Scholarlink

<p>This perspective compares temperature-dependent degradation in five battery chemistries: Li-ion (baseline), Na-ion, K-ion, aqueous Zn-ion, and Al-ion. The study analyzes electrochemical features, operating temperature ranges, dominant failure modes, technology maturity, deployment suitability, and material sustainability and recycling considerations. Lifetime in these chemistries is determined by interacting stress factors, including temperature, state-of-charge (SOC), voltage/SOC window, depth-of-discharge, C-rate, and storage history. These factors affect the balance between interfacial side reactions, mechanical and structural damage, and transport limitations. Temperature acts both as an accelerator of aging and as a switch between degradation mechanisms. Low temperatures promote transport limitations, polarization, and, in some chemistries, metal-deposition instabilities, whereas elevated temperatures accelerate parasitic reactions such as electrolyte decomposition, interphase growth or instability, corrosion, gas evolution in aqueous systems, dissolution, and passivation-related losses. For Li-ion batteries, this framework clarifies the trade-off between low-temperature plating risk and high-temperature parasitic reactions, and highlights electro-thermal feedbacks that couple aging to heat generation and thermal management. For emerging chemistries, temperature sensitivity and non-standardized test protocols can limit the distinction between reversible performance loss and irreversible degradation, affecting comparisons and chemistry selection. We recommend temperature-based benchmarking, reporting of thermal boundary conditions and gradients, and standardized lifetime protocols that reflect realistic duty cycles and combined stressors. This paper summarizes chemistry-specific mechanisms to distinguish reversible temperature effects from state-of-health loss. This perspective argues that temperature-dependent durability envelopes should guide application-specific chemistry selection and sustainability- and circularity-focused scale-up, since lifetime loss increases material demand and end-of-life burdens, even for batteries made from abundant elements.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Temperature effects on battery aging across chemistries

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月2日

查看全文
  • Daniela Galatro,
  • Cristina H. Amon

摘要

This perspective compares temperature-dependent degradation in five battery chemistries: Li-ion (baseline), Na-ion, K-ion, aqueous Zn-ion, and Al-ion. The study analyzes electrochemical features, operating temperature ranges, dominant failure modes, technology maturity, deployment suitability, and material sustainability and recycling considerations. Lifetime in these chemistries is determined by interacting stress factors, including temperature, state-of-charge (SOC), voltage/SOC window, depth-of-discharge, C-rate, and storage history. These factors affect the balance between interfacial side reactions, mechanical and structural damage, and transport limitations. Temperature acts both as an accelerator of aging and as a switch between degradation mechanisms. Low temperatures promote transport limitations, polarization, and, in some chemistries, metal-deposition instabilities, whereas elevated temperatures accelerate parasitic reactions such as electrolyte decomposition, interphase growth or instability, corrosion, gas evolution in aqueous systems, dissolution, and passivation-related losses. For Li-ion batteries, this framework clarifies the trade-off between low-temperature plating risk and high-temperature parasitic reactions, and highlights electro-thermal feedbacks that couple aging to heat generation and thermal management. For emerging chemistries, temperature sensitivity and non-standardized test protocols can limit the distinction between reversible performance loss and irreversible degradation, affecting comparisons and chemistry selection. We recommend temperature-based benchmarking, reporting of thermal boundary conditions and gradients, and standardized lifetime protocols that reflect realistic duty cycles and combined stressors. This paper summarizes chemistry-specific mechanisms to distinguish reversible temperature effects from state-of-health loss. This perspective argues that temperature-dependent durability envelopes should guide application-specific chemistry selection and sustainability- and circularity-focused scale-up, since lifetime loss increases material demand and end-of-life burdens, even for batteries made from abundant elements.