4.8 Article

Atomic-Scale Direct Identification of Surface Variations in Cathode Oxides for Aqueous and Nonaqueous Lithium-Ion Batteries

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 787-794

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201802682

关键词

electrochemistry; intercalations; lithium; scanning probe microscopy; surface analysis

资金

  1. Samsung Research Funding Centre of Samsung Electronics [SRFC-MA1602-05]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2014R1A4A1003712, 2017M2A2A6A01019608, 2018R1A2B2006133]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M2A2A6A01019608] 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 electrochemical (de)intercalation reactions of lithium ions are initiated at the electrode surface in contact with an electrolyte solution. Therefore, substantial structural degradation, which shortens the cycle life of cells, is frequently observed at the surface of cathode particles, including lithium-metal intermixing, phase transitions, and dissolution of lithium and transition metals into the electrolyte. Furthermore, in contrast to the strict restriction of moisture in lithium-ion cells with nonaqueous organic electrolytes, electrode materials in aqueous-electrolyte cells are under much more reactive environments with water and oxygen, thereby leading to serious surface chemical reactions on the cathode particles. The present article presents key results regarding structural and composition variations at the surface of oxide-based cathodes in both high-performance nonaqueous and recently proposed aqueous lithium-ion batteries; in particular, focusing on direct atomic-scale observations preformed by means of scanning transmission electron microscopy. Precise identification of surface degradation at the atomic level is thus emphasized because it can provide significant insights into overcoming the limitations of current lithium-ion batteries.

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