Category Archives: Battery research

The Cu/Mn battery mystery

Since 2019, several groups with Chinese authors have published papers describing batteries using a Cu/Mn chemistry (1, 2, 3). This chemistry is very interesting as it has very cheap chemicals (just copper sulfate, manganese sulfate and sulfuric acid) and doesn’t seem to require any significant electrode preparation. The papers use either carbon cloths, carbon felts or copper plates, all with similar results. However, this chemistry is not as simple or as easy to reproduce as they make it seem. This blog post covers my attempts at reproducing these results.

To reproduce these findings I used 3mm thick carbon felt, celgard 2500 as a separator (as tested in reference (2)) and graphoil as current collector material. I also chose an area of 1cm² in order to minimize material use and simplify calculations. I also treated the felt with a blow torch to improve its wetting abilities, by holding it in front of the torch for 10 seconds per side. I bought copper sulfate heptahydrate, manganese sulfate monohydrate and 15% sulfuric acid from laboratoriumdiscounter.nl. For the electrolyte I prepared a solution containing Cu 0.8M, Mn 0.8M and 0.8M H₂SO₄. The cell was immersed in 10mL of electrolyte. Given that this is a static battery that deposits MnO₂ on the cathode and Cu on the anode, capacity should be limited by electrode volume and not by the volume of solution.

Charge/discharge cycles. Charge was done at 10mA/cm2 to 1mAh, discharge was done to a voltage of 0.4V. Total volume of the electrodes is 0.6mL. Highest discharge density is therefore around 1.2Ah/L.

At low capacities, the battery behaves as shown in the figure above. The CE of the battery is significantly below 100% (~84%) and the energy efficiency is also quite low (~68%). This contrasts with the published literature which often shows CE efficiencies above 90% and energy efficiencies above 70%. I significantly increased the charge to 2.5mAh (4.16Ah/L), which showed a significant decrease in CE, EE and capacity with cycling. Specifically the discharge voltage started decreasing substantially with cycling.

Charge/discharge cycles. Charge was done at 10mA/cm2 to 2.5mAh, discharge was done to a voltage of 0.4V. Total volume of the electrodes is 0.6mL. Highest discharge density is therefore around 3.3Ah/L.

Trying to go to even higher capacities (10mAh), as exemplified in paper (1) which shows values of up to 50mAh/cm2, I got the results showed below. There are very fast decreases in both CE and the EE, with the starting CE being slightly above 85% but dropping aggressively from that point going forward. In contrast with the lower discharge rate experiments, in this case the charging voltage did deteriorate aggressively as well.

Charge/discharge cycles. Charge was done at 10mA/cm2 to 10mAh, discharge was done to a voltage of 0.4V. Total volume of the electrodes is 0.6mL. Highest discharge charge density is therefore around 13 Ah/L.

The electrolyte also shows significant signs of decomposition. The image below shows you a comparison of a pristine vs a cycled electrolyte. You can see how the cycled electrolyte becomes extremely dark, due to the presence of MnO2. This is confirmed by addition of ferrous sulfate, which immediately makes the liquid clear up (as Fe²⁺ is able to reduce MnO₂ to Mn²⁺). The MnO₂ is formed away from the electrode because of the formation of Mn³⁺ which migrates away and then disproportionates into Mn²⁺ and MnO₂. This explains why there are significant loses in the CE as a function of charging, both due to Mn³⁺ disproportionation and self-discharge caused by Mn³⁺ migration into the anode.

Comparison of pristine (left) and cycled (right) electrolyte.

The publishes papers make it seem as though this chemistry is extremely straightforward and reversible, but the facts of Mn³⁺ formation and disproportionation heavily complicate this approach. It is therefore puzzling to me how the results of these researchers were produced, especially the ones in (1) as their setup uses flooded cells us well, even in the complete absence of any separator. I made similar attempts using copper plates as anodes, 0.4M, 0.5M and 0.6M sulfuric acid and 0.5M, 0.8M and 1.2M Manganese sulfate solutions but couldn’t find any differences in the basic results, the only difference being that current densities needed to be much lower when a copper plate was used, likely due to the much lower surface area.

Let me know if you have any ideas about what I might be missing in the construction and testing of this Mn/Cu chemistry.

Is Fe/Mn chemistry viable for a true flow battery?

1 Reply

My original idea was to create a flow battery without Vanadium that would contain no metal deposition reactions on either the anodic or cathodic sites. This would be a true flow battery, in the sense that energy capacity would be completely decoupled from power capacity. It would also be compatible with a symmetric electrolyte which would allow the use of microporous membranes. There is currently no low cost flow battery – to the best of my knowledge – that fulfills these criteria, outside of Fe/Mn (with Fe/Cr and V being the only options).

