4.6 Article

Reactivity and Evolution of Ionic Phases in the Lithium Solid-Electrolyte Interphase

期刊

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 877-885

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00117

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1804247, DMR-1419807]
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  4. National Research Council (NRC)
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  6. Government of Saskatchewan
  7. University of Saskatchewan
  8. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  9. Directorate For Engineering [1804247] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that the SEI interfaces on Li anodes can undergo significant chemical evolution when exposed to different electrolytes, and the selection of electrolytes is crucial to improve transport in ionic-rich Li interfaces.
The unstable solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) on Li anodes is the origin of major performance challenges in Li batteries, namely, insufficient Coulombic efficiency (CE) and cycle life. While it is known that the SEI participates in aging processes, pinpointing the chemical origins by tracing them to specific SEI phases has been experimentally challenging. Here, we formed single-phase, thin (<50 nm) interfaces of Li2O or LiF-the two most common ionic SEI phases-on Li and investigated their stability upon immersion in ether- or carbonate-based electrolytes. Contrary to some conventional wisdom that ionic phases are stable, we find by electrochemical impedance and X-ray spectroscopy that ionic SEI vertical bar electrolyte interfaces can undergo significant chemical evolution. While DOL/DME electrolytes impart minimal changes, organic/F-rich layers evolve at interfaces between Li2O or LiF and carbonate electrolyte containing LiPF6 salt, exacerbating subsequent plating overpotentials. The results suggest that electrolyte selection is important to improve transport in ionic-rich Li interfaces.

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