Tag Archives: Mn/Fe flow battery

Revisiting the idea of using chelates for the Fe/Mn flow battery

Leave a reply

On my last post I wrote about the potential of using Fe/Mn in acidic solution to create an Fe/Mn flow battery. I cited a paper published a few years ago which shows that you can achieve reversible Mn3+ chemistry in a solution of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid, I then proceeded to confirm this reversibility using cyclic voltammetry of Mn2+ solutions in hydrochloric acid.

However, it quickly became clear from analysis of the paper that this was only at very low capacities. This is because Mn3+ becomes unstable as its concentration increases in solutions, turning into MnO2 and Mn2+.

A 0.5M Fe-DTPA + 0.5M Mn-EDTA solution in an acetate buffer (prepared with 100mL of 8% acetic acid + 10g of potassium acetate)

Given the very low volumetric densities that can be achieved with the acid setup, there’s no option but to revisit the use of more stable and reversible forms of manganese. The best candidate seems to be Mn-EDTA. This complex has already been shown to work in flow batteries at the 0.5M-1.0M range (see here).

I had already thought about using this complex and wrote several posts about its potential use in combination with Fe-EDTA or Fe-EDDHA (see here). However, there is a big problem with the pH compatibility of the Mn-EDTA with the Fe-EDTA or Fe-EDDHA. The issue being that Mn3+-EDTA is only stable under acidic pH conditions, where the solubility of both Fe-EDTA and Fe-EDDHA is limited to around 0.1M. These chelates are only highly soluble under basic pH conditions, which are fully incompatible with Mn-EDTA.

CV of the solution shown in the first image. The half-wave potentials for both reactions are -0.11V and 0.61V, both Vs Ag/AgCl. The above CV was done with a scan rate of 10mV/s.

The question is whether there is any easily accessible Fe chelate that is both compatible with Mn-EDTA in solution (so that we can create a symmetric electrolyte) and that can create soluble solutions at >0.5M concentrations in a pH ~5-6 buffer. Note that I need both chelates to be dissolved at >0.5M at the same time since I want the electrolyte to be symmetric so that it can work using a microporous membrane.

The answer is Fe-DTPA. This chelate is highly soluble at acidic pH values and – best of all – it is soluble enough to actually be in >0.5M solution in the presence of Mn-EDTA at this high concentration. Above you can see a picture of the Fe-DTPA+Mn-EDTA solution. The solution also contains an acetate buffer, which should ensure pH stability on charge/discharge, which should prevent degradation of the Mn-EDTA.

The second image shows a CV of the Fe-EDTA/Mn-EDTA buffered solution, showing that both the Fe and Mn electrochemical reactions are reversible. The half wave potentials are -0.11V and 0.61V, giving us an expected potential for the flow battery of +720mV. This is close to what I had measured before for Fe-EDTA/Mn-EDTA. This proves that the DTPA does not change the electrochemical characteristics of the system very much. The above test also confirms there acetate buffer is stable to the generated Mn3+-EDTA.

The next step is to build a flow battery using the above solution and see what performance characteristics we can get. With the current solutions this system will be limited to around 8-9Wh/L. However I haven’t tested the solubility limits of the chelates in this buffer.

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.

Problems with the Fe-EDDHA|Mn-EDTA flow battery system

Leave a reply

I wrote a blog post about some of my first tests of the electrochemistry of the Fe-EDDHA|Mn-EDTA system and how I planned to build a flow battery using this chemistry. I have since been able to setup a flow battery and perform some initial experiments. So far, there are several fundamental problems with the above chemistry that strongly affects its viability. I will discuss these problems below.

Fe-EDDHA solubility and pH. The Fe-EDDHA is more soluble at more basic pH values and its solubility at neutral pH is limited to perhaps only 0.1-0.2M. Furthermore, there are several less soluble impurities present – different isomers of the EDDHA – which have to be filtered before the cell is operated. Additionally, the pH changes substantially upon charge/discharge, which causes problems with the Mn-EDTA side (you’ll see later on).

Fe-EDDHA anolyte (A2) next to Mn-EDTA catholyte (C2) solutions, both at around 0.2M.

Difficulty in working with Fe-EDDHA solutions. The solutions of Fe-EDDHA are very deeply red, basically black at the concentrations we’re working with here. This means that it is very hard to tell if there are any insoluble substances in the solution. It is also hard to tell the charge state of the solution, as it will only slowly become more transparent as the Fe-EDDHA is reduced to its Fe(II) form.

