Advances in Battery Technology: Rechargeable
Magnesium Batteries and Novel Negative-
Electrode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries
J¸rgen O. Besenhard* and Martin Winter*[a]
KEYWORDS:
batteries ¥ energy conversion ¥ lithium battery ¥ materials science
The increasing interest in mobile technol-
ogies, such as portable consumer elec-
tronics and electric vehicles, has gener-
ated the need for batteries that provide
high energy density and multiple rechar-
geability. In order to build such recharge-
able high energy density batteries, the
use of electrode materials with high
charge storage capacity is inevitable.
Considering thermodynamic reasons for
the selection of the negative electrode
(anode) material, light metals lithium,
sodium, and magnesium are favored over
™conventional∫ and comparatively heavy
battery metals, such as zinc, cadmium,
and lead, as they combine negative
electrode potentials with high specific
charges (Table 1).
However, a realization of batteries us-
ing these light metals as active anode
materials is not possible in most cases
because the strong reducing power of the
metals results in a spontaneous reaction
in contact with the electrolyte. Among the
Table 1. Comparison of battery metals.
Metal Atomic weight Valency change Specific charge Electrode potential[a] Terrestrial abundance
[g mol 1] [A h kg 1]
Li 6.94 1 3862
Na 22.99 1 1166
Mg 24.31 2 2205
Zn 65.38 2 820
Cd 112.41 2 477
Pb 207.20 2 259
[a] Versus normal hydrogen electrode.
[a] Prof. Dr. J. O. Besenhard, Prof. Dr. M. Winter
Institute for Chemical Technology of Inorganic
Materials
Graz University of Technology
Stremayrgasse 16, 8010 Graz (Austria)
Fax: (‡ 43) 316-873-8272
CHEMPHYSCHEM 2002, 3, 155 ± 159 ¹ WILEY-VCH-Verlag GmbH, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2002
light metals, Li is the most successful
battery metal so far because, apart from
its low electrode potential and outstand-
ing high specific charge, it shows an
chemical and electrochemical behavior
which favors its use in high energy density
batteries.
In suitable nonaqueous electrolytes
(electrolyte salts such as LiClO4 or Li-
SO3CF3 dissolved in aprotic nonaqueous
solvents, such as esters or ethers or
mixtures thereof) ™passivating∫ films of
Li‡-containing electrolyte decomposition
products, spontaneously formed upon
the immersion in the electrolyte, protect
the Li surfaces. These films act as a ™sieve∫
selectively permeable to the electrochem-
ically active charge carrier (the Li‡ cation)
but impermeable to any other electrolyte
component that would react with Li: They
behave as a solid electrolyte interphase
(SEI). The observation of the kinetic sta-
bility of Li in a number of nonaqueous
electrolytes induced a rapid proliferation
[V] [%]
3.05 0.006
2.71 2.64
2.38 1.94
0.76 0.012
0.40 0.00003
0.13 0.0018
of research in the field of Li batteries
beginning in the 1950s, and the commer-
cialization of primary Li batteries followed
quickly in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Today, primary Li cells have a variety of
applications and the commercial interest
is still growing.
However, apart from some niche mar-
ket applications, the commercial break-
through of the rechargeable metallic
lithium battery failed. Upon recharge,
lithium plating occurs simultaneously
with some lithium corrosion and passiva-
tion (formation of the SEI). Lithium typi-
cally deposits as dendritic, highly reactive
metal particles. The dendrites are covered
with SEI and become therefore partly
electrochemically inactive, which reduces
the cycle life of the cell. This reduces the
efficiency of the lithium dissolution/dep-
osition process. Moreover, the dendrites
grow to filaments upon cycling, which
may short-circuit and locally overheat the
cell and thereby cause a disastrous ther-
mal runaway due to the low melting point
of lithium ( 180 8C).
Several approaches have been pursued
to improve the rechargeability and reli-
ability of the metallic lithium electrode.
However, the most successful was the use
of lithium-insertion electrode materials
instead of lithium metal, yielding so-called
™lithium ion cells∫.
