4.7 Article

Tailoring yolk-shell FeP@carbon nanoboxes with engineered void space for pseudocapacitance-boosted lithium storage

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY FRONTIERS
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 2605-2614

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8qi00849c

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51502180]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2016SCU04A18]
  3. Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program [2017GZ0132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As one kind of promising high-capacity anode material for lithium ion batteries (LIBs), iron phosphide (FeP) has recently attracted much attention owing to its high theoretical capacity. However, the FeP anode materials also suffer from the common problems of intrinsically poor electrical conductivity and drastic volume expansion. Here, we design and construct yolk-shell FeP@carbon (FeP@C) nanobox composites with void space by an efficient synthetic strategy of combining etching-in-boxes with phosphidation-in-boxes approach. Rational void space is engineered between the FeP cores and carbon shells in the yolk-shell structure, which offers a buffer zone for adapting the volume expansion of FeP core particles without breaking the protective carbon shells upon lithiation. Benefiting from their unique structural advantages, the as-built FeP@C nanoboxes manifest a superb rate capability with high specific capacities of 495.9 and 220.8 mA h g(-1) at 1.0 and 10.0 A g(-1), respectively. Quantitative kinetic analysis identifies that the high-rate performance mainly stems from the pseudocapacitance-boosted lithium storage contribution rendered by the yolk-shell nanobox structure. Moreover, the engineered void space in the FeP@C yolk-shell nanostructure also endows it with an excellent long-term and durable cycling stability (93.7% capacity retention after 600 cycles at 1.0 A g(-1)). This work sheds light on the rational design of nanostructured metal-phosphide-based anode materials for high performance LIBs.

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

4.7
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