4.8 Article

Structural evolution and capacity degradation mechanism of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 cathode materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 400, 期 -, 页码 539-548

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.08.056

关键词

Structural evolution; Degradation mechanism; Cut-off voltage; Interfacial impedance; Particle cracking

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC02-05CH11231, ES232]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21403153]
  3. Science and Technology Plans of Tianjin [15PTSYJC00230, 16JCTPJC45200]
  4. National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley Lab - U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  5. China Scholarship Council [201508120017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 is a promising cathode material with a high capacity for Li-ion batteries. However, the rapid capacity degradation in the high-voltage cycles constrain their further applications. Accordingly, the performances of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 have been systematically investigated using various microstructural characterizations as well as electrochemical analyses to explore its degradation mechanism. Our results indicate that the capacity decay of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 strongly depends on the charge cut-off voltage. For the cell that is cycled at 4.2 or 4.5 V, the degradation mechanism is primarily due to transformation from layered to rock salt structure on the particle surface, increasing the charge transfer impedance. For the cell that is cycled at 4.8 V, another two reasons should be considered. The irreversible structural change in the bulk lattice of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 during the high-degree delithiation process eventually disintegrates the secondary particles, resulting in the poor electrical contact between particles. Another one is that the insulating surface film which is generated on the surface of particles after cycling at 4.8 V increases the interfacial impedance of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2. All these factors contribute to the overall capacity degradation at high voltages.

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