4.6 Article

Direct Measurement of Polysulfide Shuttle Current: A Window into Understanding the Performance of Lithium-Sulfur Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 162, 期 1, 页码 A1-A7

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0181501jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, University of Southern California
  2. U.S. Department of Energy - PIP Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The shuttling of polysulfide ions between the electrodes in a lithium-sulfur battery is a major technical issue limiting the self-discharge and cycle life of this high-energy rechargeable battery. Although there have been attempts to suppress the shuttling process, there has not been a direct measurement of the rate of shuttling. We report here a simple and direct measurement of the rate of the shuttling (that we term shuttle current), applicable to the study of any type of lithium-sulfur cell. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this measurement technique using cells with and without lithium nitrate (a widely-used shuttle suppressor additive). We present a phenomenological analysis of the shuttling process and simulate the shuttle currents as a function of the state-of-charge of a cell. We also demonstrate how the rate of decay of the shuttle current can be used to predict the capacity fade in a lithium-sulfur cell due to the shuttle process. We expect that this new ability to directly measure shuttle currents will provide greater insight into the performance differences observed with various additives and electrode modifications that are aimed at suppressing the rate of shuttling of polysulfide ions and increasing the cycle life of lithium-sulfur cells. (C) The Author(s) 2014. Published by ECS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 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

4.6
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