4.8 Article

Conductive Polymer Binder for High-Tap-Density Nanosilicon Material for Lithium-Ion Battery Negative Electrode Application

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 7927-7932

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b03003

关键词

Conductive polymer binder; single molecule force; silicon nanoparticle; high tap density; lithium-ion battery

资金

  1. Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Vehicle Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)
  2. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05 CH11231]
  3. LDRD program at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  4. NIH [R37 DE014193]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-tap-density silicon nanomaterials are highly desirable as anodes for lithium ion batteries, due to their small surface area and minimum first-cycle loss. However, this material poses formidable challenges to polymeric binder design. Binders adhere on to the small surface area to sustain the drastic volume changes during cycling; also the low porosities and small pore size resulting from this material are detrimental to lithium ion transport. This study introduces a new binder, poly(1-pyrenemethyl methacrylate-co-methacrylic acid) (PPyMAA), for a high-tap-density nanosilicon electrode cycled in a stable manner with a first cycle efficiency of 82%-a value that is further improved to 87% when combined with graphite material. Incorporating the MAA acid functionalities does not change the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) features or lower the adhesion performance of the PPy homopolymer. Our single-molecule force microscopy measurement of PPyMAA reveals similar adhesion strength between polymer binder and anode surface when compared with conventional polymer such as homopolyacrylic acid (PAA), while being electronically conductive. The combined conductivity and adhesion afforded by the MAA and pyrene copolymer results in good cycling performance for the high-tap-density Si electrode.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据