4.8 Article

Impacts of Oxygen Vacancies on Zinc Ion Intercalation in VO2

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 5581-5589

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b09963

关键词

VO2; oxygen vacancies; defects; cathode materials; aqueous zinc ion batteries

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFE0133800, 2019YFB1503200]
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-1803256]
  3. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1908085QB52]
  4. CASHIPS Director's Fund [YZJJ201902, YZJJ2018QN21]
  5. Key Technology R&D Program of Jiangxi Province [20181ACH80010]
  6. Colleges and Universities in Shandong Province science and technology projects [J17KA097]
  7. China Scholarship Council International Clean Energy Talent program
  8. CAS Key Laboratory of Photovoltaic and Energy Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences [PECL2018QN006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aqueous zinc ion battery has emerged as a promising alternative technology for large-scale energy storage due to its low cost, natural abundance, and high safety features. However, the sluggish kinetics stemming from the strong electrostatic interaction of divalent zinc ions in the host crystal structure is one of challenges for highly efficient energy storage. Oxygen vacancies (V-O(center dot center dot)), in the present work, lead to a larger tunnel structure along the b axis, which improves the reactive kinetics and enhances Zn-ion storage capability in VO2 (B) cathode. DFT calculations further support that V-O(center dot center dot) in VO2 (B) result in a narrower bandgap and lower Zn ion diffusion energy barrier compared to those of pristine VO2 (B). V-O(center dot center dot)-rich VO2 (B) achieves a specific capacity of 375 mAh g(-1) at a current density of 100 mA g(-1) and long-term cyclic stability with retained specific capacity of 175 mAh g(-1) at 5 A g(-1) over 2000 cycles (85% capacity retention), higher than that of VO2 (B) nanobelts (280 mAh g(-1) at 100 mA g(-1) and 120 mAh g(-1) at 5 A g(-1), 65% capacity retention).

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