4.6 Article

A Designed Durable Electrolyte for High-Voltage Lithium-Ion Batteries and Mechanism Analysis

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 35, 页码 7930-7936

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202001038

关键词

cathodes; electrolytes; graphite; lithium-ion batteries; mechanism analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21978281, 21975250]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [SQ2017YFE9128100]
  3. Independent Research Project of the State Key Laboratory of Rare Earth Resources Utilization [110005R086]
  4. Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) dominate the energy market, from electronic devices to electric vehicles, but pursuing greater energy density remains challenging owing to the limited electrode capacity. Although increasing the cut-off voltage of LIBs (>4.4 V vs. Li/Li+) can enhance the energy density, the aggravated electrolyte decomposition always leads to a severe capacity fading and/or expiry of the battery. Herein, a new durable electrolyte is reported for high-voltage LIBs. The designed electrolyte is composed of mixed linear alkyl carbonate solvent with certain cyclic carbonate additives, in which use of the ethylene carbonate (EC) co-solvent was successfully avoided to suppress the electrolyte decomposition. As a result, an extremely high cycling stability, rate capability, and high-temperature storage performance were demonstrated in the case of a graphite|LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (NCM622) battery at 4.45 V when this electrolyte was used. The good compatibility of the electrolyte with the graphite anode and the mitigated structural degradation of the NCM622 cathode are responsible for the high performance at high potentials above 4.4 V. This work presents a promising application of high-voltage electrolytes for pursuing high energy LIBs and provides a straightforward guide to study the electrodes/electrolyte interface for higher stability.

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