4.8 Article

Ambient operation of Li/Air batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 195, 期 13, 页码 4332-4337

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.01.022

关键词

Li/air battery; Li/oxygen battery; Air electrode; Membrane; Energy storage; Metal/air battery

资金

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  2. Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, Li/air batteries based on nonaqueous electrolytes were investigated in ambient conditions (with an oxygen partial pressure of 0.21 atm and relative humidity of similar to 20%). A heat-sealable polymer membrane was used as both an oxygen-diffusion membrane and as a moisture barrier for Li/air batteries. The membrane also can minimize the evaporation of the electrolyte from the batteries. Li/air batteries with this membrane can operate in ambient conditions for more than one month with a specific energy of 362 Wh kg(-1), based on the total weight of the battery including its packaging. Among various carbon sources used in this work, Li/air batteries using Ketjenblack (KB) carbon-based air electrodes exhibited the highest specific energy. However, KB-based air electrodes expanded significantly and absorbed much more electrolyte than electrodes made from other carbon sources. The weight distribution of a typical Li/air battery using the KB-based air electrode was dominated by the electrolyte (similar to 70%). Lithium metal anodes and KB-carbon account for only 5.12% and 5.78% of the battery weight, respectively. We also found that only similar to 20% of the mesopore volume of the air electrode was occupied by reaction products after discharge. To further improve the specific energy of the Li/air batteries, the microstructure of the carbon electrode needs to be further improved to absorb much less electrolyte while still holding significant amounts of reaction products. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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