4.8 Article

Prussian blue and its analogues for aqueous energy storage: From fundamentals to advanced devices

期刊

ENERGY STORAGE MATERIALS
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 618-640

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ensm.2022.06.006

关键词

Prussian blue; Analogues; Aqueous energy storage; Working mechanism; Design strategies

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51772249, 22109044, 51821091]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [D5000210894, 3102019JC005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aqueous energy storage technologies offer significant advantages for grid-scale power stations due to their low cost, safe operation, and environmental friendliness. Prussian blue (PB) and its analogues (PBAs) as metal-organic coordination materials have been extensively studied for their open framework suitable for reversible insertion/extraction of various guest cations.
Aqueous energy storage technologies promise grand advantages in the field of grid-scale power stations due to their attractive characteristics of low cost, safe operation, and environmental benignity. Nevertheless, the complex energy storage mechanism in aqueous media expresses rigid requirements for the host materials. As a kind of metal-organic coordination materials, Prussian blue (PB) and its analogues (PBAs) have been drawing immense research activities because of their open framework desirable for reversible insertion/extraction of various guest cations. In this review, the fundamental chemistry and electrochemistry of PB/PBAs are firstly discussed. Subsequent emphasis is put on the discussion of effective design strategies toward specific issues. Recent advances of PB/PBAs in different aqueous batteries and supercapacitors are then substantially scrutinized by correlating the electrochemical properties with the structural and compositional characteristics. To conclude, the ongoing challenges and critical perspectives for future development of PB/PBAs toward practical aqueous energy storage devices are provided.

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