4.8 Article

Bismuth as a New Chloride-Storage Electrode Enabling the Construction of a Practical High Capacity Desalination Battery

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 139, 期 32, 页码 11055-11063

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b01119

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison
  2. Wisconsin MRSEC [DMR-1121288]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Materials that can selectively store Na and Cl ions in the bulk of their structures and release these ions with good cycle stability can enable the construction of a high capacity, rechargeable desalination cell for use in seawater desalination. In this study, the ability of a nanocrystalline Bi foam electrode to serve as an efficient and high capacity Cl-storage electrode using its conversion to BiOCl was investigated. When Bi as a Cl-storage electrode was coupled with NaTi2(PO4)(3) as a Na-storage electrode, a new type of rechargeable desalination cell, which is charged during desalination and discharged during salination, was constructed. The resulting Bi-NaTi2(PO4)(3) cell was tested under various salination and desalination conditions to investigate advantages and potential limitations of using Bi as a Cl-storage electrode. Slow Cl- release kinetics of BiOCl in neutral conditions and an imbalance in Cl and Na storage (i.e., Cl storage requires three electrons/Cl, while Na storage requires one electron/Na) were identified as possible drawbacks, but strategies to address these issues were developed. On the basis of these investigations, optimum desalination and salination conditions were identified where the Bi/NaTi2(PO4)(3) cell achieved a desalination/salination cycle at +/-1 mA cm(-2) with a net potential input of only 0.20 V. The kinetics of Cl- release from BiOCl was significantly improved by the use of an acidic solution, and therefore, a divided cell was used for the salination process. We believe that with further optimizations the Bi/BiOCl electrode will enable efficient and practical desalination applications.

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