Methyl phenyl bis-methoxydiethoxysilane as bi-functional additive to propylene carbonate-based electrolyte for lithium ion batteries
L.L. Li,L. Li,B. Wang,L.L. Liu,Y.P. Wu,T. van Ree,K.A. Thavhiwa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2011.02.117
IF: 6.6
2011-01-01
Electrochimica Acta
Abstract:Methyl phenyl bis-methoxydiethoxysilane (MPBMDS) was prepared and its effects were investigated as an additive in 1.0 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 -propylene carbonate (PC)/dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (1:1, v/v) electrolyte for lithium ion batteries. The electrochemical properties of the electrolyte with MPBMDS were characterized by discharge/charge tests, cyclic voltammetry, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The addition of MPBMDS can effectively prevent the decomposition and the co-intercalation of PC. In addition, burning tests showed that the addition of 4–13 wt.% MPBMDS to the bare PC-based electrolyte effectively reduces the flammability. This eco-friendly compound provides a new promising direction for the development of bi- or multi-functional additives for lithium ion batteries. Keywords Silane Lithium ion battery Film-forming Flame retardant Electrolyte additive 1 Introduction Lithium ion batteries have experienced growing acceptance in the consumer market since they were commercialized by Sony in the early 1990s, because of their favorable properties such as their high voltage, high energy density, and low self-discharge [1] . Their application in developing fields such as the space industry, polar research and electric vehicles results in a higher demand for low- and high-temperature performance lithium ion batteries. Use of these batteries, in conjunction with fuel cell and supercapacitor technology can contribute significantly to reduction of CO 2 emissions and protecting the environment. However, safety concerns are still challenging when scaled-up lithium-ion batteries are considered, especially at the overcharged state of the batteries. This is because the strongly oxidized cathodes may take part in a series of hazardous chemical reactions, leading to thermal runaway, fire or explosion [2–8] . The solvent of the electrolyte used in lithium ion batteries is a crucial factor influencing the low-temperature performance. Ethylene carbonate (EC)-based electrolytes are extensively used in current commercial lithium ion batteries, but they can only work well at above −20 °C because of the high melting point of EC (about 36 °C) [9,10] . In contrast, with such excellent properties as low melting point (−49 °C), high flash point (132 °C), high dielectric constant and wide electrochemical window, propylene carbonate (PC) is an attractive candidate as a solvent for nonaqueous electrolytes in lithium ion batteries at low temperatures and is also helpful in improving the safety of lithium ion batteries [11,12] . However, PC has been shown to have the tendency to co-intercalate together with lithium cations into the crystal structure of graphite, followed by its decomposition [12–14] . To improve safety and reliability, self-actuating overcharge protection, such as positive temperature coefficient resistors and integrated circuits, has been introduced. However, these methods are not completely reliable. The electropolymerization or coating of monomer additives on electrode surfaces is another possible protection mechanism for lithium-ion batteries [15–21] . In the case of PC, several ways have been explored to modify the surface of the graphite by means such as coating to prevent the direct contact of PC with the graphitic structure [22,23] . Several anode materials are currently pursued, such as titania-C [24] , silicon-C [25] , silicon-silica [26] , SnO 2 -CNT [27] , and MoO 2 [28] nanocomposites, but graphite is still the first choice for use in commercial batteries. However, graphite suffers extensive surface structural disordering upon prolonged cycling, especially at high charging rates and elevated temperatures [29] . When certain substances are added to PC-based electrolytes [30,31] , an effective