4.6 Article

The effects of substituting groups in cyclic carbonates for stable SEI formation on graphite anode of lithium batteries

期刊

ELECTROCHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 386-389

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.elecom.2009.12.041

关键词

SEI film; Ring-opening reaction; Lithium-ion batteries; Electrolytes

资金

  1. Nature Scientific Foundation of China [50730005, 60621061]
  2. 973 project [2007CB936501]
  3. US Department of Energy [DEAC02-98CH10886]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monofluoropropylene carbonate (MFPC) and trifluoropropylene carbonate (TFPC) with a monofluoromethyl (or trifluoromethyl) replacing the methyl group in propylene carbonate (PC) as well as EC-CH2CH2Si(CH3)(2)OSi(CH3)(3) (Si-A) and EC-CH2CH2Si(CH3)(3) (Si-B) have been synthesized. The charge-discharge studies in a Li/MCMB (mesocarbon microbeads) cell using electrolyte containing these compounds show that the solid electrolyte interphase (SE!) formation capability of MFPC/DMC (dimethyl carbonate) and TFPC/DMC are about the same as ethylene carbonate (EC)/DMC, and TFPC/PC/DMC is better than that of EC/PC/DMC, while MFPC/PC/DMC is poorer than the EC/PC/DMC. The superior SEI formation capability of TFPC could be attributed to the strong electron withdrawing group of CF3, which promote the ring opening reaction. In contrast, the electron donating group CH3 in the PC structure may demote the ring opening and cause the poor SEI formation. The results of MFPC with weaker electron withdrawing group give further support of this hypothesis. The bi-solvent electrolytes of Si-A/DMC and Si-B/DMC have comparable SEI formation capability as EC/DMC and TFPC/DMC, regardless of their bulky chains. This indicates that if proper chain structures are used, good SEI formation capability could be obtained for cyclic carbonate with bulky chains. These new solvents provide valuable information in studying the SEI formation mechanism and designing new electrolytes. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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