My original idea was to use easily sourced FeEDTA and MnEDTA for this purpose. However it became clear that there are important solubility issues with FeEDTA and MnEDTA plus significant stability issues related with the Mn³⁺ EDTA chelate, which prevented this battery from actually working. While both FeEDTA and MnEDTA had been used in different flow batteries, no one had put them together on any published research — now I know why.

Cyclic voltammetry of FeCl₃ 1.5M + MnCl₂ 1.5M + 3M HCl (concentrations are approximate). Reference electrode was Ag/AgCl, glassy carbon working electrode, graphite counter electrode. Scan rate was 10mV/s.

However, there was a paper published in 2022 that was able to use a symmetric Fe/Mn chemistry by employing Fe chloride and Mn sulfate in an acidic media with a special proportion of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. I wanted to try this out to see if I could actually get an Fe/Mn chemistry that worked. The paper goes into the importance of the hydrochloric acid to generate stable Mn³⁺ species, but doesn’t say anything about the importance of the sulfuric acid, so I decided to try a hydrochloric acid only approach for starters and see if the CVs showed reversible Mn chemistry.

The first CV I carried out is shown above. This solution was prepared by using 5mL of 15% HCl, 5 mL of 40% FeCl₃ and 3g of MnCl₂. You can see the reversible reaction for the Fe with a standard potential near 0.45V, you can also see an Mn oxidation peak near 1.6V with no evident reversibility (no reduction peak). This is classic for the formation of MnO₂ and its subsequent conversion back to Mn²⁺ with generation of Cl₂ in concentrated hydrochloric acid. Gas bubbles on the working electrode were also evident, which further supports this hypothesis.

Cyclic voltammetry of FeCl₃ 1.5M + MnCl₂ 1.5M + 0.6M HCl (concentrations are approximate). Reference electrode was Ag/AgCl, glassy carbon working electrode, graphite counter electrode. Scan rate was 10mV/s.

I then tried lowering the concentration of the HCl to see what would happen to the CV. Interestingly enough, when going with a 0.6M concentration, I saw the appearance of a reversible reaction with a standard potential near 1.25V, which is near the potential that is mentioned on the paper. This peak also shows significant reversibility, with the corresponding reduction peak appearing near 1.15V. The difference between these two standard peaks is also 0.775mV, which is close to the open circuit potential reported for the flow battery within the paper I mentioned before. This solution was 1mL 15% HCl, 3g MnCl₂ and 5mL of FeCl₃ 40%.

Upon charging, acid will become depleted from the cathodic side, which might be why the sulfuric acid was used on the paper to generate proper cycling (as MnO₂ would start forming if the pH became too basic). Interestingly enough, volumetric capacities aren’t mentioned in the paper (just mAh of charge). Using their values of 5mL of volume per side (total volume of 10mL) their discharge capacity goes from 1-2.5Wh/L, which is 10x lower than the standard for Vanadium batteries. This means that – while the Mn³⁺ chemistry is reversible – very little of the Mn is actually accessible (less than 10% at a 1M concentration).

The acid balance here is fundamental, so you likely need just the right amount of HCl to make Mn³⁺ stable, but not enough as to make the oxidation of Cl^– to Cl² very favorable. If possible I would like to stay with a battery with only chlorides, as the inputs are easier to source (sulfuric acid is hard to get in many places), so I will try to cycle the above chemistry soon as see if it is actually feasible. On another note, Mn³⁺ reacts with cellulose quite quickly, so I will have to use a proper microporous separator – like Daramic – instead of the photopaper I have been using for Zn/I experiments.

Things are not looking very good for an Fe/Mn chemistry.

First tests of a Fe-EDDHA|Mn-EDTA system, towards a Fe/Mn flow battery at neutral pH

18 Replies

I have recently been working on a project to create a DIY flow battery using Fe/Mn salts. The idea is to be able to achieve a close to or neutral pH system, with low cost salts, high concentrations of active species and good cycling ability. In today’s post I will describe some of my very preliminary results using a split cell system.

The image below shows you the experimental setup I am using. Both the right and left side contain graphite rod electrodes. The two chambers are separated by the DIY high permselectivity membrane I prepared using PVA/citric acid/phosphoric acid. The chamber on the left contains a solution of NaFeEDDHA from a commercial fertilizer source at a concentration of 0.05m + 3.5m of NaCl, while the cell on the right contains a solution with 0.05m of Na₂MnEDTA + 3.5m NaCl. The pH was set to 7 using potassium carbonate (only a few milligrams were needed). Both chambers are stirred using magnetic stirring bars (tiny ones at 2mm).

A picture of the Fe-EDDHA|Mn-EDTA system. The left side has the Fe and the right side has the Mn. Both solutions are prepared at 0.05m concentration with 3m NaCl. The pH of the system is 7. System is showed after 2mAh of charge.