solid electrolyte interface (SEI) film is formed prior to the decomposition of PC and intercalation of Li + into the graphite so that Li + can reversibly intercalate and de-intercalate [32–36] . For example, substances such as allyl ethyl carbonate [37] , acrylonitrile [38] , tetrachloroethylene [39] , ethylene sulfites [40] , vinylene carbonate (VC) [41] , propylene sulfite [10] , chloroethylene carbonate [42] , silanes [10,43] , triethyl orthoformate [44] , 2-phenylimidazole (PID) [45] and N -phenylmaleimide (NPM) [46] have been used. Silanes seem to behave similarly to crown ethers and cryptands as far as formation of complexes with metal cations is concerned [47–49] . Apparently, a unique component of the protective effect of polyoxasilanes, aside from electropolymerization, is condensation (polymerization) of podand molecules via silicon atoms, leading to the formation of a protective network on the graphite surface. In our own experience, phenyl tris-2-methoxydiethoxysilane (PTMS) suppresses the co-intercalation of PC by formation of a cross-polymerized network of Si–O–Si bonds on the graphite surface, thus restraining PC molecules from co-intercalating with lithium ions into graphite electrodes [30] . A specific capacity above 275 mAh g −1 is maintained using CMS electrode in 1 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 /PC:DMC (1:1, v/v) electrolyte. In addition, silanes can act as fire-retardant to improve the safety performance of lithium-ion batteries. When we added 3 wt.% PID to 1 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 /PC:DMC (1:1, v/v) electrolyte the co-intercalation of PC was suppressed and the decomposition of electrolyte during the first lithium intercalation was inhibited by formation of a favorable solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on the CMS graphite electrode, reaching a reversible capacity of 300 mAh g −1 [45] . NPM can electrochemically polymerize at the overcharge potential of 3.8–4.2 V (vs. Li/Li + ) and form a thin polymer film on the surface of the cathode, thus preventing voltage runaway. On the other hand, the use of 3–5% NPM as an overcharge protection electrolyte additive does not influence the normal performance of lithium-ion batteries, providing a specific capacity above 70 mAh g −1 for the LiFePO 4 electrode over many cycles [46] . One of the problems hindering the commercial application of large capacity lithium-ion batteries needed in the developing hybrid electric vehicle market is indeed the safety concerns arising from the use of volatile and flammable liquid electrolytes [50] . One promising strategy to address this safety issue is to employ solid electrolytes such as gelled polymer electrolytes as alternatives to the currently used organic carbonate electrolytes [51] . However, the improved flame retardation of these electrolytes is accompanied by reduced battery performance including significantly lower conductivity, especially at low temperature [52] . An alternative and popular approach is to add additives as flame retardants to increase the thermal stability of the electrodes and decrease the flammability of the electrolytes. In that case, the low temperature performance of lithium ion batteries can be maintained [53,54] . Burning tests showed that the addition of up to 10 vol% vinyl-tris-(methoxydiethoxy)silane (VTMS) to the currently used electrolyte could effectively reduce the flammability. As long as the added amount was kept below 10%, electrochemical performance such as reversible capacity and cycling showed little change [51] . In this paper, methyl phenyl bis-methoxydiethoxysilane (MPBMDS), a new film-forming additive, is examined for non-aqueous electrolytes-based lithium-ion batteries with graphite anodes. The performance of graphitic anodes was remarkably improved in PC-based electrolytes after adding MPBMDS. At the same time, MPBMDS is an environmental friendly flame retardant with high thermal stability and low viscosity. Here we report the performance of MPBMDS as a bi-functional additive: preventing the exfoliation of graphite for PC-based electrolyte and acting as a flame retardant. 