“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Although LiPF 6 -based electrolyte formulations generally provide highly conductive and electrochemically stable solutions, which lead to good cell performance, there is continued interest to identify alternate lithium electrolyte salts that possess greater high temperature resilience and are less expensive. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In addition to LiPF 6 , the electrochemical properties of a number of lithium salts have been investigated within the context of nonaqueous lithium-based rechargeable batteries, including lithium perchlorate ͑LiClO 4 ͒, 11 lithium tetrafluoroborate ͑LiBF 4 ͒, 13,16 lithium hexafluoroarsenate ͑LiAsF 6 ͒, lithium triflate ͑LiOSO 2 CF 3 ; LiOTf͒, lithium bis͑trifluoromethane-sulfonyl͒imide ͓LiN͑SO 2 CF 3 ͒ 2 ; LiTFSI͔, 15 lithium bis͑pentafluoro-ethanesulfonyl͒imide ͓LiN͑SO 2 CF 2 CF 3 ͒ 2 ; LiBETI͔, lithium trifluorotris͑perfluoroethyl͒phosphate ͓LiPF 3 ͑CF 2 CF 3 ͒ 3 ͔, 18 lithium bis͑oxalato͒borate ͓LiB͑C 2 O 4 ͒ 2 ͔, [19][20][21] lithium ͑malonato oxalato͒bo-rate ͓LiB͑C 3 O 4 ͒ 2 ͔, 23 lithium tris͑trifluoromethanesulfonyl͒methide ͓LiC͑SO 2 CF 3 ͒ 3 ͔, 24 as well as, a number of other fluoroalkyl sulfonate and imide salts. 25,26 To date, none of these electrolyte salts have supplanted the widespread use of LiPF 6 due to one or more shortcomings preventing their adoption, such as poor safety due to toxicity or explosion, high cost, poor electrochemical stability ͑in-cluding SEI forming ...…”