4.8 Article

Effect of polymeric binder type on the thermal stability and tolerance to roll-pressing of spherical natural graphite anodes for Li-ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 248, 期 -, 页码 1191-1196

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.076

关键词

Spherical natural graphite; Anode; Binder; Polyacrylic acid; Thermal stability

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. Korean government (MEST) [NRF-2009-C1AAA001-0093307]
  3. Energy Efficiency & Resources from the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  4. Korea Government's Ministry of Knowledge Economy [2011201010016B]
  5. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [2011201010016B] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The polymeric binder is seen to affect the thermal stability and deformation of spherical graphite used in lithium ion battery anodes. Spherical natural graphite anodes are prepared using three different binders: two aqueous-based binders, polyacrylic acid (PAA) and a mixture of carboxy-methyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber (abbreviated CMC/SBR), and an organic-based binder, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). The thermal stability of fully lithiated electrodes is measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The PAA binder effectively suppresses heat evolution (43% (PVDF) and 23% (CMC/SBR) less heat) at low temperatures up to 200 degrees C during DSC scans of the lithiated electrodes, compared to the PVDF and CMC/SBR binders. In addition, the PAA binder allows the graphite electrode to maintain an appropriate porous structure (13% greater porosity than the PVDF and CMC/SBR electrodes) even at high electrode density after 6 kgf cm(-2) compression, thus leading to enhanced effective cycles (11% (PVDF) and 60% (CMC/SBR) greater capacity after 50 cycles). (C) 2013 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