4.8 Article

Towards novel calcium battery electrolytes by efficient computational screening

期刊

ENERGY STORAGE MATERIALS
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 89-95

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ensm.2021.04.015

关键词

Calcium batteries; Electrolyte; Ca-salt solubility; Screening strategy; COSMO-RS

资金

  1. European Union [766617]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2018-05973]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of Ca conducing electrolytes using a screening strategy based on density functional theory and conductor-like screening model has led to the selection of N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) as a promising solvent for Ca batteries. The strategy is efficient and useful in reducing overall research and development efforts for Ca battery electrolytes.
The development of Ca conducing electrolytes is key to enable functional rechargeable Ca batteries. The here presented screening strategy is initially based on a combined density functional theory (DFT) and conductor-like screening model for real solvents (COSMO-RS) approach, which allows for a rational selection of electrolyte solvent based on a set of physico-chemical and electrochemical properties: solvation power, electrochemical stability window, viscosity, and flash and boiling points. Starting from 81 solvents, N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) was chosen as solvent for further studies of cation-solvent interactions and subsequent comparisons vs. cation-anion interactions possibly present in electrolytes, based on a limited set of Ca-salts. A Ca2+ first solvation shell of [Ca(DMF)(8)](2+) was found to be energetically preferred, even as compared to ion-pairs and aggregates, especially for PF6- and TFSI as the anions. Overall, this points to Ca(TFSI), and Ca(PF6)(2) dissolved in DMF to be a promising base electrolyte for Ca batteries from a physico-chemical point-of-view. While electrochemical assessments certainly are needed to verify this promise, the screening strategy presented is efficient and a useful stepping-stone to reduce the overall R&D effort.

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