4.5 Article

Electrolyte Study with in Operando pH Tracking Providing Insight into the Reaction Mechanism of Aqueous Acidic Zn//MnO2 Batteries

期刊

CHEMELECTROCHEM
卷 8, 期 18, 页码 3553-3566

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/celc.202100888

关键词

electrochemistry; aqueous battery; pH; cyclic voltammetry; reaction mechanisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the reaction mechanisms during cycling of aqueous rechargeable Zn//MnO2 batteries through different acidic electrolyte compositions and their pH behavior, showing the significance of pH-relevant ions and zinc hydroxide sulfate precipitation. The innovative approach of coupled cyclic voltammetry and pH measurements provides insights into the redox peaks and chemical reactions during cycling, contributing to the debate of RMs in ARZIBs and other aqueous battery chemistries.
The reaction mechanisms (RM) during cycling of aqueous rechargeable Zn//MnO2 batteries (ARZIBs) are still controversially discussed. The present study of different acidic electrolyte compositions (0.9 mM H2SO4, 0.5 M MnSO4, 2 M ZnSO4, 2 M ZnSO4+0.5 M MnSO4) and their pH behaviour is therefore designed as an alternative approach to investigate the RM. In operando pH tracking during cycling shows periodic pH changes for each electrolyte, highlighting the role of the pH-relevant ions OH- and H+ in the chemical processes, the major influence of MnO2 deposition/dissolution mechanisms and the buffering behaviour of the zinc hydroxide sulphate (ZHS) precipitation. Innovative coupled cyclic voltammetry (CV) and pH measurements can link CV redox peaks to a pH change and a corresponding chemical reaction. It was found that a Zn2+ (de-)intercalation has little or no influence on the capacity. The cycling of the SO42--free electrolyte 2 M Zn(CF3SO3)(2) underlines the pH-dependant behaviour of the chemical processes. The results can contribute to the debate of RMs in ARZIBs and other aqueous battery chemistries by introducing a novel measurement technique.

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

4.5
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