4.7 Article

Understanding the redox reaction mechanism of vanadium electrolytes in all-vanadium redox flow batteries

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
Volume 21, Issue -, Pages 321-327

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2018.11.002

Keywords

Vanadium redox flow battery; Impedance analysis; Symmetric cell; Inner sphere mechanism; Outer sphere mechanism

Categories

Funding

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20172420108480]
  3. Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT)
  4. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20172420108480] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs) have been highlighted for use in energy storage systems. In spite of the many studies on the redox reaction of vanadium ions, the mechanisms for positive and negative electrode reaction are under debate. In this work, we conduct an impedance analysis for positive and negative symmetric cells with untreated and heat-treated carbon felt (CF) electrodes to identify the reaction mechanisms. The negative electrode reaction (V2+/V3+) is highly dependent on the heat treatment and reaction temperature, which is a feature of an inner-sphere mechanism, whereas the positive electrode reaction (VO2+/VO2+) reaction is rather insensitive to the heat treatment and reaction temperature, suggesting an outer-sphere mechanism. An atomistic molecular dynamics simulation suggests that the different mechanisms are quite feasible considering the difference in the structure of the hydration shell for the vanadium ions. The deeper understanding of the reaction mechanism and its influence on cell performance will be helpful to advance VRFBs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available