4.8 Article

Evaluating electrolyte additives for lithium-ion cells: A new Figure of Merit approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 365, Issue -, Pages 201-209

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.08.093

Keywords

Capacity fade; Impedance rise; Energy density; Power density; Lithium-ion; Full cells

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Program (DOE-VTP)
  2. Applied Battery Research (ABR)
  3. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrolyte additives are known to improve the performance of lithium-ion cells. In this work we examine the performance of Li1.03Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.3O2-graphite (NMC532/Gr) cells containing combinations of lithium bis(oxalate)borate (LiBOB), vinylene carbonate (VC), trivinylcyclotriboroxane (tVCBO), prop-1ene-1,3-sultone (PES), phenyl boronic acid ethylene glycol ester (PBE), tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (TMSPi), triethyl phosphite (TEPi), and lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (LiDFOB) added to our baseline (1.2 M LiPF6 in EC:EMC, 3:7 w/w) electrolyte. In order to rank performance of the various electrolytes, we developed two separate figures of merit (FOM), which are based on the energy retention and power retention of the cells. Using these two metrics in conjunction, we show that only one of the fifteen electrolyte formulations tested significantly outperforms the baseline electrolyte: this electrolyte contains the 0.25 wt% tVCBO + 1 wt% TMSPi additive mix. Little correlation was observed between the FOMs for energy retention and power retention, which indicates that the mechanisms that govern these performance parameters are likely independent of each other. Our FOM approach has general applicability and can be used to develop electrolyte and electrode formulations that prolong the life of lithium ion batteries. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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