4.8 Article

Electrode-electrolyte interface mediation via molecular anchoring for 4.7 V quasi-solid-state lithium metal batteries

期刊

ENERGY STORAGE MATERIALS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ensm.2023.102832

关键词

Molecular anchoring; Ultra-high voltage; Interfacial modification; Solid polymer electrolytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid polymer electrolytes (SPEs) are modified by trimethyl phosphate (TMP) molecular anchoring to achieve stable solid-solid interface and unlock ultra-high voltage quasi-solid-state lithium metal batteries. The in-situ induced stable cathode-electrolyte interface (CEI) rich in LiF, LixPFyOz and organic hybrids contributes to the structural integrity of Ni-rich cathodes at 4.7 V ultra-high voltage. The NCM811|Li full cell retains 91.55% capacity after 300 cycles, meeting the requirements of high-voltage quasi-solid-state Li-metal energy storage systems.
Solid polymer electrolytes (SPEs), promising electrolyte candidates for lithium metal batteries (LMBs), still suffer from the great challenge of unstable solid-solid interface between the electrodes and SPEs. Herein, SPEs are modulated by trimethyl phosphate (TMP) molecular anchoring to reconstruct the Li+ solvation structure, satisfy the interfacial compatibility of electrolyte-electrode and further unlock ultra-high voltage quasi-solid-state lithium metal batteries. An ultra-long cycle life of over 9000 h is achieved in Li|Li symmetrical cell at 0.1 mA cm- 2. Furthermore, multiple highly-sensitive characterization techniques together with molecular dynamics simulations were applied to demonstrate that the in-situ induced stable cathode-electrolyte interface (CEI) rich in LiF, LixPFyOz and organic hybrids is responsible for the structural integrity of Ni-rich cathodes at 4.7 V ultra-high voltage. More importantly, the 91.55% capacity retention after 300 cycles of NCM811|Li full cell can well satisfy the practical application of high-voltage quasi-solid-state Li-metal energy storage systems.

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