4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Ionic liquid-based gel polymer electrolyte for LiMn0.4Fe0.6PO4 cathode prepared by electrospinning technique

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 1366-1372

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2009.05.043

关键词

Polymer electrolyte; Ionic liquid; LiMn0.4Fe0.6PO4 cathode; Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2008-2000071, 핵C6B1307] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two polymer electrolytes (PEs), one consisting of 1 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC)/dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (PEEC/DMC) and the other consisting of LiTFSI in room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL), 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl)imide (EMITFSI) (PEIL), were prepared by using electrospun P(VdF-HFP) membranes. The PEs showed typical impedance spectroscopic responses with high conductivity and good anodic stability. The PEs were applied with carbon coated LiMn0.4Fe0.6PO4 cathode material prepared by sol-gel method. The charge-discharge kinetics of LiMn0.4Fe0.6PO4 cathode cells were studied by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. The excellent performance with high capacity and good cycle stability was observed for both the cells. The cell comprising of PEIL showed a better performance than the other cell. The cells having PEEC/DMC and PEIL delivered discharge capacities of 150 and 141 mAh g(-1), and 168 and 162 mAh g(-1), respectively, after cycle 1 and 50. The differences in the performance of the PEs originate from the differences in viscosity, ionic conductivity and also from the different levels of interactions of a RTIL and EC/DMC with the polymer. The evaluation of lithium ion diffusion coefficients shows its fast diffusion in both the cases, the trend of which changed with the increase in the number of cycles. (C) 2009 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