4.8 Article

Improved performance of vanadium redox flow battery with tuneable alkyl spacer based cross-linked anion exchange membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 520, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230856

关键词

Anion exchange membrane; Vinyl imidazole cross-Linking; Conductivity; Vanadium redox flow Battery

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology [DST/TMD/MES/2K18/194(G)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study synthesizes cross-linked aliphatic polymer with side chain grafted imidazole based anion exchange membranes (AEMs) and obtains AEMs with excellent stability and high conductivity. These AEMs show low swelling ratio despite the high molality of exchangeable functional groups and exhibit blocking property for VO2+.
We synthesize cross-linked aliphatic polymer with side chain grafted imidazole based anion exchange membranes (AEMs) using alkyl chain spacer. Prepared AEMs exhibit excellent stabilities, ionic conductivity, and vanadium ion impervious nature. These AEMs with rigid polymer matrix show low swelling ratio in spite of high molality of exchangeable functional groups. Cross-linked methylmethacrylate-co-vinyl imidazole copolymer (CMVI) with C3 spacer (CMVI-C3) possess 1.21 meq/g ion exchange capacity, and 8.1 x 10(-2) S/cm conductivity. Well optimized CMVI-C3 AEM shows extremely low VO2+ permeability (1.96 x 10(-9) cm(2) s(-1)) in comparison to Nafion 117 (16.34 x 10(-9) cm(2) s(-1)), due to blocking property of CMVI AEMs for VO2+. At 120.0 mA cm(-2), relatively high Coulombic (98.8%), energy (78.2%), and voltage (80.5%) efficiencies of CMVI-C3 AEM in comparison with Nafion 117 membrane, has been attributed to synergetic balance between hydrophobic and hydrophilic segments. The CMVI-C3 AEM maintains the high performance and good integrity during in-situ VRFB cycle performance assessment up to 200 cycles. Simple method for the preparation, good stabilities, and high performance are attractive features of CMVI-C3 AEM for vanadium redox flow 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