4.6 Article

A Computational Chemical Insight into Microscopic Additive Effect on Solid Electrolyte Interphase Film Formation in Sodium-Ion Batteries: Suppression of Unstable Film Growth by Intact Fluoroethylene Carbonate

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 119, 期 32, 页码 18046-18055

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b04206

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) in Japan
  2. Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST) Establishment of Molecular Technology towards the Creation of New Functions of Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
  3. MEXT program Elements Strategy Initiative to Form Core Research Center, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sodium (Na)-ion batteries (NIB) have recently attracted special attention as a substitute for Li-ion batteries due to the increase in the cost of Li. The performance of NIB with liquid electrolytes, for example, propylene carbonate (PC), is strongly dependent on a stable solid electrolyte interphase (SET) film on the anode surface. According to a recent experiment, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) can be an efficient electrolyte additive to improve the SET film formation in NIB. However, the molecular mechanism of such additive effect remains unknown. To investigate this mechanism, atomistic reaction simulations in PC-based electrolyte with and without FEC additives were performed using the hybrid Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics reaction method and successfully reproduced experimental observations such as the smaller irreversible capacity and the smoother SEI film in FEC-added electrolyte. Further, this study showed for the first time that intact FEC molecules can improve SET film formation so as to enhance the network formation of organic species owing to the large electronegativity of their fluorine atoms. This new microscopic insight may provide an important guiding principle for use in designing the most suitable electrolytes for developing high-performance NIB.

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