2 Experimental Methyl phenyl bis-methoxydiethoxysilane (MPBMDS) was prepared by reaction of methyl phenyl dichlorosilane with anhydrous diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, according to the following chemical equation: Methyl phenyl dichlorosilane (15.02 g of 98% purity, 0.077 mol, 12.79 ml) in 15 ml anhydrous dichloromethane was added dropwise (under argon) over 4 h to a solution of anhydrous diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (18.44 g of 99% purity, 0.152 mol) in 15 ml anhydrous dichloromethane cooled to 0 °C, with continuous stirring. After warming to room temperature, the solvent was removed by evaporation and the mixture was heated at 90 °C under vacuum (15–20 mmHg) for about 6 h to remove gaseous HCl. The obtained product was purified by vacuum distillation (240 °C at 1 mmHg to remove the reactants) and the identity of the obtained compound was verified by FTIR and NMR spectroscopy. IR (neat): 3450, 3030, 2878, 1593, 1456, 1354, 1199–1108, 1083, 967 cm −1 . 1 H NMR (CDCl 3 , 300 MHz): δ = 0.23 (3H, s, Si– Me ), 3.19 (6H, s, O– Me ), 3.3–3.6 (16H, m, 8× – CH 2 –), 7.20 (3H, m, arom. ), 7.47 (2H, m, arom. ). The bare PC-based electrolyte, 1.0 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 -PC/DMC (1:1, v/v), was supplied by Guotai Huarong Co. Ltd., China, and used as the electrolyte without further treatment. Due to strong Van der Waals forces, the viscosity of pure PC is high. DMC was therefore added to reduce the viscosity of the electrolyte so that Li + can move faster. Different amounts of MPBMDS were added to the above bare electrolyte in an argon-filled glove box (water content less than 10 ppm). The bare EC-based electrolyte, 1.0 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 -EC/EMC/DMC (1:1:1, v/v/v) (Guotai Huarong Co. Ltd., China) was used as the control. Model cells were fabricated in an argon-filled glove box to investigate the effects of the additive on the electrochemical performance of graphite anodes. The anode was prepared by coating a mixture of CMS (an artificial spherical graphite, C content ≥99.0%, Shanshan Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China), PVDF (C.P.), and carbon black (with weight ratio = 80:10:10) on a piece of copper foil. After drying under ambient conditions, round discs of 1 cm diameter and 170 μm thickness were cut off and further dried under vacuum at 120 °C for 12 h. The amount of active material was about 5 mg. Lithium foil was employed as the counter and reference electrode, and Celgard 2400 as the separator. Cyclic voltammetry (CV) curves were recorded on a CHI604C Electrochemical Work Station. The scan rate was 0.3 mV/s in the potential range 1.8–0 V. Cycling performance was tested on a Land battery tester (Land Co. Ltd., China) at 90 mA g −1 in the potential range 0.01–2 V vs. Li/Li + . The AC impedance measurements were taken by means of the CHI604C Electrochemical Work Station. Scanning frequencies ranged from 100 kHz to 0.01 Hz, perturbation amplitude 5 mV. AC impedance was observed at open circuit voltage conditions with a coin type cell. A CMS electrode served as working electrode. Lithium metal foil was used as the counter and reference electrodes. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Philips XL 300) was used to inspect the surface morphology of the electrodes. In addition, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (Perkin Elmer PHI-5000C) was done using Mg K α monochromatic radiation. All the binding energies were calibrated using the C 1s peak at 284.6 eV for graphite as a reference. After five discharge–charge cycles, the model cell was disassembled in the argon-filled glove box. The test electrode was soaked and rinsed with propylene carbonate (PC) for 4 h, and then dried under vacuum in the glove box at room temperature to remove low molecular weight compounds prior to the SEM and XPS measurements. Flammability was measured with reference to the UL-94 vertical burning test [57,58] , executed with a CZF-3 instrument (Jiangning Analysis Instrument Factory) with a sample volume of 1.0 ml and a neutral wick of 80 mm length. 