4.6 Article

Monoclinic Sodium Iron Hexacyanoferrate Cathode and Non-Flammable Glyme-Based Electrolyte for Inexpensive Sodium-Ion Batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 164, 期 6, 页码 A1098-A1109

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0701706jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. EMA [R-265-000-568-279]
  2. MoE [R-265-000-510-112]
  3. NUS [R-261-510-001-646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the key requirements of large-scale grid-storage systems is development of inexpensive and safe batteries. Sodium-ion batteries using earth-abundant Fe or Ti based cathodes and anodes would be ideal candidates for such storage systems. Herein, a new phase of Na-rich and all Fe Prussian Blue Analogue, monoclinic Na2Fe2(CN)(6.2)H2O, is reported as a potential cathode for such grid-storage sodium-ion batteries. This water-insoluble and air-stable cathode can deliver 85 mAh g-1 at an average discharge voltage of 3 V vs Na/Na+ with excellent cycle life (3,000 cycles). Many facets about its sodium storage characteristics are discussed with particular emphasis on the role of interstitial water on the sodium storage performance and its conversion to the dehydrated rhombohedral phase. Its compatibility with a newly developed non-flammable glyme-based liquid electrolyte, 1M NaBF4 in tetraglyme, is also disclosed along with general electrochemical and thermal characterization of this electrolyte for sodium-ion battery application. Finally, three different types of full cells are revealed with either monoclinic or rhombohedral phase as cathode and graphite or the recently reported Na2Ti3O7 reversible arrow Na3-xTi3O7 pathway of Na2Ti3O7 as anode. Full cell energy densities of 70-90 Wh kg-1 (using cumulative cathode and anode weights) could be obtained without any pre-cycling steps. This new cathode and safe electrolyte may hold great promise toward development of inexpensive, non-flammable and highly stable grid-storage sodium-ion batteries. (C) The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. All rights reserved.

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