In lithium ion cells, no metallic lithium is
incorporated in the cell and moreover
metallic lithium is not present at any state
of charge/discharge. Both electrodes are
capable of reversible lithium insertion
(Figure 1 a). Basically, this insertion reac-
tion is a host ± guest solid-state redox
reaction involving electrochemical charge
transfer coupled with insertion of mobile
guest ions from an electrolyte into the
structure of a solid host, which is a mixed
electronic and ionic conductor. In com-
mercial cells, mainly carbonaceous hosts
(nongraphitic carbon or graphites) are
used for the negative electrode and
lithium/transition metal oxides are the
active material for the positive electrode
(LiCoO2 , LiNiO2 , or LiMn2O4 and deriva-
tives or mixtures thereof). This means,
1439-4235/02/03/02 $ 17.50+.50/0 155

Figure 1. a) Schematic representation of a lithium ion cell and the charge/discharge reactions at the
electrodes. As for the graphitic anode (negative electrode), layered insertion electrode materials, such as LiCoO2
and LiNiO2 , are used for the cathode (positive electrode) as well. b) Formation of electronically insulating but
lithium ion conducting interphases at the electrodes.
lithium ion cells are assembled in the
discharged state, the charged electrodes
being lithiated graphite and partially
delithiated LiCoO2 . Because of the large
difference of the chemical potential of
lithium in the two electrodes, which
corresponds to cell voltages of more than
3.5 V, the transfer of lithium ions from the
negative electrode through the electro-
lyte to the positive electrode (discharge)
delivers energy whereas the reverse lith-
ium transfer (charge) consumes energy. In
view of electrochemical performance, Li-
CoO2 cathodes and graphitic anodes
seem to be the preferred electrode mate-
rials for present lithium ion batteries.
Typically, Li‡X salts (LiBF4 , LiPF6 , LiN-
(SO2CF3)2 , among others) dissolved in
156
aprotic, nonaqueous solvents are used
as electrolytes.
The high cell voltages, high specific
energies (> 130 W h kg 1), energy den
sities (> 300 W h L 1) as well as the
ong cycle life (500 ± 1000 charge/dis-
charge cycles) of standard lithium ion
cells make their application highly attrac-
tive. Beginning with the introduction of
lithium ion cells in the early 1990s, their
share in the rechargeable consumer
battery market has dramatically increased
over the years. The world wide produc-
tion was 200 million cells in 1997 and
it will be approximately three times
as much during 2001. Lithium ion cells
play a major role in the ™3C∫ market
(cellular phones, portable computers,
J. O. Besenhard and M. Winter
camcorders). Moreover, several com-
panies have announced or established
a prototype production of electric vehi-
cles equipped with large lithium ion
batteries.
Nevertheless, the high cell voltages of
charged lithium ion cells (up to 4.5 V)
correspond also to operation conditions
which are beyond the thermodynamic
stability window of the battery electro-
lyte. Electrolyte decomposition occurs at
both electrodes. Fortunately, a mecha-
nism comparable to the SEI formation on
metallic lithium takes place, that is–in
the ideal case–electronically insulating
and Li‡-permeable membranes are
formed at the respective electrode surfa-
ces, which protect against further electro-
lyte decomposition.
It should be emphasized here that the
mechanisms of protective film formation
on metallic lithium electrodes and lithium
ion battery electrodes are different. Film
formation on metallic lithium takes place
upon contact with the electrolyte. The
electrolyte components decompose
spontaneously due to the reductive pow-
er of lithium and some of the decompo-
sition products form the film. In contrast,
as lithium ion cells are assembled in the
discharged state, the reducing and oxidiz-
ing power of anode and cathode is not
strong enough to enable a spontaneous
reaction with the electrolyte. Here, the
protective film formation takes place
in situ in the first few charge/discharge
cycles, particularly during the first cycle.
In other words, the films in lithium ion
cells are not simply formed by contact
of graphite or LiCoO2 with the electro-
lyte but are a ™byproduct∫ of the charge
reaction.[*] The film formation is asso-
[*] We should note that the films on the charged
LixC6 anode are produced by reduction, whereas
the film on the charged Li1 xCoO2 cathode is
formed by an oxidation process. Moreover, the
SEI concept describes the film-forming behavior
in such cells in a very basic and general way.
Though the function and the formation process
of the SEI in several cases seems to be more
complex, the concept has been quite generally
accepted for the negative electrode (metallic
lithium or lithiated graphite) due to its simplicity.
The situation is different at the positive electrode.
Up to now there are only a few reports on the
formation and composition of protective inter-
phases at the positive electrode (Figure 1 b) and
the nature and mechanisms of these ™films∫ is still
not clear.