The idea of these first experiments at low concentration was to put some charge into the system to observe if there was any precipitation of Mn oxides on the cathode, or any other noticeable side reactions. We can also determine if there is any self-discharge due to crossing of Fe-EDDHA over the membrane by seeing the color change on the Mn-EDTA side and tracking the potential. I also wanted to observe what the potential was after charging (predicted standard potential is around 1.2V).

It is worth noting that the separation between the electrodes is quite large and the electrode area is low, so there are expected to be very substantial ohmic losses in this type of configuration. This means it is not useful for charge/discharge cycle data. However we should be able to get some important information about the reversibility of the chemistry and the presence of any bad side reactions, as mentioned above.

The capacity of the system at this (15mL per side) configuration would be 20.1mAh. I charged it to 2mAh at 2.3V, which was able to introduce current at a rate between 700-800mA. After stopping the charging process, the potential dropped to around 1.1V fast and then very slowly from that point. It will take more charge for the potential to hold steady there, but this already shows the chemistry is working. Changing the electrodes for new graphite rods had the potential still holding at similar values, which means the potential is not due to any deposits on the graphite electrodes.

Despite the big charging over-potential – due to ohmic losses – there was no depositing of metallic Fe on the anode or the evolution of any hydrogen gas (no bubbling was observed). I also could not observe the formation of any MnO₂ precipitate on the cathode. This therefore means that the Mn³⁺ is stable, at least in the short term, in the catholyte (as expected from literature experienced with Mn-EDTA).

Thinking about a membrane for my Fe/Mn flow battery

1 Reply

To build an Fe/Mn flow battery we need a cation exchange membrane to separate the catholyte and anolyte chambers of the device. In this post I want to talk about my initial thoughts about how to create a DIY membrane for this purpose.

Chemical representation of PVA (Polyvinyl alcohol) not to be confused with polyvinyl acetate (what PVA glue is made of).

Commercial cation exchange membranes do exist. Nafion membranes are the most commonly used, but their cost is too high. Just a small 10cm x 10cm square of Nafion can cost upwards of 50 USD, depending on the type of Nafion used. Lower cost membranes (like SPEEK based membranes) have been tested in the literature, but I cannot find any place that actually sells these “lower cost” membranes at a truly lower cost than Nafion.

To be able to make a viable DIY flow battery we need a membrane that we can make, that is lower cost. The requirements of a cation exchange membrane for the Fe/Mn system would be as follows:

Not dissolve in water at neutral pH.
Made from readily available, low cost materials.
Mechanically stable.
No reaction with any of the redox species in solution.
Contain anionic groups (which makes it selective to cations)
Have high conductivity

I looked at potential materials to build this membrane and PVA has become the most prominent base material. It is a polymer with OH functional groups, which I can use to react with readily available chemicals to create a functionalized polymer. My first experiments will involve using phosphoric acid, urea and potassium silicate to create functionalized membranes.

I will prepare 10% w/w solutions of PVA in distilled water, then add different amounts of the above mentioned additives to determine which compositions cast best and have the best properties. I will be casting the films in petri dishes, as this seems to be the most common method in the PVA membrane literature. I will also possibly anneal the membranes by heating them at different temperatures after they have settled.

Double chamber electrochemical cell I bought (haven’t received it yet)

I have also bought a double chamber electrochemical cell to perform experiments using these membranes. The idea is to measure if there is any crossover across the membranes and possibly also measure the ionic conductivity of the membrane.

To measure crossover of ions I can setup one side with the Fe salt and another with the Mn salt, then carry out cyclic voltammetry measurements on the Mn side as a function of time, to measure the appearance of the Fe peak (if there is any crossover). I can compare times between membranes as well. I can also test microporous membranes and non-functionalized PVA membranes, to obtain some baseline measurements. If I setup one side with just NaCl and the other with Fe, I can likely obtain more sensitive measurements (as I will have no current from reactions with Mn species).

Additionally if I use Fe-EDDHA I could sample the solution and measure the appearance of the Fe-EDDHA visible absorption peak near 500nm, which is highly sensitive given the chelate’s very high molar extinction coefficient. Although for this I would near to purchase a Uv-Vis spectrometer, which would cost me 500-1000 USD.

I can also measure ion diffusion by setting up distilled water on one side and a 3M NaCl on the other side and measuring conductivity as a function of time on the distilled water side. This will allow me to compare different membranes and see which ones transport ions faster. If I add Fe chelate to the NaCl I could perhaps measure both ion transport and selectivity simultaneously.

It will be a very interesting journey!

The best low cost Fe/Mn flow battery: Some perspectives about solubility and chelates

Chemisting

Home research by a solo chemist