4.6 Article

Towards higher electrochemical stability of electrolytes: lithium salt design through in silico screening

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 10, 期 25, 页码 13254-13265

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2ta01259f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structural changes of functional groups have been found to affect the oxidative and reductive stability of Li salts. Highly electronegative functional groups can weaken the interaction between Li salts and Li ions, increasing the oxidative stability of anions, which is desirable for next-generation Li-ion and Li-metal batteries.
Despite rapid advancements, Li-metal batteries still face a number of key challenges related to the stability of the electrolyte, of which a key component is the Li salt. Li salts based on the sulfonimide anions (TFSI-, FTFSI- and FSI-) and their corresponding ionic liquids have shown promise when used with the lithium-metal anode surface. However, given the multitude of anion and salt systems that could be used, it is impractical to design, synthesise and experimentally evaluate them all. Using a computational approach, systematic structural changes to the functional groups of the sulfonimide anion class (e.g. (R '/R '' SO2)(2)N, where the R '/R '' groups are varied) have been investigated to determine which modifications lead to improvements in the calculated oxidative and reductive stability. Our results indicate that, regardless of significant structural changes resulting from different substituent R '/R '' groups, there is minimal electron redistribution within the anion core in the presence of a Li counterion. However, different combinations of functional groups were found to shift the calculated Li binding energies and oxidation potentials. Specifically, highly electronegative functional groups weaken the Li-anion interaction and increase the oxidative stability of the anions, which are desirable properties for next-generation Li-ion and Li-metal batteries.

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

4.6
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