4.8 Article

Understanding voltage decay in lithium-excess layered cathode materials through oxygen-centred structural arrangement

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05802-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. IT R&D program of MOTIE/KEIT (Development of Li-rich Cathode and Carbon-free Anode Materials for High Capacity/High Rate Lithium Secondary Batteries) [10046309]
  2. Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST)
  3. [1.180019.01]
  4. [1.180033.01]
  5. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10046306] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  6. Ministry of Science & ICT (MSIT), Republic of Korea [2018미래선도형 특성화연구사업] 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

Lithium-excess 3d-transition-metal layered oxides (Li1+xNiyCozMn1-x-y-zO2, > 250 mAh g(-1)) suffer from severe voltage decay upon cycling, which decreases energy density and hinders further research and development. Nevertheless, the lack of understanding on chemical and structural uniqueness of the material prevents the interpretation of internal degradation chemistry. Here, we discover a fundamental reason of the voltage decay phenomenon by comparing ordered and cation-disordered materials with a combination of X-ray absorption spectroscopy and transmission electron microscopy studies. The cation arrangement determines the transition metal-oxygen covalency and structural reversibility related to voltage decay. The identification of structural arrangement with de-lithiated oxygen-centred octahedron and interactions between octahedrons affecting the oxygen stability and transition metal mobility of layered oxide provides the insight into the degradation chemistry of cathode materials and a way to develop high-energy density electrodes.

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