4.7 Article

Synthesis and electrochemical performances of high-voltage LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode materials prepared by hydroxide co-precipitation method

Journal

RARE METALS
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 277-283

Publisher

NONFERROUS METALS SOC CHINA
DOI: 10.1007/s12598-016-0859-4

Keywords

Lithium-ion battery; LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4; Hydroxide co-precipitation; Electrochemical performance

Funding

  1. State Key Laboratory of Advanced Technologies for Comprehensive Utilization of Platinum Metals [SKL-SPM-201211]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13026]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spherical cathode material LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 for lithium-ion batteries was synthesized by hydroxide co-precipitation method. X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electrochemical measurements were carried out to characterize prepared LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode material. SEM images show that the LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode material is constituted by micro-sized spherical particles (with a diameter of around 8 mu m). XRD patterns reveal that the structure of prepared LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode material belongs to Fd3m space group. Electrochemical tests at 25 A degrees C show that the LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode material prepared after annealing at 600 A degrees C has the best electrochemical performances. The initial discharge capacity of prepared cathode material delivers 113.5 mAh center dot g(-1) at 1C rate in the range of 3.50-4.95 V, and the sample retains 96.2% (1.0C) of the initial capacity after 50 cycles. Under different rates with a cutoff voltage range of 3.50-4.95 V at 25 A degrees C, the discharge capacities of obtained cathode material can be kept at about 145.0 (0.1C), 126.8 (0.5C), 113.5 (1.0C) and 112.4 mAh center dot g(-1) (2.0C), the corresponding initial coulomb efficiencies retain above 95.2% (0.1C), 95.0% (0.5C), 92.5% (1.0C) and 94.8% (2.0C), respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available