3 Results and discussion Fig. 1 shows CVs of the CMS electrode in 1 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 solution of PC/DMC (1:1, v/v) with and without 4 wt.% MPBMDS. For the bare electrolyte, a very large irreversible cathodic peak is observed near 0.5 V in the first cycle, which can be ascribed to the decomposition of PC and the exfoliation of graphite [9,10,59] . In the second scan, the current response of lithium ion intercalation into and de-intercalation from the CMS electrode becomes very weak, indicating that lithium ions could not effectively intercalate into and de-intercalate from the graphite in the case of bare PC-based electrolyte. However, for the electrolyte with MPBMDS, the CV in the first scan shows that the reduction peak at about 0.5 V almost disappeared and a new peak appeared at 1.13 V, which can be ascribed largely to the decomposition of MPBMDS. In the second scan, only one pair of reversible peaks at 0.2 V is visible, indicating that the formed film on the CMS electrode in the first cycle is efficient and enables reversible lithium intercalation/de-intercalation in the PC-based electrolyte. Fig. 2 (a) shows the first discharge–charge curves of the CMS electrode in 1.0 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 -PC/DMC (1:1, v/v) without MPBMDS and with 4 wt.% MPBMDS. In the first case there is a long plateau at about 0.70 V. It is well known that this long plateau is due to the co-intercalation of the Li + ions solvated by PC and PC decomposition [55,56] . There is no intercalation of lithium in the graphitic carbon because of the presence of sufficient PC. If the amount of PC-based electrolyte is small, a small capacity for graphite can be observed. However, a dramatic change is observed when 4 wt.% MPBMDS is added to the electrolyte. The plateau at about 0.70 V corresponding to the PC decomposition disappears almost completely. The typical plateaus for the lithium intercalation/de-intercalation are observed below 0.2 V, with a reversible capacity of 281 mAh g −1 and coulombic efficiency of 70%. This clearly supports the notion that the addition of MPBMDS effectively forms a surface film prior to the co-intercalation of solvated Li + ions and thus ensures the reversible intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium into/from the graphitic carbon. Due to the high viscosity of PC, the reversible capacity is a little lower than that in EC-based electrolyte. Fig. 2 (b) shows the cycling behavior at 90 mAh g −1 of the CMS anode in the PC-based electrolyte containing different amounts of MPBMDS. The cycling behavior of the CMS in EC-based electrolyte was used as a control. In the case of the bare EC-based electrolyte there is little capacity fading after 30 cycles, which illustrates the well-known fact that artificial graphite has good stability and cycling ability in EC-based electrolyte. With the PC-based electrolyte containing 4 wt.% MPBMDS, almost the same cycling performance as that of the bare EC electrolyte was achieved. This phenomenon indicates that the surface film formed after the addition of MPBMDS is very stable. However, when the amount of MPBMDS (1 wt.%) is too low, the formed surface film is ineffective and the CMS suffers from obvious capacity fading. On the other hand, when the amount is increased to 7 wt.%, the surface film apparently is too thick and the capacity decreases. Although the cycling behavior is not comparable with that in EC-based electrolyte, it is still very satisfactory. The decreasing capacity with increasing amount of additive may be due to the possibility that the surface film continues to grow and so leads to larger internal resistance. The impedance spectrum of CMS electrodes after 5 cycles in PC-based electrolyte with different amounts of MPBMDS added is presented in Fig. 3 . Generally, the high frequency semicircle region is attributed to SEI film and/or contact resistance and the Li + charge-transfer impedance on electrode/electrolyte interface. The inclined line at an approximate 45° angle to the real axis corresponds to the lithium-diffusion processes within electrodes [67] . A well-developed semicircle, which corresponds to the interfacial impedance of the surface film formed on the CMS electrode, is observed in Fig. 3 . It can be clearly seen that the diameters of the semicircles for the cycled electrode with MPBMDS are smaller than those of the bare electrode. This indicates that the electrodes with MPBMDS have lower interfacial impedances than those with no additives. In Fig. 3 , CMS electrode with 4 wt.