4.6 Article

LiNbO3-coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode with high discharge capacity and rate performance for all-solid-state lithium battery

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY CHEMISTRY
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 39-45

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2019.02.006

关键词

All-solid-state lithium battery; Sulfide electrolyte; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2; LiNbO3; Electrochemical performances

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFB0104302]
  2. NSFC [21503148]
  3. Major Programs of the Innovation Driven Plan of Guilin [20160203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to obtain high power density, energy density and safe energy storage lithium ion batteries (LIB) to meet growing demand for electronic products, oxide cathodes have been widely explored in all-solid-state lithium batteries (ASSLB) using sulfide solid electrolyte. However, the electrochemical performances are still not satisfactory, due to the high interfacial resistance caused by severe interfacial instability between sulfide solid electrolyte and oxide cathode, especially Ni-rich oxide cathodes, in charge-discharge process. Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (NCM811) material at present is one of the most key cathode candidates to achieve the high energy density up to 300 Wh kg(-1) in liquid LIB, but rarely investigated in ASSLB using sulfide electrolyte. To design the stable interface between NCM811 and sulfide electrolyte should be extremely necessary. In this work, in view of our previous work, LiNbO3 coating with about 1 wt% content is adopted to improve the interfacial stability and the electrochemical performances of NCM811 cathode in ASSLB using Li10GeP2S12 solid electrolyte. Consequently, LiNbO3-coated NCM811 cathode displays the higher discharge capacity and rate performance than the reported oxide electrodes in ASSLB using sulfide solid electrolyte to our knowledge. (C) 2019 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press. 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