4.6 Article

Comparative Study of Conventional Electrolytes for Rechargeable Magnesium BatteriesL

期刊

BATTERIES & SUPERCAPS
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/batt.202200011

关键词

chloride-free electrolyte; conventional electrolyte; passivation layer; rechargeable magnesium battery; solid electrolyte interphase

资金

  1. Singapore National Research Foundation [NRF-NRFF2017-04]
  2. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (Central Research Fund Award)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the electrochemical performance of four commercially available magnesium salts and found that magnesium bis(hexamethyldisilazide) is the most reductively stable. It enables excellent magnesium plating/stripping without the need for chloride additives. The results also showed that a chloride-free electrolyte is most appropriate for future development of rechargeable magnesium batteries.
Conventional magnesium salts are generally considered to be passivating to the magnesium anode, hence chloride-based electrolyte additives are often added to circumvent this issue. As a result, the performance of conventional magnesium salts has rarely been assessed in a chloride-free system. This work provides a comparative study on the electrochemical performance and interfacial reaction of four commercially available magnesium salts with tetrabutylammonium borohydride as moisture scavenger. Magnesium bis(hexamethyldisilazide) was found to be the most reductively stable and enabled excellent magnesium plating/stripping without chloride additive. Investigation of the solid electrolyte interphase revealed a thin organic polyether layer that was conducive to magnesium-ion migration. The results also showed that a minuscule amount of chloride (20 mM) improved the reversibility of magnesium plating/stripping but was still corrosive towards the current collector, thus establishing that chloride-free electrolyte is most appropriate for future development of rechargeable magnesium 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