% MPBMDS has the smallest semicircle. The diameter increases as the amount of MPBMDS increased. It is speculated that excessive additive can influence the ion migration process by enlarging interfacial impedance. As an exception, 1 wt.% MPBMDS exhibits larger impedance than 4 wt.%, which may be attributed to an incomplete SEI film network because of insufficient MPBMDS. The plot demonstrates the positive impact of MPBMDS on the electrode impedance behavior, illustrating faster Li-ion migration through the surface SEI film. To gain information on the surface morphology of the CMS electrode, SEMs of the CMS electrode before and after cycling are shown in Fig. 4 . It can be clearly seen that the original CMS has a spherical shape and smooth surface ( Fig. 4 a). However, the surface of the CMS spheres after cycling in 1 mol dm −3 LiPF 6 -PC/DMC (1:1, v/v) electrolyte containing 4 wt.% MPBMDS is uniformly covered by a layer of surface film ( Fig. 4 b). This is consistent with the above CV and electrochemical tests. On the other hand, the graphite layers of CMS electrode in bare PC-based electrolyte are severely exfoliated because of the co-intercalation of PC, which can be seen in Fig. 4 c. There has been much speculation about the exfoliation of graphite in PC-based electrolyte [1,8,11] ; Fig. 4 c provides clear evidence of exfoliation directly from SEM. The comparison also shows that the exfoliation of graphite in PC-based electrolyte is completely suppressed by the addition of MPBMDS. The components of the SEI film were further investigated by XPS, and the results are shown in Fig. 5 . The concentration of Si element is as high as 1.80%, which clearly shows that MPBMDS was reduced and became a part of the SEI film. There is an obvious broad peak in the range of the binding energy at 280–294 eV corresponding to carbon atoms. In the C 1s spectra, the binding energies at 287.8 and 290.6 eV correspond to the unsaturated and saturated carbon atoms in the RCH 2 OCOOLi compounds from the decomposition of the electrolyte, respectively. The binding energy at 290.4 eV corresponds to the C atoms existing in the Li 2 CO 3 . Moreover, the binding energy at 284.6 eV corresponds to the C atoms in CMS (sp 2 ). In the F 1s spectra, the main peak at 685 eV is assigned to LiF, which is the main component of the SEI layer [69,70] . For the P 2p spectra, the peak at 136 eV is attributed to LiPF 6 or its decomposition products [31,36,68] . In the case of Si, it shows that silicon on the surface of CMS after cycling in the electrolyte containing MPBMDS exists in the forms of Si–O–Si, Si–O x and C–Si–O, corresponding to binding energy peaks of 102.0, 102.5 and 103.5 eV, respectively [10,51,60] . From the O 1s spectra ( Fig. 5 b), the binding energy peak at 533.5 eV can be attributed unambiguously to the Si–O–Si bonding. Furthermore, the binding energy peaks at 532.8 and 531.4 eV correspond to C–O–C and Si–O–C, respectively. On the basis of the above results, it is clear that MPBMDS forms a stable network of Si–O–Si bonds on the graphite surface during the reduction process in the first cycle, which probably provides channels of some kind for the movement of Li + ions. Because of steric effects of the additive [61–65] , not all molecules are individually linked to the surface, some molecules combining with the graphite surface in the form of C–O–Si, Si–C and Si–O covalent bonds. The surface network is a part of the surface film, and can effectively prevent PC molecules from co-intercalating into the graphite electrodes and the subsequent exfoliation of graphite. Fig. 6 shows the flame propagation and burning-up time profiles of the electrolyte with different amounts of MPBMDS. Apparently, the bare electrolyte is highly flammable with short flame propagation and burning-up times, which are 26 and 55 s, respectively. With increasing content of MPBMDS, both the flame propagation time and burning-up time increase. When the content of MPBMDS reaches 13 wt.