Cargando…

Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds

[Image: see text] LiBH(4) is a promising material for hydrogen storage and as a solid-state electrolyte for Li ion batteries. Confining LiBH(4) in porous scaffolds improves its hydrogen desorption kinetics, reversibility, and Li(+) conductivity, but little is known about the influence of the chemica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suwarno, Ngene, Peter, Nale, Angeloclaudio, Eggenhuisen, Tamara M., Oschatz, Martin, Embs, Jan Peter, Remhof, Arndt, de Jongh, Petra E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2017
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5338002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28286596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b13094
_version_ 1782512485160452096
author Suwarno,
Ngene, Peter
Nale, Angeloclaudio
Eggenhuisen, Tamara M.
Oschatz, Martin
Embs, Jan Peter
Remhof, Arndt
de Jongh, Petra E.
author_facet Suwarno,
Ngene, Peter
Nale, Angeloclaudio
Eggenhuisen, Tamara M.
Oschatz, Martin
Embs, Jan Peter
Remhof, Arndt
de Jongh, Petra E.
author_sort Suwarno,
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] LiBH(4) is a promising material for hydrogen storage and as a solid-state electrolyte for Li ion batteries. Confining LiBH(4) in porous scaffolds improves its hydrogen desorption kinetics, reversibility, and Li(+) conductivity, but little is known about the influence of the chemical nature of the scaffold. Here, quasielastic neutron scattering and calorimetric measurements were used to study support effects for LiBH(4) confined in nanoporous silica and carbon scaffolds. Pore radii were varied from 8 Å to 20 nm, with increasing confinement effects observed with decreasing pore size. For similar pore sizes, the confinement effects were more pronounced for silica than for carbon scaffolds. The shift in the solid–solid phase transition temperature is much larger in silica than in carbon scaffolds with similar pore sizes. A LiBH(4) layer near the pore walls shows profoundly different phase behavior than crystalline LiBH(4). This layer thickness was 1.94 ± 0.13 nm for the silica and 1.41 ± 0.16 nm for the carbon scaffolds. Quasi-elastic neutron scattering confirmed that the fraction of LiBH(4) with high hydrogen mobility is larger for the silica than for the carbon nanoscaffold. These results clearly show that in addition to the pore size the chemical nature of the scaffold also plays a significant role in determining the hydrogen mobility and interfacial layer thickness in nanoconfined metal hydrides.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5338002
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53380022017-03-08 Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds Suwarno, Ngene, Peter Nale, Angeloclaudio Eggenhuisen, Tamara M. Oschatz, Martin Embs, Jan Peter Remhof, Arndt de Jongh, Petra E. J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces [Image: see text] LiBH(4) is a promising material for hydrogen storage and as a solid-state electrolyte for Li ion batteries. Confining LiBH(4) in porous scaffolds improves its hydrogen desorption kinetics, reversibility, and Li(+) conductivity, but little is known about the influence of the chemical nature of the scaffold. Here, quasielastic neutron scattering and calorimetric measurements were used to study support effects for LiBH(4) confined in nanoporous silica and carbon scaffolds. Pore radii were varied from 8 Å to 20 nm, with increasing confinement effects observed with decreasing pore size. For similar pore sizes, the confinement effects were more pronounced for silica than for carbon scaffolds. The shift in the solid–solid phase transition temperature is much larger in silica than in carbon scaffolds with similar pore sizes. A LiBH(4) layer near the pore walls shows profoundly different phase behavior than crystalline LiBH(4). This layer thickness was 1.94 ± 0.13 nm for the silica and 1.41 ± 0.16 nm for the carbon scaffolds. Quasi-elastic neutron scattering confirmed that the fraction of LiBH(4) with high hydrogen mobility is larger for the silica than for the carbon nanoscaffold. These results clearly show that in addition to the pore size the chemical nature of the scaffold also plays a significant role in determining the hydrogen mobility and interfacial layer thickness in nanoconfined metal hydrides. American Chemical Society 2017-02-02 2017-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5338002/ /pubmed/28286596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b13094 Text en Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND) Attribution License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_ccbyncnd_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article, and creation of adaptations, all for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Suwarno,
Ngene, Peter
Nale, Angeloclaudio
Eggenhuisen, Tamara M.
Oschatz, Martin
Embs, Jan Peter
Remhof, Arndt
de Jongh, Petra E.
Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title_full Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title_fullStr Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title_full_unstemmed Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title_short Confinement Effects for Lithium Borohydride: Comparing Silica and Carbon Scaffolds
title_sort confinement effects for lithium borohydride: comparing silica and carbon scaffolds
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5338002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28286596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b13094
work_keys_str_mv AT suwarno confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT ngenepeter confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT naleangeloclaudio confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT eggenhuisentamaram confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT oschatzmartin confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT embsjanpeter confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT remhofarndt confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds
AT dejonghpetrae confinementeffectsforlithiumborohydridecomparingsilicaandcarbonscaffolds