4.6 Article

Symmetric lithium-ion cell based on lithium vanadium fluorophosphate with ionic liquid electrolyte

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 1344-1351

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.10.051

关键词

Ionic liquid electrolyte; Symmetric cell; NASICON; Fluorophosphates; Li-ion battery

资金

  1. NGK, Japan
  2. JST, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lithium vanadium fluorophosphate, LiVPO4F, was utilized as both cathode and anode for fabrication of a symmetric lithium-ion LiVPO4F//LiVPO4F cell. The electrochemical evolution of the LiVPO4F//LiVPO4F cell with the commonly used organic electrolyte LiPF6/EC-DMC has shown that this cell works as a secondary battery, but exhibits poor durability at room temperature and absolutely does not work at increased operating temperatures. To improve the performance and safety of this symmetric battery, we substituted a non-flammable ionic liquid (IL) LiBF4/EMIBF4 electrolyte for the organic electrolyte. The symmetric battery using the IL electrolyte was examined galvanostatically at different rates and operating temperatures within the voltage range of 0.01-2.8 V. It was demonstrated that the IL-based symmetric cell worked as a secondary battery with a Coulombic efficiency of 77% at 0.1 mA cm(-2) and 25 degrees C. It was also found that the use of the IL electrolyte instead of the organic one resulted in the general reduction of the first discharge capacity by about 20-25% but provided much more stable behavior and a longer cycle life. Moreover, an increase of the discharge capacity of the IL-based symmetric battery up to 120 mA hg(-1) was observed when the operating temperature was increased up to 80 degrees C at 0.1 mA cm(-2). The obtained electrochemical behavior of both symmetric batteries was confirmed by complex-impedance measurements at different temperatures and cycling states. The thermal stability of LiVPO4F with both the ILand organic electrolytes was also examined. (C) 2010 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