4.6 Article

How the interaction between styrene-butadiene-rubber (SBR) binder and a secondary fluid affects the rheology, microstructure and adhesive properties of capillary-suspension-type graphite slurries used for Li-ion battery anodes

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2019.123692

关键词

Capillary suspension; Lithium-ion batteries; Electrode adhesion; Slurry viscosity; Microstructure

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [NRF-2018R1A5A1024127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The distinct structure and flow properties of capillary suspensions, i.e., ternary solid/fluid/fluid systems including two immiscible fluids, make these kinds of slurries promising candidates for the fabrication of Li-ion battery electrodes. Recently, aqueous graphite slurries have been introduced that have beneficial coating properties and yield high-capacity cells with a superior electrochemical performance. Here, we investigate how SBR particles, frequently used as a binder in graphite slurries, affect the structure and flow of the wet paste as well as the adhesion of the dry anode layer. Combining rheological, interfacial and structural investigations revealed that the SBR particles are located at the interface of both liquid phases, and the amount of added SBR and the energy input for dispersing the secondary fluid offer extra degrees of freedom for adjusting the flow properties and microstructure according to processing and product demands. Most importantly, at a given SBR content, the adhesion strength of the capillary-suspension-type graphite slurries to the current collector is substantially higher than for the anode layers made from conventional suspensions. This novel approach promises battery electrodes with extended durability at a low binder content and improved electrical conductivity. Further research on this highly technical highly demanding topic is needed to understand the underlying physics and its impact on electrochemical cell performance.

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