4.8 Article

Highly stable P′3-K0.8CrO2 cathode with limited dimensional changes for potassium ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 430, 期 -, 页码 137-144

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.05.017

关键词

Potassium-ion batteries; Cyclic stability; Cathode; Layered-structure; Phase transitions

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future [2015M3D1A1069710]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education [NRF-2014R1A6A1030419]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015M3D1A1069710] 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

O3-KCrO2 is the only known stoichiometric layered transition metal oxide with a layered structure, which enables efficient coupling with a graphite anode for K+-shuttling batteries. O3-KCrO2, however, shows low Coulombic efficiency during 1st charge/discharge cycle and continuous capacity fading during subsequent cycles. Here, we present a slightly K+-deficient compound P'3-K0.8CrO2, synthesized from a commercially available K2CrO4, as a stable cathode in potassium ion batteries. During the 1st charge, K0.8CrO2 mostly retains its P'3-phase with a short P3 region and finally returns to a P'3-phase (K0.48CrO2). Subsequent discharge shows reversible phase transitions, but ultimately yielded a new O'3-K0.9CrO2 phase. Absence of an O3-phase and persistence of a P'3-phase during charge/discharge, result in negligible volume changes (1.08%) and facile K+ diffusion through the spacious-prismatic sites (D =10(-11) - 10(-10) cm(2) s(-1)). This eventually contributes to a significant improvement in cyclic stability (99% retention after 300 cycles at 1 C) and rate capability (52 mAh.g(-1) at 2 C), respectively. We believe that the use of slightly K+-deficient chromium oxides synthesized via a simple protocol should enhance the commercial viability of KxCrO2 in potassium 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