4.6 Article

Prussian Blue [K2FeFe(CN)6] Doped with Nickel as a Superior Cathode: An Efficient Strategy To Enhance Potassium Storage Performance

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 7, 期 19, 页码 16659-16667

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04012

关键词

Prussian blue analogue; Nickel doping; Potassium ion batteries; Accelerative effect

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFB0102900, 2016YFB0101201]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Project) [21476088, 21776105, 21805034]
  3. Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology [2015B010106012]
  4. Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Committee [201504281614372, 2016GJ006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prussian blue (PB) and its analogues have been widely investigated as promising cathode materials for potassium ion batteries (PIBs) on account of their 3D open framework, which makes the intercalation/deintercalation of K+ ions easy and quick. However, the PB materials usually exhibit limited rate capacity and poor cycling performance, preventing their development and practical application. In this work, PB doped with nickel ions via a modified coprecipitation method was explored to improve the rate capacity and cycling performance of PIBs, and the effect of Ni doping on the materials' performance was systematically studied. The optimal sample, 5% Ni-doped PB, delivered an enhanced discharge capacity of up to 135 mAh g(-1), compared to 120 mAh g(-1) with nondoped PB. Our optimal sample also displayed excellent cycling performance with 83.1% capacity retention after 300 cycles (0.1 A g(-1)) and declining just 0.0059% per cycle from 150 to 300 cycles. The discharge capacity at the high-voltage plateau increased from similar to 40 up to 53 mAh g-1, offering a higher energy density for PIBs. On the basis of the characterization results, we ascribe the improved performance to the activation of nickel ions during the Fe2+C6/Fe3+C6 redox reaction.

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

4.6
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