4.6 Article

Ionic Conducting and Surface Active Binder of Poly (ethylene oxide)-block-poly(acrylonitrile) for High Power Lithium-ion Battery

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 41-47

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2016.02.154

关键词

Lithium ion battery; Lithium iron phosphate; Poly(acrylonitrile); Poly(ethylene oxide); binder

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei, R. O. C. within the project Development of High-Performance, High Voltage and High Safety Lithium Ion Electrolytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(acrylonitrile) (PEO-b-PAN) copolymer is used as a binder for LiFePO4 cathodes, where PEO-b-PAN not only conducts Li+ inside the cathode but also acts as a dispersant to disperse LiFePO4. This binder significantly increases the capacity under high discharge rate and overcome the limitation of LiFePO4 for high power density application. By XPS analysis, the incorporation of the PEO-b-PAN binder to the active materials of the LiFePO4 cathodes can be clearly observed from the binding energy of the nitrogen atom of the PEO-b-PAN. Due to the surface active properties of the PEO and PAN, PEO-b-PAN obviously increases the effective contact area and reduces electronical resistance. In addition to the surface active properties, this binder provides Li+ pathway; thus, it features low polarization, less interfacial resistance and good activity for electrochemical reaction. Consequently, these properties enable the PEO-b-PAN binder to have a higher discharge plateau potential at 3.10 V, while it is only 2.86 V for the PVDF binder at a 5C rate. Moreover, even at a 10C rate, the PEO-b-PAN binder still delivers extraordinary discharge capacities of 101 mAh g (1), significantly higher than that of the PVDF binder (32 mAh g(-1)). Overall, this ionic conducting and surface active binder exhibits good electrochemical properties and excellent high rate performance. (C) 2016 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