4.8 Article

Towards more sustainable negative electrodes in Na-ion batteries via nanostructured iron oxide

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 245, Issue -, Pages 967-978

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.159

Keywords

Nanostructured Fe2O3; Na-ion batteries; Negative electrodes; Li-ion batteries; Carboxymethyl cellulose; Conversion reactions

Funding

  1. Swedish Research council (VR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Na-ion technology could emerge as an alternative to Li-ion batteries due to limited costs and vast availability of sodium, as well as its similar chemistry. Several Na-rich compounds have been proposed as positive electrodes, whereas suitable negative counterparts have not been found yet. Nanostructured iron oxide is reported here for the first time as a potentially viable negative electrode for Na-ion cells based on conventional electrolytes and composite coatings with carboxymethyl cellulose. Electrochemical reactions of Na+ and Li+ ions with nanostructured Fe2O3 are analysed and compared. Initial sodiation of Fe2O3 yields a sloping profile in a voltage range characteristic for oxide conversion, which instead generates a typical plateau upon lithiation. Application of such earth-abundant, nontoxic material in upcoming Na-ion batteries is potentially groundbreaking, since it offers important advantages, namely: i. simple and cost-effective synthesis of Fe2O3 nanostructures at low temperatures; ii. cheaper and more sustainable cell fabrication with higher energy densities, e.g., use of natural, water-soluble binders, as well as Al for both current collectors; iii. electrochemical performances with specific gravimetric capacities exceeding 400 mAh g(-1) at 40 mA g(-1), accompanied by decent specific volumetric energy densities, e.g., approximate to 1.22 Wh cm(-3), provided that cycle inefficiencies and long-term durability are addressed. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available