4.6 Article

Influence of Carbon Content on LiFePO(4)/C Samples Synthesized by Freeze-Drying Process

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 156, Issue 10, Pages A817-A821

Publisher

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1.3205480

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [PTR95.0939.01, MAT2007-66737-C0-201, MAT2007-64486-C07-05]
  2. Universidad del Pais Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU) [GIU06-11]
  3. CEGASA Group
  4. UPV/EHU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The influence of the carbon content in LiFePO(4)/C composites synthesized by the freeze-drying method was studied by varying the citric acid (chelating agent): Fe ratio. Diminishing this ratio from 1:1 to 0.33:1 led to a gradual reduction of the carbon content from 16.1 to 7.2% wt and different morphologies. Transmission electron microscopy micrographs of the composite with the greatest carbon percentage (16%) show mainly 30 nm LiFePO(4) particles homogeneously embedded in a carbon network. Samples containing less carbon exhibit only one type of morphology, 200-700 nm aggregates made up of an intimate mixture of LiFePO(4) particles and carbon, Galvanostatic cycling from 2 to 4 V vs Li/Li(+) evidences the typical LiFePO(4) redox behavior at 3.4 V, and a second contribution at 2.65 V probably related to the carbon content. At a high rate, a good specific capacity value is observed for the nanoparticulate sample (16% wt C), whereas poorer performance is observed for low carbon content samples (11 and 7.2 wt % C). Heterogeneous and insufficient carbon covering together with phosphate particle aggregation in these latter samples can account for this behavior. Two carbon distribution models are proposed to explain different electrochemical responses. In all cases, a good capacity retention is observed after prolonged cycling. (C) 2009 The Electrochemical Society. [DOI: 10.1149/1.3205480] 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available