Electrochemical and Spectroscopic Investigation of Solvation and Complexation Effects on Titanium Redox Flow Battery Electrolytes
Imran Uddin Ahmed,Shrihari Sankarasubramanian,Sheikh Imran Uddin Ahmed
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1149/ma2023-013745mtgabs
2023-08-28
ECS Meeting Abstracts
Abstract:Titanium (Ti) is a promising elemental redox active species for redox flow batteries (RFBs) as an alternative to the commercially advanced vanadium RFB (V-RFB) due to its 100x availability in the Earth crust 1 , and 10x lower cost 1 (both compared to elemental vanadium). The half-cell potential of the Ti 4+ /Ti 3+ (0.1 V vs SHE) redox couple is closer to the H + /H 2 (0V vs SHE) redox couple compared to V 3+ /V 2+ (-0.26V vs SHE) 2 thereby mitigating parasitic hydrogen evolution reactions. Thus, the development of Ti-based RFBs (by coupling it with another economical and abundant elemental active) is a promising pathway towards cost effective, grid-scale energy storage and the present work aims to optimize the Ti electrolyte to enable this integration. Ti electrolytes (typically as the anolyte) have been coupled withFe 3, 4 , Mn 5 and Ce 6 based catholytes to yield a number of relatively (compared to other aqueous systems) high-potential and high energy density RFBs 7 . The Ti-Fe, Ti-Mn, and Ti-Ce RFBs have theoretical energy densities of 9 Wh.L -1 , 18.9 Wh.L -1 , and 19.4 Wh.L -1 respectively 7 . Electrolyte design with an eye towards improving actives solubility (thereby increasing energy density) and decreasing side-reactions has proven crucial to realizing these systems. For example, deleterious Cl 2 evolution reduced the coulombic efficiency of the earliest Ti-Fe RFBs 3 and has been overcome by the use of H 2 SO 4 as an alternate supporting electrolyte 4 . In Ti-Mn RFBs, Mn 3+ is highly unstable and inclined to form MnO 2 . A highly acidic environment or increasing the amount of Mn 2+ reduces the disproportionation of Mn 3+ . Alternatively, the addition of an equal concentration of TiOSO 4 with MnSO 4 at the catholyte and reducing the maximum operational state of charge to 50% 5 reduces MnO 2 precipitation. In Ti-Ce RFBs, Ce is the limiting element in terms of solubility as the solubility of Ce is lower (0.5M in H 2 SO 4 and 0.9M in CH 3 SO 3 H) 6, 8, 9 whereas Ti is highly soluble (up to 5M TiOSO 4 in 4M H 2 SO 4 ). On the other hand, kinetically, Ti is the limiting element with 3x lower rate constant than the Ce redox couple 6 . Seeking to harness the higher solubility (and hence energy density) of the Ti electrolyte while overcoming the kinetic limitations, we investigated the solubility and the electrochemical reversibility of Ti 4+ /Ti 3+ . We characterized the behavior of Ti ions in various supporting electrolytes namely, H 2 SO 4 , HCl, HNO 3 , CH 3 SO 3 H by varying the ratio of Ti redox active species to counterion. The diffusion coefficients of the Ti 3+ and Ti 4+ ions were measured and the impact of the Ti x+ to solvating ligand ratio was examined (see example in Fig.1(a) ). Spectroscopically determining the coordination structures around solvated Ti x+ ions 10 , we identified electrolyte compositions that result in increasing ionic conductivity ( Fig.1(b) ). The effect (or lack thereof) of solvation structure on the Ti 3+ /Ti 4+ redox rate constants were examined and correlated to the calculated solvation energy (hence distinguishing between inner- and outer-sphere processes) and the role of catalysts was addressed. Finally, utilizing the electrochemical Thiele modulus framework 11, 12 , the best (highest energy density coupled with optimal transport and kinetic properties) Ti electrolyte compositions for Ti-Fe, Ti-Mn and Ti-Ce RFBs has been identified. References: Titanium Statistics and Information. U.S. Geological Survey 2021 . Speight, J. G., Lange's handbook of chemistry . McGraw-Hill Education: 2017. Savinell, R. F.; Liu, C. C.; Galasco, R. T.; Chiang, S. H.; Coetzee, J. F., Journal of The Electrochemical Society 1979, 126 (3), 357-360. Qiao, L.; Fang, M.; Liu, S.; Zhang, H.; Ma, X., Chemical Engineering Journal 2022, 434 , 134588. Kaku, H.; Dong, Y. R.; Hanafusa, K.; Moriuchi, K.; Shigematsu, T., ECS Transactions 2016, 72 (10), 1-9. Sankarasubramanian, S.; Zhang, Y.; He, C.; Gregory, T.; Ramani, V., Research Square 2021 . Ahmed, S. I. U.; Shahid, M.; Sankarasubramanian, S., Frontiers in Energy Research 2022, DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2022.1021201. Xie, Z.; Xiong, F.; Zhou, D., Energy & Fuels 2011, 25 (5), 2399-2404. Kreh, R. P.; Spotnitz, R. M.; Lundquist, J. T., The Journal of Organic Chemistry 1989, 54 (7), 1526-1531. Miyanaga, T.; Watanabe, I.; Ikeda, S., Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 1990, 63 (11), 3282-3287. Sankarasubramanian, S.; Kahky, J.; Ramani, V., PNAS 2019, 116 (30), 14899-14904. Sharma, K.; Sankarasubramanian, S.; Parrondo, J.; Ramani, V., PNAS, 2021, 118 (34), e2105889118. Figure 1