500bar, uses a mixing device with an inlet nozzle of 0.05-1mm hole diameter, a turbulence chamber with a length-to-diameter ratio of 0.5-50, and an outlet nozzle smaller than the inlet nozzle aligned axially with it, with a residence time of 10⁻⁶ to 10⁻¹ seconds.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from the claims of KR100685540B1
This patent suggests two things. First, the basic concept of “forcing liquid through a nozzle to disperse it at high pressure” was already disclosed at claim level in the late 1990s, and the right has lapsed. Second, since the claimed pressure ceiling was 2,500bar, the 3,500bar figure lies outside this prior range. However, merely raising the pressure figure may be judged a range extension that a person skilled in the art could readily derive, so inventive step could be denied; for a new filing to secure rights, it will likely need to claim structural solutions such as nozzle wear or pressure-pulsation suppression at high pressure.
(2) Battery dispersion-composition patent: US20220166027A1 (LG Energy Solution). Titled “Carbon Nanotube Dispersion, and Negative Electrode Slurry, Negative Electrode, and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same,” it has a priority date of August 21, 2019, a filing date of August 21, 2020, and a publication date of May 26, 2022; its status on Google Patents is Pending. Claim 1 covers a dispersion consisting of carbon nanotubes with a BET specific surface area of 800m²/g or more, a dispersant combining a polymer with amine groups and a phenolic compound with multiple aromatic rings, and a water-based solvent. A high pressure homogenizer appears in the specification only as an example of a milling means, and no pressure value is specified.
This structure is an important signal from an FTO (freedom-to-operate) standpoint. Battery makers’ dispersion-related rights tend to gather not around “which equipment at how many bar” but around “which dispersant and conductive additive in what composition.” So even if ultra-high-pressure equipment is adopted, infringement risk remains if the dispersion composition falls within the scope of an existing patent; conversely, the equipment itself is not an element of a composition patent.
Design-around points: For equipment makers, it is advantageous for securing rights to use the claim scope of the lapsed DSM patent (50-2,500bar, axially aligned nozzles) as public-domain art and to design differentiators as structural elements such as nozzle geometry, cleaning structure, and pulsation control. For cell makers, separately from any equipment change, the dispersant and conductive-additive composition must be compared 1:1 against existing composition patents.
Design-around scenario (counterargument): If ultra-high-pressure dispersion allows less dispersant or a different dispersant, the composition may lack an element of a composition patent (the specific dispersant combination) and thus possibly fall outside its scope. However, the patentee may argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents on the grounds that the dispersion state obtained by high-pressure treatment achieves substantially the same function in substantially the same way; and if an ultra-high-pressure equipment maker newly secures patents claiming process conditions, cell makers may instead face a new FTO review on the equipment-condition side.
Limitations and Outlook
The direction of the technology, namely improving dispersion uniformity, aligns with the industry trend. Published research also shows that high-pressure dispersion markedly changes particle size, viscosity, and process energy. But for the 3,500bar method, its effect is hard to state definitively until actual mass-production application cases and performance-comparison data are disclosed.
The optimistic outlook is that ultra-high-pressure dispersion will widen the dispersion limits of easily agglomerating materials, such as conductive additives and high-content silicon, leading to higher solids content and lower drying energy. There is a counter-scenario as well. The higher the pressure, the greater the particle fracture, damage to conductive-additive structure, nozzle wear, and maintenance burden, so the additional gain over 2,000bar-class equipment or conventional mixers may fail to justify the investment. It is worth remembering that the Fraunhofer study also found only a limited difference in electrochemical performance.
The strategic alternative is to build an evaluation framework that bundles “dispersion composition + process conditions” instead of competing on pressure figures. Securing comparison data that vary only pressure and number of passes with the same composition lets a company judge equipment selection and composition-patent FTO at once, and also provides grounds for deciding whether to keep in-house process know-how as a trade secret or pursue a method patent.
Practical action: Planning and IP staff considering ultra-high-pressure dispersion equipment should ask the equipment maker for comparison data on particle size (D50), viscosity, solids content, and kWh/kg on a same-composition basis, and at the same time check their own dispersant and conductive-additive compositions against dispersion-composition patent families such as US20220166027A1 using an element-by-element comparison chart.
Items requiring verification
- The comparison basis for the phrase “world’s first 3,500bar” and the equipment’s continuous operating pressure (whether it is a maximum or an operating pressure)
- Quantitative data such as particle size, viscosity, and lifespan when 3,500bar dispersion is applied, and the materials it is applied to (cathode, anode, conductive additive)
- The status of domestic and overseas filed and granted patents on ultra-high-pressure dispersion equipment and nozzles in Micronox’s name (KIPRIS search needed)
- The original table’s “conventional wet dispersion, ~1,000-2,000bar range” is an editorial estimate; the actual operating-pressure distribution by equipment
- Whether US20220166027A1 has been granted, and the legal status of its Korean and European family members
Sources
- Official K-BATTERY SHOW 2026 blog, introduction of Micronox’s 3,500bar ultra-high-pressure dispersion technology (original source)
- AVING, [COPHEX 2011 Preview] Micronox introduces ultra-high-pressure nano dispersion and emulsification equipment “Picomax” (2011-05-20)
- Jalowy L. et al., Processing Water-Based Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) Cathodes with CMC Binder: The Impact of Dispersing Methods, AppliedChem 5(4), 33 (2025-11-05)
- Google Patents, KR100685540B1 – Method for mixing or dispersing liquids (DSM IP Assets B.V.)
- Google Patents, US20220166027A1 – Carbon Nanotube Dispersion, and Negative Electrode Slurry, Negative Electrode, and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same (LG Energy Solution)