4.8 Article

Difunctional block copolymer with ion solvating and crosslinking sites as solid polymer electrolyte for lithium batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 481, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228832

关键词

Lithium batteries; Solid polymer electrolytes; Block copolymer; UV crosslinking

资金

  1. Kolon Industries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A difunctional block copolymer (DFBCP) has been synthesized and demonstrated in this study to address the challenges of high ion conductivity and poor mechanical properties in polymer electrolytes. The DFBCP consists of a block with tethered double bonds for mechanical strength and a block with low crystallization polyethylene glycol (PEG) moiety for ion solvation. The combination of high conductivity, low interfacial resistance, and good mechanical stability has enabled the durability of full cells in Li-LiFePO4 batteries.
High conductivity, solid polymer electrolytes (sPE) are an enabling technology for safe, high energy-density lithium ion batteries. Unfortunately, polymer architectures with high ion conductivity are usually associated with poor mechanical properties. In this study, a difunctional block copolymer (DFBCP) which addresses the need has been synthesized and demonstrated. The first block, P(DBEA-co-MA), has tethered double bonds and can form a dense, crosslinked network upon UV irradiation to provide mechanical strength. The second block is a pendant type polyethylene glycol (PEG) moiety with low crystallization to provide ion solvation. The PEG moiety is confined on one side of the polymer and has high segmental motion, resulting in an adequate ionic conductivity, 0.6 mS/cm. The amorphous nature of PEG second block also ensures low interfacial resistance, 80 Omega.cm(2), and mechanical adaptability to electrode volumetric changes. The combined advantages of high conductivity, low interfacial resistance and good mechanical stability enable full cell durability, 1000 cycles at 2C in a Li-LiFePO4 battery.

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