4.8 Article

Local structural changes in LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 spinel cathode material for lithium-ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 255, 期 -, 页码 439-449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.037

关键词

LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4; Li-ion batteries; EXAFS; XANES; Structural changes

资金

  1. Europaischer Fonds fur regionale Entwicklung (EFRE) under the project BATMAT [200720132/35]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Local structural changes in LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 cathode material were investigated by X-ray absorption spectroscopy in-operando using a specially designed electrochemical cell. The average structure of the starting material determined by neutron powder diffraction confirmed partial ordering of Mn and Ni cations on the octahedral sites in the spinel structure. It is observed that the electrochemical activity of the material between 3.5 V and 5.0 V is largely attributed to a two-step Ni2+/Ni4+ redox reaction. However, a small fraction of Mn3+ present in the pristine material also participates in electrochemical processes via a Mn3+/Mn4+ redox reaction. The excess lithium inserted into the material during deep discharge of the cell down to 2.0 V causes a further reduction of Mn4+ to Mn3+, while Ni remains electrochemically inactive. An increased proportion of Mn3+ in the material increases the distortion of MnO6 octahedra by the Jahn-Teller effect, which locally reduces the crystal symmetry from cubic to tetragonal, giving rise to the formation of domains of a Li2Mn2O4-type tetragonal phase. The fraction of this tetragonal phase was found to be directly related to the excess lithium inserted into the material. Upon subsequent charging to 2.9 V. the tetragonal phase tends to revert back to the original cubic spinel phase. The observed decline in the electrochemical performance of the material when cycled between 2.0 V and 5.0 V may be attributed to repetitive structural changes associated with the cubic <-> tetragonal phase transition. (C) 2014 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