4.5 Article

Hydrothermal synthesis of single crystal MoO3 nanobelts and their electrochemical properties as cathode electrode materials for rechargeable lithium batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF SOLIDS
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 423-429

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpcs.2011.11.019

关键词

Nanostructures; Oxides; Chemical synthesis; Electrochemical properties

资金

  1. SPDRF of MOE of China
  2. MOE of China [B08040]
  3. National Nature Science Foundation [51172187]
  4. Special Scientific Research project Foundation of the Education Department of Shaanxi Province of China [09JK447]
  5. Fundamental Research Foundation of Xi'an Ploytechnic University of China [2010JC05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orthorhombic phase MoO3 (alpha-MoO3) nanobelts with uniform diameter are successfully prepared through a hydrothermal synthesis route at a low temperature (180 degrees C) in the presence of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) using saturated solution of ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate (AHM) as well as nitrate as raw materials, and are characterized by X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. The CTAB plays a key role in the formation of alpha-MoO3 nanobelts and the aspect ratio of nanobelts significantly varies with quality of CTAB. The nanobelts with rectangular cross-sections have single crystalline orthorhombic phase structure, preferentially grow in [001] direction. Raman shifts of the alpha-MoO3 nanobelts are fully consistent with that of flaky structure; however, intensity ratio of peaks 818.3 cm(-1) and 991.2 cm(-1) of alpha-MoO3 nanobelts remarkably changes comparing with that of lamellar MoO3. Electrochemical properties of alpha-MoO3 single crystal nanobelts synthesized as cathode electrode materials for rechargeable lithium batteries are also measured. It indicates that the alpha-MoO3 nanobelts exhibit a better performance than MoO3 micro flakes. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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