“…[166] In context, PAN and PVdF (and its derivates such as P(VdF-HFP) (poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene) and P(VdF-TrFE) (poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-trifluoroethylene)) were also used in CPEs and HSEs (Table 4). [30,43,[167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174] In GPEs, the electrochemical stability may be limited by the choice of the solvent or plasticizer. Glyme-based electrolytes bear an oxidation potential at approximately 4 V versus Li/Li + , coinciding with the low oxidative stability of polyethers, [95] whereas carbonate electrolytes are stable up to 5 V versus Li/Li + .…”
High‐voltage lithium polymer cells are considered an attractive technology that could out‐perform commercial lithium‐ion batteries in terms of safety, processability, and energy density. Although significant progress has been achieved in the development of polymer electrolytes for high‐voltage applications (> 4 V), the cell performance containing these materials still encounters certain challenges. One of the major limitations is posed by poor cyclability, which is affected by the low oxidative stability of standard polyether‐based polymer electrolytes. In addition, the high reactivity and structural instability of certain common high‐voltage cathode chemistries further aggravate the challenges. In this review, the oxidative stability of polymer electrolytes is comprehensively discussed, along with the key sources of cell degradation, and provides an overview of the fundamental strategies adopted for enhancing their cyclability. In this regard, a statistical analysis of the cell performance is provided by analyzing 186 publications reported in the last 17 years, to demonstrate the gap between the state‐of‐the‐art and the requirements for high‐energy density cells. Furthermore, the essential characterization techniques employed in prior research investigating the degradation of these systems are discussed to highlight their prospects and limitations. Based on the derived conclusions, new targets and guidelines are proposed for further research.
“…[166] In context, PAN and PVdF (and its derivates such as P(VdF-HFP) (poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene) and P(VdF-TrFE) (poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-trifluoroethylene)) were also used in CPEs and HSEs (Table 4). [30,43,[167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174] In GPEs, the electrochemical stability may be limited by the choice of the solvent or plasticizer. Glyme-based electrolytes bear an oxidation potential at approximately 4 V versus Li/Li + , coinciding with the low oxidative stability of polyethers, [95] whereas carbonate electrolytes are stable up to 5 V versus Li/Li + .…”
High‐voltage lithium polymer cells are considered an attractive technology that could out‐perform commercial lithium‐ion batteries in terms of safety, processability, and energy density. Although significant progress has been achieved in the development of polymer electrolytes for high‐voltage applications (> 4 V), the cell performance containing these materials still encounters certain challenges. One of the major limitations is posed by poor cyclability, which is affected by the low oxidative stability of standard polyether‐based polymer electrolytes. In addition, the high reactivity and structural instability of certain common high‐voltage cathode chemistries further aggravate the challenges. In this review, the oxidative stability of polymer electrolytes is comprehensively discussed, along with the key sources of cell degradation, and provides an overview of the fundamental strategies adopted for enhancing their cyclability. In this regard, a statistical analysis of the cell performance is provided by analyzing 186 publications reported in the last 17 years, to demonstrate the gap between the state‐of‐the‐art and the requirements for high‐energy density cells. Furthermore, the essential characterization techniques employed in prior research investigating the degradation of these systems are discussed to highlight their prospects and limitations. Based on the derived conclusions, new targets and guidelines are proposed for further research.
“…[47][48][49] Moreover, it can also depress the electron transport from the Li metal to the electrolyte and protects the Li metal anode interface. [50][51][52] Based on these advantages, the formation of LiF in the interphase may lead to the dendrite-free operation of the electrode. 53 In order to further confirm the chemical composition of the solid electrolyte interface, the C 1s spectra on the lithium metal surface of the three batteries were analysed (Fig.…”
A novel percolation composite solid electrolyte that homogenizes the interfacial electric field and generates piezoelectricity was successfully prepared for uniform lithium deposition and lithium dendrite growth prevention.
“…[ 41 ] A PAN/LiTFSI electrolyte is selected as a representative example. [ 30 ] Polycarbonates are also interesting given their high dielectric constant that facilitates Li salt dissolution. The oxygen atoms in the carbonyl and alkoxy group in PC weakly coordinate with Li + , yielding large t Li + values.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 44 ] It is worth to note that this work quantifies the environmental impacts of six different SPE designs generally composed of a polymer matrix and the LiTFSI salt. However, due to data scarcity, the majority of the analyzed SPE designs is extracted from manuscripts focused on the development of hybrid electrolytes containing a polymeric matrix, a salt, and a reinforcing filler such as Li 0.33 La 0.557 TiO 3 (for PEO), [ 38 ] SiO 2 (for PAN), [ 30 ] Li 1.5 Al 0.5 Ge 1.5 (PO 4 ) 3 (for PPC), [ 31 ] Li 6.4 La 3 Zr 1.4 Ta 0.6 O 12 (for PVDF), [ 42 ] and Li 1.5 Al 0.5 Ge 1.5 (PO 4 ) 3 (for PCL). [ 43 ] Accordingly and for the sake of comparison, the samples not containing inorganic fillers have been solely selected to construct the LCI (these samples have been mostly synthesized as a reference for the obtained new materials).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The amount of electrolyte used in common coin cells (13 mm in diameter) was first considered as a possible FU. However, as the thickness varied from a minimum of 30 μm for the PAN electrolyte, [ 30 ] to the 200 μm of the PPC electrolyte, [ 31 ] notable differences on the amount of SPE were observed. Therefore, to normalize the environmental impacts, one gram (1 g) of SPE was set as FU.…”
Solid‐state batteries play a pivotal role in the next‐generation batteries as they satisfy the stringent safety requirements for stationary or electric vehicle applications. Notable efforts are devoted to the competitive design of solid polymer electrolytes (SPEs) acting as both the electrolyte and the separator. Although particular efforts to attain acceptable ionic conductivities and wide electrochemical stability widows are carried out, the environmental sustainability is largely neglected. To address this gap, here the cradle‐to‐gate environmental impacts of the most representative SPEs using life cycle assessment (LCA) are quantified. Raw material extraction and electrolyte fabrication are considered. Global warming potential values of 0.37–10.64 kg CO2 equiv. gelectrolyte
−1 are achieved, where PEO/LiTFSI presents the lower environmental burdens. A minor role of the polymer fraction on the total impacts is observed, with a maximum CO2 footprint share of 0.61%. Following ecodesign approaches, a sensitivity analysis is performed to simulate industrial‐scale fabrication processes and explore environmentally friendlier scenarios. The electrochemical performance of SPEs is further analyzed into Li/LiFePO4 solid lithium metal battery cell configuration. Overall, these results are aimed to guide the ecologically sustainable design of SPEs and facilitate the implementation of next‐generation sustainable batteries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.