4.6 Article

Through-Plane Conductivities of Membranes for Nonaqueous Redox Flow Batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 162, 期 10, 页码 A2188-A2194

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0901510jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonaqueous redox flow batteries (RFB) leverage nonaqueous solvents to enable higher operating voltages compared to their aqueous counterparts. Most commercial components for flow batteries, however, are designed for aqueous use. One critical component, the ion-selective membrane, provides ionic conductance between electrodes while preventing crossover of electroactive species. Here we evaluate the area-specific conductances and through-plane conductivities of commercially available microporous separators (Celgard 2400, 2500) and anion exchange membranes (Neosepta AFX, Neosepta AHA, Fumasep FAP-450, Fumasep FAP-PK) soaked in acetonitrile, propylene carbonate, or two imidazolium-based ionic liquids. Fumasep membranes combined with acetonitrile-based electrolyte solutions provided the highest conductance values and conductivities by far. When tested in ionic liquids, all anion exchange membranes displayed conductivities greater than those of the Celgard microporous separators, though the separators' decreased thickness-enabled conductances on par with the most conductive anion exchange membranes. Ionic conductivity is not the only consideration when choosing an anion exchange membrane; testing of FAP-450 and FAP-PK membranes in a nonaqueous RFB demonstrated that the increased mechanical stability of PEEK-supported FAP-PK minimized swelling, in turn decreasing solvent mediated crossover and enabling greater electrochemical yields (40% vs. 4%) and Coulombic efficiencies (94% vs. 90%) compared to the unsupported, higher conductance FAP-450. (C) 2015 The Electrochemical Society. 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