4.5 Article

Electrochemical performance of corncob-like porous carbon rods as cathode materials of a lithium-sulfur battery

期刊

IONICS
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 1525-1530

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11581-021-03905-5

关键词

Lithium-sulfur battery; Electrospinning method; Porous carbon rod; Confinement effects; Physicochemical adsorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the successful use of sodium carbonate as a pore-forming agent to construct three-dimensional porous carbon fibers, showing promising applications in the field of sulfur carriers. The porous and channel structures enhance the surface roughness of the materials, increase the sulfur-carrying capacity, and improve electrolyte transport efficiency, leading to higher utilization of active substances.
This study demonstrates an electrospinning method using sodium carbonate as a pore-forming agent to construct three-dimensional (3-D) porous carbon fibers (PCFs). Such corncob-like porous and channel structures exhibit unique physicochemical properties, and a high density of pores improves the surface roughness of the materials, so that the materials have a very high sulfur-carrying capacity. Confinement effects provided by porous containers and dispersed channels not only buffer volumetric expansion of sulfur during cycles, but also facilitate electrolyte transport to some extent and increase the rate of utilization of active substances. Furthermore, S-C bonds can enhance chemical adsorption of carbon for sulfur and improve the structural stability of the materials. The results indicate that PCFs, as sulfur carriers, provide a good electrochemical performance. The specific discharge capacity of sulfur-carrying FCFs (PCF/S) at a high current density of 1.1 C is still higher than that of the sulfur-carrying carbon fibers (CF/S) at a lower current density of 1.0 C. After 300 cycles, the specific capacity of the PCF/Sat 1.1 C remains at 660 mAh g(-1)while that of CF/S at 1.0 C is only 246 mAh g(-1).

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

4.5
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