4.6 Article

Influences of trace water on electrochemical performances for lithium hexafluoro phosphate- and lithium Bis (oxalato) borate-based electrolytes

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 273, 期 -, 页码 191-199

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.03.138

关键词

Lithium ion batteries; Lithium bis(oxalato) borate; Water concentration; Solid electrolyte interphase layer; Electrolyte

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21406100, 21766017]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Gansu Province [1606RJYA298]
  3. Supporting Plan for Youth Innovative Talents of Longyuan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water has a fatal influence on the performance of lithium ion batteries. In this work, Lithium hexafluoro phosphate(LiPF6)-ethylene carbonate (EC)/diethyl carbonate (DEC) and lithium bis(oxalato) borate (LiBOB)-tetramethylene sulfone (SL)/DEC are taken as examples to investigate the influences of water concentration for electrochemical window, acidity, impedance and cycling performance for lithium ion batteries by adjusting water concentrations in the electrolytes. Results show that LiBOB-based electrolyte has better water tolerance compared with LiPF6-based system, due to the formation of LiBOB. xH(2)O compounds by consuming the additive trace water. Besides, inductively coupled plasma test result shows that Mn ion dissolution in LiPF6 systems is extremely severe, which is mainly caused by the corrosive reaction between LiMn2O4 and by-product HF acid. And we believe that Mn ion dissolution and the following deposition should be responsible for failure work of LiPF6-based cells. But for LiBOB-based cells, stable SEI layers and good electrochemical performances have been obtained, benefitting from the synergistic effect between LiBOB salt and SL solvent. And the presence of high-resistance B(C2O4) (OH) and LiB(C2O4) (OH)(2) products on surface of graphite electrode is the main reason for a small number of capacity fading. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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