%, the flame propagation time of the electrolyte is 59 s, more than double that of the bare electrolyte, indicating that MPBMDS is effective in inhibiting the flame propagation. The burning-up time also increases with the MPBMDS content, which clearly shows that MPBMDS is a good flame retardant for the electrolytes of lithium ion batteries at a loading level of 4–13 wt.%. In addition, it is consistent with our former report on a silane acting as effective flame retardant [51] . 4 Conclusion Further development of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries remains a challenge [66] , especially with respect to safety, which requires a nonflammable electrolyte and/or a flame retardant additive(s) that can also develop a SEI layer to inhibit exfoliation. Methyl phenyl bis-methoxydiethoxysilane (MPBMDS) is the next development in the search for such a bi-functional additive for lithium-ion batteries. The added MPBMDS can greatly suppress the decomposition and the co-intercalation of PC and efficiently form a stable SEI film on the surface of the CMS electrode, as shown by the CV, XPS, and SEM images of the electrode after cycling, with little capacity loss. Addition of 4% MPBMDS has little effect on cycling behavior, with electrodes exhibiting reversible capacities above 280 mAh g −1 without fading after 30 cycles. MPBMDS is also an effective flame retardant at low concentrations, increasing both the flame propagation time and the burn-up time. Combining good cycling behavior with flame retardant functionality opens a new direction for the development of bi- or multi-functional additives for lithium ion batteries, which is an attractive prospect for future development. We believe that there is still scope for fine-tuning the effects by varying the substituents on silicon and the polyether chain length. Acknowledgements Financial support from the MOST Program (No. 2007CB209702 and 2010DFA61770), STCSM (09QH1400400) and the South African National Research Foundation (UID 67217) is greatly appreciated. References [1] H. Ota K. Shima M. Ue J. Yamaki Electrochim. Acta 49 2004 565 [2] D.D. Macneil J.R. Dahn J. Electrochem. Soc. 149 2002 A912 [3] K. Kumai H. Miyashiro Y. Kobayashi K. Takei R. Ishikawa J. Power Sources 81–82 1999 715 [4] J.R. Dahn E.W. Fuller M. Obrovac U. von Sacken Solid State Ionics 69 1994 265 [5] Z.H. Chen K. Amine Electrochem. Commun. 9 2007 703 [6] P. Biensan B. Simon J.P. Peres A. de Guibert M. Broussely J.M. Bodet F. Perton J. Power Sources 81–82 1999 906 [7] L.M. Moshuchak M. Bulinski W.M. Lamanna R.L. Wang J.R. Dahn Electrochem. Commun. 9 2007 1497 [8] L.F. Xiao X.P. Ai Y.L. Cao Y.D. Wang H.X. Yang Electrochem. Commun. 7 2005 589 [9] B. Wang H.P. Zhang L.C. Yang Q.T. Qu Y.P. Wu C.L. Gan D.L. Zhou Electrochem. Commun. 10 2008 1571 [10] G.H. Wrodnigg T.M. Wrodnigg J.O. Besenhard M. Winter Electrochem. Commun. 1 1999 148 [11] R. Chen F. Wu L. Li Y.B. Guan X.P. Qiu S. Chen Y.J. Li S.X. Wu J. Power Sources 172 2007 395 [12] C. Korepp H.J. Santner T. Fujii M. Ue J.O. Besenhard K.-C. Möller M. Winter J. Power Sources 158 2006 578 [13] M. Walkowiak D. Waszak G. Schroeder B. Gierczyk Electrochem. Commun. 10 2008 1676 [14] G. Schroeder B. Gierczyk D. Waszak M. Walkowiak Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 1583 [15] L.F. Xiao X.P. Ai Y.L. Cao H.X. Yang Electrochim. Acta 49 2004 4189 [16] H. Mao, D.S. Wainwright, US Patent 6074,776, 2000. [17] J.N. Eeimers, B.M. Way, US Patent 6074,777, 2000. [18] H. Kim, US Patent 2006, 160,000, 2006. [19] F. Kazuyasu, US Patent 2006, 166,102, 2006. [20] K. Xu Chem. Rev. 104 2004 4303 [21] G.X. Wang S. Bewlay S.A. Needham H.K. Liu R.S. Liu V.A. Drozd J.F. Lee J.M. Chen J. Electrochem. Soc. 153 2006 A25 [22] J. Gao L.J. Fu H.P. Zhang T. Zhang Y.P. Wu H.Q. Wu Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 1726 [23] J. Gao L.J. Fu H.P. Zhang L.C. Yang Y.P. Wu Electrochim. Acta 53 2008 2376 [24] L.J. Fu H. Liu H.P. Zhang C. Li T. Zhang Y.P. Wu R. Holze H.Q. Wu Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 1 [25] N.H. Zhao L.J. Fu L.C. Yang T. Zhang G.J. Wang Y.H. Deng Y.P. Wu T. van Ree Pure Appl. Chem. 80 2008 2283 [26] T. Zhang J. Gao H.P. Zhang L.C. Yang Y.P. Wu H.Q. Wu Electrochem. Commun. 