CHEMPHYSCHEM 2002, 3, 155 ± 159
ciated with the irreversible consumption
of material (lithium and electrolyte). This
™irreversible capacity∫ has to be mini-
mized because it is detrimental to the
specific energy of the cell and moreover
increases the material expenses due to
the necessary excess of costly positive
electrode material, which is the lithium
source after cell assembly.
In this Highlight, we report on two
approaches which offer novel materials
and innovative strategies to overcome the
problems and performance limitations of
rechargeable metallic lithium batteries
and lithium ion batteries. Aurbach et al.[1]
abandoned the reliance on metallic lith-
ium and showed how rechargeable bat-
teries can be based instead on magnesi-
um, while Poizot et al.[2] proposed the use
of nanoparticles of transition metal oxides
instead of the carbonaceous anode ma-
terials.
Magnesium Batteries:
Alternatives to Existing
Rechargeable Battery Systems
In contrast to metallic Li, products of
reductive electrolyte decomposition for
alkali metals other than Li (such as Na) are
typically partially soluble and therefore do
not easily form protective films. On the
other hand, films formed on Mg in
similarly composed organic electrolytes
are typically highly passivating; namely,
the transport of Mg2‡ ions across these
films is strongly hindered kinetically and
the Mg anode is more or less electro-
chemically inactive.
Successful operation of Mg anodes is
possible in electrolytes that are not re-
duced on metallic Mg and thus do not
form passivating films on the surface.
Typical and well-known examples are
Grignard reagents RMgX in ether, where
R is an alkyl or aryl group and X is Cl or Br.
However, due to the strong reducing
character of Grignard reagents, the oxi-
dation stability at the cathode is not
sufficient for use in batteries. Aurbach
and co-workers have developed a family
of electrolytes based on magnesium or-
ganohaluminate salts, such as
Mg(AlCl2R1R2)2 (R1, R2 ˆ alkyl), in solvents
such as tetrahydrofuran (THF) or polyeth-
ers of the glyme family, which show an
impressive oxidation stability. Like
Grignard solutions, these electrolytes do
not develop strongly passivating films on
the Mg surface and the deposition/dis-
solution of Mg is almost 100 % reversible.
Moreover, the corrosion and dendrite
formation problems, as in the case of
rechargeable Li metal electrodes, are
obviously much less significant and thus
the safety of these Mg systems is com-
paratively high. The best results in terms
of oxidation stability have been obtained
with salts of alkyl groups R1 ˆ butyl (Bu)
and R2 ˆ ethyl (Et).
The second major achievement of Aur-
bach's group was the choice of an
appropriate cathode material which
shows reasonable specific charge, inter-
calation kinetics sufficient for Mg2‡ ions,
and operates within the potential
range where the electrolyte is stable
against reduction and oxidation (the
electrochemical window) of the novel
electrolyte. They proposed Mo3S4 catho-
des with a chevrel phase structure. It is
important to note that the fulfillment
of all the above requirements was
not achieved for Mg cathode materials
before, which makes the invention of
Aurbach's group particularly appreciable.
The maximum specific charge of
MgxMo3S4 (0 < x < 1) is 122 A h kg 1, com-
parable to reversible lithium ion battery
cathodes.
Aurbach and co-workers have further
developed Mg/Mo3S4 prototype coin cells,
which exhibited high cycling stability
(more than 2000 cycles) at cell voltages
of 1.3 ± 1.0 V. For future optimized systems
they propose practical specific energies of
more than 60 W h kg 1. From Table 2 it is
evident that this is less than half of the
specific energy of rechargeable lithium
ion systems but greater than the values of
aqueous battery systems, such as lead ±
acid and nickel ± cadmium. Consequently,
Aurbach considers the rechargeable Mg
system not as a competitor for lithium ion
cells but as rival for the above aqueous
systems.
This prognosis asks for a comparison of
the Mg battery with commercialized re-
chargeable battery systems with aqueous
electrolytes, namely lead ± acid, nickel ±
cadmium, and nickel ± metal hydride (see
Table 2 for details). Preliminary results
indicate that the charge/discharge reac-

Table 2. Comparison of rechargeable batteries.

