4.6 Article

A comparative study of electrochemical performance of graphene sheets, expanded graphite and natural graphite as anode materials for lithium-ion batteries

Journal

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 107, Issue -, Pages 555-561

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.06.032

Keywords

Lithium-ion batteries; Graphene sheets; Expanded graphite; Natural graphite; Cycle performance

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50672004]
  2. National High-Tech Research and Development Program [2008AA03Z513]
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20120010110001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three kinds of carbon materials, i.e., graphene sheets (GSs), expanded graphite (EG) and natural graphite (NG) were comparatively investigated as anode materials for lithium-ion batteries via scanning electron microscope, high-resolution transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy and a variety of electrochemical testing techniques. The test results showed that the reversible capacities of GS electrode were 1130 and 636 mA h g(-1) at the current densities of 0.2 and 1 mA cm(-2), respectively, which were almost twice those of EG electrode and three times those of NG electrode. The first-cycle coulombic efficiency and capacity retention of NG were much bigger than those of GSs and EG. The notable capacity fading observed in GSs and EG may be ascribed to the disorder-induced structure instability. The larger voltage hysteresis in GS and EG electrodes was not only related to the surface functional groups, but also to the active defects in GSs and EG, which results in greater hindrance and higher overvoltage during lithium extraction from electrode. The kinetics properties of GSs, EG and NG electrodes were compared by AC impedance measurements. GS and EG electrodes exhibited higher electrochemical activity and more favorable kinetic properties during charge and discharge process. (C) 2013 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