4.6 Review

A Critical Review for an Accurate Electrochemical Stability Window Measurement of Solid Polymer and Composite Electrolytes

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14143840

关键词

electrochemical stability window; solid polymer electrolyte; solid composite electrolyte

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC RDCPJ 528052-18]
  2. Total Energies Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All-solid-state lithium batteries (ASSLB) show great promise in terms of energy density and safety, particularly those employing Solid Polymer Electrolytes (SPE) and Solid Composite Electrolytes (SCE). The electrochemical stability window (ESW) of the electrolyte is a critical parameter for enhancing energy density and cycle life of ASSLB.
All-solid-state lithium batteries (ASSLB) are very promising for the future development of next generation lithium battery systems due to their increased energy density and improved safety. ASSLB employing Solid Polymer Electrolytes (SPE) and Solid Composite Electrolytes (SCE) in particular have attracted significant attention. Among the several expected requirements for a battery system (high ionic conductivity, safety, mechanical stability), increasing the energy density and the cycle life relies on the electrochemical stability window of the SPE or SCE. Most published works target the importance of ionic conductivity (undoubtedly a crucial parameter) and often identify the Electrochemical Stability Window (ESW) of the electrolyte as a secondary parameter. In this review, we first present a summary of recent publications on SPE and SCE with a particular focus on the analysis of their electrochemical stability. The goal of the second part is to propose a review of optimized and improved electrochemical methods, leading to a better understanding and a better evaluation of the ESW of the SPE and the SCE which is, once again, a critical parameter for high stability and high performance ASSLB applications.

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