4.6 Article

Diffusion coefficient and electrochemical performance of NaVO3 anode in Li/Na batteries

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 331, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.135293

关键词

Electrochemical performance; NaVO3 anode; Diffusion; Battery

资金

  1. SERB-DST (NPDF) [PDF/2016/003565]
  2. DST-Inspire
  3. SERB-DST through Early Career Research (ECR) Award [ECR/2015/000159]
  4. IIT Delhi through the FIRP project (IRD) [MI01418]
  5. DST through DSTeIIT Delhi Energy Storage Platform on Batteries project [DST/TMD/MECSP/2K17/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study Na/Lieion diffusion and electrochemical performance of NaVO3 (NVO) as anode material in Na/Li-ion batteries with the specific capacity of approximate to 350 mAhg(-1) at the current density 11 mAhg(-1) after 300 cycles for Li-ion battery. Remarkably, the capacity retains >= 200 mAhg(-1) even after 400 cycles at 44 mAhg(-1) with Coulombic efficiency >99%. The deduced diffusion coefficient from galvanostatic intermittent titration technique (GITT), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and cyclic voltammetry (CV) measurements for NVO as anode in Li-ion battery is in the range of 10(-10)-10(-12) cm(2)s(-1). In case of Na-ion batteries, the NVO electrode exhibits initial capacity of 385 mAhg(-1) at 7 mAhg(-1) current rate, but the capacity degradation is relatively faster in subsequent cycles. We find the diffusion coefficient of NVO -Na cells similar to that of NVO-Li. On the other hand, our charge discharge measurements suggest that the overall performance of NVO anode is better in Li-ion battery than Na-ion. Moreover, we use the density functional theory to simulate the energetics of Na vacancy formation or addition in the bulk of the NVO structure, which is found to be 0.9-1.2 eV higher than that of the most stable (100) surface. Thus, the Na ion incorporation at the surface of the electrode material is more facile compared to the bulk. (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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