4.5 Article

Molecular Simulations of the Electric Double Layer Structure, Differential Capacitance, and Charging Kinetics for N-Methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide at Graphite Electrodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 115, 期 12, 页码 3073-3084

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp2001207

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy [DE-SC0001912]
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Department of the Air Force [FA9550-09-C-0110]
  3. Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular dynamics simulations were performed on N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (pyr(13)FSI) room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) confined between graphite electrodes as a function of applied potential at 393 and 453 K using an accurate force field developed in this work. The electric double layer (EDL) structure and differential capacitance (DC) of pyr(13)FSI was compared with the results of the previous study of a similar RTIL pyr(13)bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (pyr(13)TFSI) with a significantly larger anion [Vatamanu, J.; Borodin, O.; Smith, G. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 14825]. Intriguingly, the smaller size of the FSI anion compared to TFSI did not result in a significant increase of the DC on the positive electrode. Instead, a 30% higher DC was observed on the negative electrode for pyr(13)FSI compared to pyr(13)TFSI. The larger DC observed on the negative electrode for pyr(13)FSI compared to pyr(13)TFSI was associated with two structural features of the EDL: (a) a closer approach of FSI compared to TFSI to the electrode surface and (b) a faster rate (vs potential decrease) of anion desorption from the electrode surface for FSI compared to TFSI. Additionally, the limiting behavior of DC at large applied potentials was investigated. Finally, we show that constant potential simulations indicate time scales of hundreds of picoseconds required for electrode charge/discharge and EDL formation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据