4.6 Article

A comparison of preparation method on the electrochemical performance of cathode material Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O2 for lithium ion battery

Journal

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 56, Issue 8, Pages 3071-3078

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.12.049

Keywords

Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O-2; Lithium-rich material; Co-precipitation; Sol-gel; Sucrose combustion

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20873115]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2007CB209702]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O-2 as a cathode material for Li-ion battery has been successfully prepared by co-precipitation (CP), sol-gel (SG) and sucrose combustion (SC) methods. The prepared materials were characterized by XRD, SEM, BET and electrochemical measurements. The XRD result shows that the Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O-2 materials prepared by different methods all form a pure phase with good crystallinity. SEM images and BET data present that the SC-material exhibited the smallest particle size (ca. 0.1 mu m) and the highest surface area (7.4635 m(2) g(-1)). The tap density of SC-material is lower than that of CP- and SG-materials. The result of rate performance tests indicates that the SC-material showed the best rate capability with the highest discharge capacity of 178 mAh g(-1) at 5.0 C, followed by SG-material and then CP-material. However, the cycling stability of SC-material tested at 0.1 and 0.5 C is relatively poor as compared to that of SG-material and CP-material. The result of EIS measurements reveals that large surface area and small particle size of the SC-electrode result in more SEI layer formation because of the increased side reactions with the electrolyte during cycling, which deteriorates the electrode/electrolyte interface and thus leads to the faster capacity fading of the SC-material. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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