% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Dagger:857789,
      author       = {Dagger, Tim and Niehoff, Philip and Lürenbaum, Constantin
                      and Schappacher, Falko M. and Winter, Martin},
      title        = {{C}omparative {P}erformance {E}valuation of {F}lame
                      {R}etardant {A}dditives for {L}ithium {I}on {B}atteries -
                      {II}. {F}ull {C}ell {C}ycling and {P}ostmortem {A}nalyses},
      journal      = {Energy technology},
      volume       = {6},
      number       = {10},
      issn         = {2194-4288},
      address      = {[S.l.]},
      publisher    = {Wiley-VCH},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-06756},
      pages        = {2023 - 2035},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {Within this 2nd part of a comparative study five flame
                      retardant additives (FRs) as candidates for lithium ion
                      battery (LIB) electrolytes are evaluated in terms of their
                      electrochemical performance in order to investigate
                      performance differences and their long‐term stability. FRs
                      from four different phosphorus‐containing molecule
                      classes, (namely tris(2,2,2‐trifluoroethyl)phosphate
                      (TFP), tris(2,2,2‐trifluoroethyl)phosphite (TTFPi),
                      bis(2,2,2‐trifluoroethyl)methylphosphonate (TFMP),
                      (ethoxy)pentafluorocyclotriphosphazene (PFPN),
                      (phenoxy)pentafluorocyclotriphosphazene (FPPN)) are
                      investigated using MCMB graphite anode/NMC111 cathode full
                      cells and cycled up to 501 times. A major part of the
                      investigations focuses on the effect of different FRs on the
                      first cycle performance, the raising additional resistance,
                      the rate capability and the self‐discharge behavior of the
                      cells. It is shown that the addition of fluorinated
                      cyclophosphazenes (PFPN and FPPN) provides the best
                      electrochemical performance among the evaluated additives.
                      Postmortem investigations by gas chromatography‐mass
                      spectrometry and scanning electron microscopy further
                      validate the decomposition of TFP and TTFPi during prolonged
                      cycling, thus explaining the detrimental impact on
                      electrochemical performance. Hence, these additives are not
                      suitable for application in LIB in terms of safety
                      enhancement. In contrast, TFMP, PFPN and FPPN improve the
                      electrolyte stability. The formation of typical
                      decomposition products (e. g.
                      dimethyl‐2,5‐dioxahexanedicarboxylate) that indicate
                      severe electrolyte degradation, is avoided by using these
                      additives.},
      cin          = {IEK-12},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-12-20141217},
      pnm          = {131 - Electrochemical Storage (POF3-131)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-131},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000449676400021},
      doi          = {10.1002/ente.201800133},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/857789},
}