Magnesium Lead acid Ni-Cd Ni-MH Li-Ion

Anode Mg Pb Cd MH (LaNi5H6) LiC6
Cathode Mo3S4 PbO2 NiOOH NiOOH Li0.5CoO2
Electrolyte Mg(AlCl2BuEt)2 in THF aqueous H2SO4 aqueous KOH aqueous KOH LiPF6 in aprotic organic solvents
Specific energy (theory) [W h kg 1] 135 170 220 220 410
Specific energy (practise) [W h kg 1] > 60 (proposed) 30 ± 40 40 ± 60 75 ± 100 120 ± 150
Working voltage [V] 1.3 ± 1.0 2.0 ± 1.8 1.2 ± 1.0 1.2 ± 1.0 4.0 ± 3.0
Working temperature [8C] 20 ± ‡ 80 20 ± ‡ 50 40 ± ‡ 45 20 ± ‡ 40 30 ± ‡ 80
Chemical overcharge protection no yes yes yes no[a]
Chemical overdischarge protection no no yes yes no[a]
Cycle number, 100 % DOD[b] > 2000 > 50 > 1000 > 1000 > 1000
Relative toxicity low? high high medium medium
Safety high? high high high medium?
Estimated material costs low medium medium medium ± high high
Estimated manufacture costs high low medium medium high

[a] Electronic control of state of charge/discharge. [b] DOD: depth of discharge.

CHEMPHYSCHEM 2002, 3, 155 ± 159 157


tion of the Mg cell is quite fast, equiv-
alently, the cell power is high,[*] which
again might render possible the replace-
ment of the high power lead ± acid and
nickel ± cadmium batteries by rechargea-
ble Mg systems. Another advantage of Mg
cells over conventional aqueous batteries
containing Pb, Cd, or Ni would be that the
active materials are much more environ-
mentally benign. However, the lower
battery materials costs of Mg batteries
(compare also Table 1 for abundance)
may be more than compensated by the
higher manufacture costs. Whereas aque-
ous battery systems can be assembled in
air without any particular precautions, the
organohaluminate/ether electrolyte in
the Mg cell is moisture sensitive and
exhibits a higher flammability, and thus
cell manufacture demands strictly dry and
inert atmospheric conditions. On the
other hand, nickel ± metal hydride (Ni-
MH) cells are not included in the compar-
ison of Aurbach's group, though this
system may be the ™true competitor∫ of
the Mg battery due to higher specific
energies and better environmental be-
havior than Ni-Cd.
Another handicap of the Mg battery in
comparison to aqueous systems is the
missing chemical overcharge/overdi-
scharge protection. Overcharge and over-
discharge reactions typically occur in
larger battery units, where cells are con-
nected in series and each cell has an
influence on the charge/discharge reac-
tion of its neighboring cell. As even
automatically assembled cells may differ
in their cell capacity by  5 %, it is very
likely that a ™weak∫ cell with a relatively
smaller cell capacity may be already
completely charged (or discharged) while
its ™stronger∫ neighbors are still charged
(discharged). Then, the weak cell is driven
to undergo an overcharge (overdi-
scharge) reaction until its neighbors are
completely charged (discharged) as well.
[*] As the ionic conductivities of the Mg electrolytes
are typically about two orders of magnitude
lower than those of aqueous battery electrolytes,
the electrolyte is made as a very thin film so that
the Mg2‡ transport pathways are short, namely
the total electrolyte resistance is low and thus
higher cell power is possible. Lead ± acid cells
cannot be operated with a thin layer electrolyte
as stoichiometric amounts of H2SO4 are required
for the cell reaction.
158
In aqueous battery systems, decomposi-
tion of the aqueous electrolyte in oxygen
and hydrogen occurs under these con-
ditions. However, this decomposition is
the key for overcharge and overdischarge
protection. The oxygen, which is formed
at one electrode, diffuses through the
electrolyte to the other electrode, where
recombination with hydrogen to water
takes place. In essence, the oxygen
evolved at one electrode is consumed at
the other; the water decomposition reac-
tion is reversible. The cells and electrodes
are composed in such a way that this
reversible decomposition/recombination
reaction is the predominant side reaction
and other detrimental side reactions,
which may occur during overcharge and
overdischarge and which lower the per-
formance and the safety of the battery
system, are suppressed.
Nonaqueous electrolytes do not toler-
ate overcharge and overdischarge as
there is no comparable decomposition/
recombination mechanism; the over-
charge/overdischarge reactions are irre-
versible. For example, each individual cell
in a lithium ion battery is managed by an
electronic surveillance and control sys-
tem, which also switches the current off
under overcharge/overdischarge condi-
tions. This electronic control increases
the battery manufacture costs significant-
ly (this may be as much as a factor of two).
In the case of a series connection of
rechargeable nonaqueous electrolyte mag-
nesium batteries, a similar electronic con-
trol thus will also be needed.
