4.6 Article

Lithium Iron Orthosilicate Cathode: Progress and Perspectives

Journal

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
Volume 2, Issue 8, Pages 1771-1781

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00452

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51672182, 51422206, 51302181, 51372159]
  2. 333 High-Level Talents Project in Jiangsu Province
  3. Thousand Young Talents Plan
  4. Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation [BK20151219, BK20140009]
  5. Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province
  6. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  7. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office
  8. DOE Office of Science by UChicago Argonne, LLC [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The pursuit of cathodes with a high capacity is remarkably driven by the ever increasing demand of high-energy lithium ion batteries in electronics and transportation. In this regard, polyanionic lithium iron orthosilicate (Li2FeSiO4) offers a promising opportunity because it affords a high theoretical capacity of 331 mAh g(-1). However, such a high theoretical capacity of Li2FeSiO4 has frequently been compromised in practice because of the extremely low electronic and ionic conductivity. To address this issue, material engineering strategies to boost the Li storage kinetics in Li2FeSiO4 have proven indispensable. In this Perspective, we will briefly present the structural characteristics, intrinsic physicochemical properties, and electrochemical behavior of Li2FeSiO4. We particularly focus on recent materials engineering of silicates, which is implemented mainly through advanced synthetic techniques and elaborate controls. This Perspective highlights the importance of integrating theoretical analysis into experimental implementation to further advance the Li2FeSiO4 materials.

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