4.8 Article

In Situ Generated Fireproof Gel Polymer Electrolyte with Li6.4Ga0.2La3Zr2O12 As Initiator and Ion-Conductive Filler

期刊

ADVANCED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 9, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201900611

关键词

fireproof; gel polymer electrolytes; in situ crosslinked; Li-6; 4Ga(0); 2La(3)Zr(2)O(12) (LLZO)

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFB0905400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51772315, 51432010]
  3. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [18DZ2280800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) based gel polymer electrolyte is regarded as a promising candidate to settle the safety issues of liquid electrolytes. However, the currently reported gel polymer electrolytes are still not safe enough owing to high amount of flammable liquid solvents contained in them. Herein, a fireproof PVDF-HFP based gel polymer electrolyte is designed and synthesized through an in situ crosslinking method, with Li6.4Ga0.2La3Zr2O12 as initiator and ion-conductive filler. The obtained gel polymer electrolyte demonstrates superior fire resisting properties. The optimized gel polymer electrolyte exhibits an ionic conductivity as high as 1.84 x 10(-3) S cm(-1) at 20 degrees C with an electrochemical window up to 4.75 V at room temperature. Moreover, the obtained gel polymer electrolyte shows excellent compatibility with lithium anodes. Therefore, the lithium anode is well protected. Lithium batteries assembled with the gel polymer electrolyte possess superb safety properties in cutting and burning tests. Furthermore, the batteries also show a discharge retention rate as high as 94.08% (in comparison with the initial discharge capacity) after cycling at 0.5 C for 360 cycles with an average columbic efficiency higher than 98%. The purpose of this report is to show the great potential of applying fire-retardant gel polymer electrolyte to achieve high safety lithium batteries.

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