In conclusion, though the cell voltage
and specific energy of rechargeable mag-
nesium cells are comparable to those of
the aqueous nickel systems, they do suffer
from the typical problems of cells with
nonaqueous electrolytes. At contrast, in
the case of nonaqueous lithium ion cells,
these drawbacks are more than counter-
balanced by very high cell voltages and
specific energies. Hence, the key for a
success of magnesium batteries are better
performance characteristics. Much effort
has to be put in the improvement of the
cathode material in terms of higher
magnesium storage capacity and higher
potential versus magnesium. As a matter
of fact, the research and development
activities on magnesium systems are still
in their beginning stages. The authors
J. O. Besenhard and M. Winter
themselves regard their invention as first
step to the exploration of the recharge-
able magnesium technology. Neverthe-
less, the work of Aurbach's group is the
greatest and most successful approach so
far for the realization of rechargeable
batteries with metallic magnesium ano-
des.
Transition Metal/Lithium Oxide
Nanocomposites as New
Anode Materials in Lithium Ion
Batteries
The performance of lithium ion batteries
strongly depends on the type of electrode
material. To a first approximation, proper-
ties such as charge storage capacity
(specific charge [Ah kg 1] or charge den-
sity [Ah L 1]), redox potentials for lithium
insertion/deinsertion, reversibility, and cy-
cle life determine the choice of a certain
material. Since the introduction of lithium
ion cells to the market, the specific energy
has increased by more than 30 %, mostly
due to the use of carbon anode materials
with higher lithium storage capabilities.
Many manufacturers use graphites as
anode materials, which typically exhibit
a maximum lithium capacity of LiC6
(339 A h kg 1 (759 A h L 1) with respect to
lithiated graphite and 372 A h kg 1
(837 A h L 1) with respect to unlithiated
graphite). However, there is strong inter-
est in replacing carbonaceous anode
materials by those which can show even
higher charge storage capacities. A large
number of metals and intermetallics (™al-
loys∫), such as Al, Si, Sn, Sb, ™SnSb∫, or
SnAg3 , are capable of reversible accom-
modation of lithium. These lithium stor-
age metals and alloys show very high
specific charges and charge densities (for
example, 790 A h kg 1 (2020 A h L 1) for
Li22Sn5) and have therefore been repeat-
edly suggested as anode materials for
lithium ion batteries. Unfortunately, the
uptake and release of Li is accompanied
by enormous volume changes (a 250 %
volume increase on going from Sn to
Li22Sn5 but only 10 % from graphite to
LiC6), which in the case of ™ordinary∫
coarse grained, bulk metal host materials
leads to cracking and crumbling of the
electrode and hence renders an applica-
tion in rechargeable batteries impossible.
CHEMPHYSCHEM 2002, 3, 155 ± 159
 It has been found that a higher cycling
stability can be obtained when oxides of
tin instead of pure tin metal are used. To
date, it is quite clear that the lithium is not
only simply inserted into the tin oxides
SnOx as in the case of transition metal
dioxide anode materials (MO2 ; M ˆ Mo, W,
Ti). It has been found, that metallic tin is
created from SnOx in situ during the first
reduction of the oxide. So far, this dis-
placement reaction has been considered
to be in most part irreversible as the Li2O
is considered to be electrochemically
inactive. Furthermore, the large detrimen-
tal charge and Li losses observed in the
first cycle have been associated with this
reaction. In a second step, Sn reversibly
alloys with Li. Compared to metallic Sn,
the cycling stability is improved, as the
active Sn is finely distributed within a
matrix of Li2O, which stabilizes the micro-
structure of the Sn/Li2O composite during
charge/discharge cycling.
Tarascon's group[2±4] reports on a Li
storage mechanism in transition metal
oxides MO (M ˆ Co, Ni, Cu, Fe) different to
the ™classical∫ mechanisms of Li insertion
or lithium alloy formation introduced
above. As for SnOx, the mechanism of Li
uptake in the oxide involves the displace-
ment of the metal oxide MO yielding Li2O
and the respective metal M. However, in
contrast to metallic Sn, the metals Co, Cu,
Ni, or Fe do not alloy with Li and, even
more importantly, Li2O is considered to be
in most part electrochemically active as
transition metal oxide MO is formed back
during Li release.[*] The latter observation
is quite surprising if one considers that
Li2O is not an electronic conductor, that is,
the back reaction of Li2O must take place
at the surface of the electronically con-
ductive metal Co, Ni, Cu, or Fe. The major
requirement for the reversible reaction of
[*] This mechanism is in some agreement with
observations made on the SnOx material, as
also in the latter case the reversible capacity is
slightly higher than that which can be expected
from ™simple∫ alloying of Li with Sn.
