4.8 Review

Ultrathin Solid Polymer Electrolyte Design for High-Performance Li Metal Batteries: A Perspective of Synthetic Chemistry

Journal

ADVANCED SCIENCE
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202205233

Keywords

energy density; safety; solid polymer electrolyte; synthetic chemistry; ultra-thin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review evaluates the advantages and challenges of ultrathin solid polymer electrolytes and summarizes the fundamental requirements for designing and manufacturing high-performance ultrathin SPE. It provides an overview of related cases and critically evaluates the challenges and opportunities in this emerging field.
Li metal batteries (LMBs) have attracted widespread attention in recent years because of their high energy densities. But traditional LMBs using liquid electrolyte have potential safety hazards, such as: leakage and flammability. Replacing liquid electrolyte with solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) can not only significantly improve the safety, but also improve the energy density of LMBs. However, till now, there is only limited success in improving the various physical and chemical properties of SPE, especially in thickness, posing great obstacles to further promoting its fundamental and applied studies. In this review, the authors mainly focus on evaluating the merits of ultrathin SPE and summarizing its existing challenges as well as fundamental requirements for designing and manufacturing advanced ultrathin SPE in the future. Meanwhile, the authors outline existing cases related to this field as much as possible and summarize them from the perspective of synthetic chemistry, hoping to provide a comprehensive understanding and serve as a strategic guidance for designing and fabricating high-performance ultrathin SPE. Challenges and opportunities regarding this burgeoning field are also critically evaluated at the end of this review.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available