4.8 Article

Water-soluble binders for MCMB carbon anodes for lithium-ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 196, 期 4, 页码 2128-2134

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.10.025

关键词

Graphite; NaCMC; LiCMC; Baytron; Xanthan gum; Li-ion batteries

资金

  1. Natural Resources Canada s the Canadian Program of Energy Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated the suitability of four different binders for the conventional mesocarbon microbeads (MCMBs) anode material in Li-ion batteries Unlike the conventional polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) the binders were water soluble and were either cellulose based such as the lithium and sodium salts of carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC and LiCMC) and Xanthan Gum (XG) or the conjugated polymer poly(3 4-ethylendioxythiophene)(PEDOT a k a Baytron) All binders were commercially available except LiCMC which was synthesized and characterized by FTIR and NMR. Thermal studies of the binders by TGA and DSC showed that in air the binders have a broad melting event at 100-150 degrees C with an onset temperature for decomposition above 220 C Li/MCMB half-cell batteries were assembled using the studied binders Slow scan voltammograms of all cells showed characteristic lithium insertion and de-insertion peaks including that of the SEI formation which was found to be embedded into the insertion peaks during the first cycle Cycling of the cells showed that the one containing XG binder gave the highest capacities reaching 350 mAh g(-1) after 100 cycles at C/12 while the others gave comparable capacities to those of the conventional binder PVDF The rate capabilities of cells were examined and found to perform well up to the studied C/2 rate with more than 50% capacity retained Further studies of the XG-based MCMB electrodes were performed and concluded that an optimal thickness of 300-365 mu m gave the highest capacities and sustained high C-rates Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B V 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

4.8
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