CHEMPHYSCHEM 2002, 3, 155 ± 159
Li2O is that the metal is finely dispersed in
the Li2O and that the metal particles are
very small (in this case in the nanometer
range) and thus have a large electronically
active surface. Poizot and co-workers
have proven that such a favorable nano-
sized M/Li2O morphology is formed after
the first Li uptake and that this process
(division of MO into finely dispersed Li2O
and M) irreversibly consumes an substan-
tial amount of the charge capacity. In the
following cycles the efficiency of the
discharge capacity to the charge capacity
is close to 100 %. However, there is still a
considerable potential difference of up to
1 V between the charge and discharge
process, indicating that large energies for
the displacement reaction of MO and the
corresponding back reaction are needed.
In the case of CoO the capacity is
600 A h kg 1 (with respect to the unlithi-
ated CoO) and thus much larger than that
of graphite. Interestingly, the novel lith-
ium storage mechanism is not limited to
divalent oxides MO: Co3O4 and Cu2O show
high and reversible charge storage ca-
pacities, too, as long as the appropriate
degree of division and agglomeration of
Li2O and metal M is achieved.
Another important impact of this novel
reaction mechanism is discussed in sub-
sequent papers of the authors.[3, 4] The
charge/discharge reaction of the transi-
tion metal oxides typically proceeds in the
potential range of 0 ± 3 V versus Li/Li‡,
namely the anode operation potential is
substantially higher than that of graphite
electrodes (approximately 0 ± 1.5 V versus
Li/Li‡). Hence, the SEI formed by reduc-
tion of the organic electrolyte may be also
partly oxidized, in particular at higher
electrode potentials. The extent of this
reaction is of course enhanced by the
large surface area of the nanosized,
electronically active metal. In the follow-
ing cycle the oxidized part of the SEI has
to be renewed leading to further electro-
lyte reduction. With the (very likely)
assumptions that a) the original electro-
lyte components are not recreated during
the oxidation process and b) the oxida-
tion products take only partly place in the
following SEI formation (ˆ reduction)
process, SEI oxidation products are accu-
mulated in the electrolyte, with so far
unknown long-term effects on perform-
ance and safety of the complete lithium
ion cell.
In conclusion, the future impact of such
anode materials on research and develop-
ment of lithium on batteries is currently
quite unclear, particularly because the
knowledge base on these materials is still
quite small. Nevertheless, if one recalls the
avalanche of papers which followed the
first reports on SnOx anodes and related
systems, a similar evolution for the MO-
based anodes might be predicted as well.
From this point of view, the work of
Tarascon's group may trigger future
anode material development. However,
it seems to be clear, that it will be difficult
for any new anode material to replace the
well-operating and established graphite
anode in the near future.
Recommended further reading is given
in refs. [5 ± 8].
[1] D. Aurbach, Z. Lu, A. Schlechter, Y. Gofer, H.
Gizbar, R. Turgeman, Y. Cohen, M. Moshkovich,
E. Levi, Nature 2000, 407, 724.
[2] P. Poizot, S. Laruelle, S. Grugeon, J.-M. Tarascon,
Nature 2000, 407, 496.
[3] P. Poizot, S. Larulle, S. Grugeon, L. Dupont, B.
Beaudoin, J.-M. Tarascon, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris
2000, 3, 681.
[4] S. Grugeon, S. Laruelle, R. Herrera-Urbina, L.
Dupont, P. Poizot, J.-M. Tarascon, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 2001, 148, A285.
[5] Lithium Ion Batteries–Fundamentals and per-
formance (Eds.: M. Wakihara, O. Yamamoto),
Kodansha Scientific Ltd., Tokyo, and Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 1998.
[6] M. Winter, J. O. Besenhard, M. Spahr, P. Nova¬k,
Adv. Mater. 1998, 10, 725.
[7] Special edition ™Lithium insertion into host
materials∫ (Ed.: D. Aurbach): Electrochim. Acta
1999, 45.
[8] Handbook of Battery Materials (Ed.: J. O. Besen-
hard), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1998.
Received: July 10, 2001 [H 262]
159