Fe(II)-EDDHA sensibility to oxygen. Once the Fe-EDDHA is reduced in the anode, the liquid becomes incredibly sensitive to any oxygen dissolved in the solution, which will quickly oxidize the Fe(II)-EDDHA back to Fe(III)-EDDHA. Given that I currently have no means of purging my system of oxygen, this makes it impossible for me to run flow batteries using Fe-EDDHA right now in a reliable way.

Anolyte and catholyte of the system. You can observe the red color of Mn(III)-EDTA appear in the catholyte (C2) as the flow battery is charged.

Mn-EDTA stability at higher pH. The oxidized form of Mn-EDTA, which is Mn(III)-EDTA, is red at a pH below 6.5 and yellow at a pH above 6.5 (you can see that yellow in a previous post). However, the yellow molecule is extremely unstable, therefore it is very important for pH to remain below 6.5. However, at a pH below 6.5 the solubility of the Fe-EDDHA drops substantially. The differences in pH between charge and discharge means that both systems are virtually incompatible, because as the Fe-EDDHA charges it induces changes of pH that very negatively affect the decomposition of the Mn-EDTA catholyte.

For all the above reasons, I decided I no longer will explore the Fe-EDDHA|Mn-EDTA system, as I currently don’t have the technical setup that is necessary to properly study it. Furthermore, the low solubility, difficulty of working with the Fe-EDDHA solutions and the problems with pH, make this system more complicated than I was hoping for, especially in a system I hoped to be simple for DIY.

I will continue to study flow batteries based on Mn chemistries, including Mn-EDTA (as these are very interesting), but I will likely change the anolyte to something that is more aligned with my current setup. Most likely I will have to compromise and use a potentially higher density, low cost anolyte, that will involve plating a metal on the carbon felt anode, like Zn. Hopefully in this manner I’ll be able to find a low cost setup to bring a DIY solution with a capacity at least in the 10-20Ah/L range.

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).

Measuring and improving the performance of PVA/Cellulose cation exchange membranes

2 Replies

In a previous post I described how to create a DIY cation exchange membrane using some easy to get materials. These membranes could achieve significant permselectivity values, but still far away from those required to create membranes for a robust flow battery. Additionally, the sheet resistance of these membranes – which I measured using a 4 contact electrode method – was quite bad, with values often greater than 6000 ohm/cm2. The through plane resistance was around 3x that, although my method for through-plane resistance measurement is not reliable yet.

Some of the last membranes I produced using a PVA solution with a pH in the 6-7 range. The membrane remains an off-white yellowish color, but does not oxidize as in my previous tests.

In this post, I want to talk about the advancements I have made to improve the fabrication of these membranes. First of all, I have lowered the preparation temperature to 150C, this avoids charring the membranes and improves reproducibility. I also added 80 minutes of additional time at these temperature once all the PVA coats have been put on, this improves crosslinking and drastically reduces the solubility of the membrane in water (to the point where it becomes fully insoluble).

I have also found out that decreasing the acidity by adding some potassium hydroxide also helps retain membranes structure, increase permselectivty and decrease sheet resistance. This matches some papers on cellulose phosphorylation using potassium phosphate and ammonium phosphate salts, with solutions that have much higher pH values than phosphoric acid. The higher pH helps preserve the structure of the cellulose and PVA, as a lack of acid reduces the changes of degradation of the cellulose and PVA. The phosphorylation still happens, thanks to the urea catalyst present.

With this in mind, the membranes can probably be made using monopotassium or monoammonium phosphates, much more readily and less dangerous chemicals compared to concentrated phosphoric acid and potassium hydroxide.

One of my last experiments to measure permselectivity. The cell to the right contains a very small amount of NaFe(EDDHA), which has a very deep red color. This makes it very easy to see membrane crossover.

The best values I have achieved so far are a permselectivity of 80% and a sheet resistance of 373 ohm/cm2. These are still much worse than those of commercially available membranes, but certainly better than the values I was achieving before.

From the parameters I have tested, the cross-linking temperature and pH seem to be the most important to the qualities of the membrane, so I will try to study these too with a bit more detail to find out if I can produce membranes with better qualities. Increasing the concentration of P at higher pH values with higher urea quantities might also help achieve better cross-linking.