4.6 Article

A new methodology for evaluating the performances of electrocatalysts for rechargeable Li-O2 batteries: (Ru-Sn)O2@graphene nanowalls/Ti electrodes as an example

Journal

ELECTROCHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 125, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.elecom.2021.107009

Keywords

Bi-functional catalysts; Cyclic voltammetry; Ruthenium-tin dioxides; Graphene nanowalls

Funding

  1. National ChungShan Institute of Science & Technology of Taiwan [XV09215P676PE-CS]
  2. National Tsing Hua University [109Q2708E1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The bi-functional activities of electrocatalysts for the ORR and discharge products decomposition in rechargeable Li-O2 batteries can be effectively evaluated using cyclic voltammetry with varying the lower potential limit. Utilizing Ru-Sn oxides decorated graphene nanowalls as examples, it was found that both Ru-enriched and Sn-enriched Ru-Sn oxides exhibit higher bi-functional activities than mono-oxides and pure graphene. The full cell performance in terms of rate capability, cycle life, and charge-discharge voltage gaps can be correlated to these findings.
The bi-functional activities of electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) and discharge products decomposition in the typical organic electrolyte of rechargeable Li-O2 batteries are proposed to be effectively evaluated by cyclic voltammetry (CV) with varying the lower potential limit. The free-standing Ru-Sn oxidesdecorated graphene nanowalls are employed as examples to demonstrate this interesting methodology. Both Ru-enriched and Sn-enriched Ru-Sn oxides (RTO73 and RTO37) show higher bi-functional activities than two mono-oxides and pure graphene from CV and confirmed by the charge?discharge results. The full cell performances such as rate capability, cycle life and charge?discharge voltage gaps can be correlated to the findings

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