9 2007 886 [27] N.H. Zhao G.J. Wang Y. Huang B. Wang B.D. Yao Y.P. Wu Chem. Mater. 20 2008 2612 [28] L.C. Yang Q.S. Gao Y.H. Zhang Y. Tang Y.P. Wu Electrochem. Commun. 10 2008 118 [29] V.A. Sethuraman L.J. Hardwick V. Srinivasan R. Kostecki J. Power Sources 195 2010 3655 [30] Q. Xia B. Wang Y.P. Wu H.J. Luo S.Y. Zhao T. van Ree J. Power Sources 180 2008 602 [31] B. Wang Q.T. Qu Q. Xia Y.P. Wu X. Li C.L. Gan T. van Ree Electrochim. Acta 54 2008 816 [32] C. Korepp W. Kern E.A. Lanzer P.R. Raimann J.O. Besenhard M. Yang K.C. Möller D.T. Shieh M. Winter J. Power Sources 174 2007 628 [33] G. Schroeder B. Gierczyk D. Waszak M. Kopczyk M. Walkowiak Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 523 [34] M. Walkowiak G. Schroeder B. Gierczyk D. Waszak M. Osinska Electrochem. Commun. 9 2007 1558 [35] K. Amine Q.Z. Wang D.R. Vissers Z.C. Zhang N. Rossi R. West Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 429 [36] M. Lu H. Cheng Y. Yang Electrochim. Acta 53 2008 3539 [37] J.T. Lee Y.W. Lin Y.S. Jan J. Power Sources 132 2004 244 [38] H.J. Santer K.C. Moller J. Ivanco M.G. Ramsey F.P. Netzer S. Yamaguchi J.O. Besenhard M. Winter J. Power Sources 119–121 2003 368 [39] Y.S. Hu W.H. Kong Z.X. Wang X.J. Huang L.Q. Chen Solid State Ionics 176 2005 53 [40] G.H. Wrodnigg J.O. Besenhard M. Winter J. Electrochem. Soc. 146 1999 470 [41] R. Oesten U. Heider M. Schmidt Solid State Ionics 148 2002 391 [42] Z.X. Shu R.S. McMillan J.J. Murray J. Electrochem. Soc. 142 1995 L161 [43] B.A. Trofimov G.F. Myachina L.A. Oparina S.A. Korzhova N.K. Gusarova S.G. Doo M.D. Cho H. Kim J. Power Sources 147 2005 260 [44] L. Wang Y. Huang D. Jia Electrochim. Acta 51 2006 4950 [45] B. Wang Q.T. Qu L.C. Yang Q. Xia Y.P. Wu D.L. Zhou X.J. Gu T. van Ree J. Power Sources 189 2009 757 [46] B. Wang Q. Xia P. Zhang G.C. Li Y.P. Wu H.J. Luo S.Y. Zhao T. van Ree Electrochem. Commun. 10 2008 727 [47] G.W. Gokel O. Murillo Podands Compr. Supramol. Chem. 1996 1 [48] J.W. Steed J.L. Atwood Supramolecular Chemistry 2000 Wiley New York [49] J.L. Atwood J.W. Steed Encyclopedia of Supramolecular Chemistry 2004 Marcel Dekker Inc. New York [50] E.G. Shim T.H. Nam J.G. Kim H.S. Kim S.I. Moon Electrochim. Acta 54 2009 2276 [51] H.P. Zhang Q. Xia B. Wang L.C. Yang Y.P. Wu D.L. Sun C.L. Gan H.J. Luo A.W. Bebeda T. van Ree Electrochem. Commun. 11 2009 526 [52] S. Izquierdo-Gonzales W.T. Li B.L. Lucht J. Power Sources 135 2004 291 [53] S. Chen Z. Wang H.L. Zhao H.W. Qiao H.L. Luan L.Q. Chen J. Power Sources 187 2009 229 [54] H.F. Xiang H.Y. Xu Z.Z. Wang C.H. Chen J. Power Sources 173 2007 562 [55] M. Arakaw J. Yamaki J. Electroanal. Chem. 219 1987 273 [56] A.N. Dey B.P. Sullivan J. Electrochem. Soc. 117 1970 222 [57] Underwriters Laboratories, see e.g. http://www.boedeker.com/bpi-ul94.htm#VB , last accessed 18/10/2010. [58] Y.E. Hyung D.R. Vissers K. Amine J. Power Sources 119–121 2003 383 [59] M. Yoshio H.Y. Wang K. Fukuda Y. Hara Y. Adachi J. Electrochem. Soc. 147 2000 1245 [60] M. Roy J.K. Nelson R.K. MacCrone L.S. Schadler C.W. Reed R. Keefe W. Zenger IEEE Trans. Dielect. Elect. Insul. 12 2005 629 [61] B.J. Ravoo D.N. Reinhoudt S. Onclin Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44 2005 6282 [62] M.J. Stevens Langmuir 15 1999 2773 [63] P. Silberzan L. Leger D. Ausserre J.J. Benattar Langmuir 7 1991 1647 [64] C.P. Tripp M.L. Hair Langmuir 8 1992 1120 [65] C.P. Tripp M.L. Hair Langmuir 11 1995 1215 [66] J.B. Goodenough Y. Kim Chem. Mater. 22 2010 587 [67] J. Ufheil M.C. Baertsch A. Wursig P. Novak Electrochim. Acta 50 2005 1733 [68] X. Xie L. Chen W. Sun J. Xie J. Power Sources 174 2007 784 [69] D. Aurbach Y. Cohen J. Electrochem. Soc. 144 1997 3355 [70] H. Kanamura S. Takezawa Z. Shiraishi Takehara J. Electrochem. Soc. 144 1997 1900