4.8 Review

Advanced Electrolyte Design for High-Energy-Density Li-Metal Batteries under Practical Conditions

期刊

ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION
卷 60, 期 49, 页码 25624-25638

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202108397

关键词

electrolyte design; high-voltage cathodes; electrolytes; Li metal batteries

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFE0201702]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21935003, 21875045]
  3. Chenguang Program - Shanghai Education Development Foundation
  4. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [19CG01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The review summarizes the development of new electrolyte systems for practical Li-metal batteries, revisits the design criteria of advanced electrolytes for practical Li-metal batteries, and provides perspectives on the future development of electrolytes for practical Li-metal batteries.
Given the limitations inherent in current intercalation-based Li-ion batteries, much research attention has focused on potential successors to Li-ion batteries such as lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries and lithium-oxygen (Li-O-2) batteries. In order to realize the potential of these batteries, the use of metallic lithium as the anode is essential. However, there are severe safety hazards associated with the growth of Li dendrites, and the formation of dead Li during cycles leads to the inevitable loss of active Li, which in the end is undoubtedly detrimental to the actual energy density of Li-metal batteries. For Li-metal batteries under practical conditions, a low negative/positive ratio (N/P ratio), a electrolyte/cathode ratio (E/C ratio) along with a high-voltage cathode is prerequisite. In this Review, we summarize the development of new electrolyte systems for Li-metal batteries under practical conditions, revisit the design criteria of advanced electrolytes for practical Li-metal batteries and provide perspectives on future development of electrolytes for practical Li-metal batteries.

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

4.8
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