4.6 Article

Effect of the reactants concentration on the synthesis and cycle life of copper hexacyanoferrate for aqueous Zn-ion batteries

期刊

ELECTROCHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.elecom.2021.107030

关键词

Aqueous zinc-ion batteries; Cathode materials; copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF); Cycle life; Prussian blue analogues (PBAs) synthesis

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [FKZ 03XP0204A]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship [84062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of reactants' concentration and ratio during the synthesis of CuHCF on the resulting material has been investigated, revealing different structural and compositional characteristics for the samples. Electrochemical analysis showed that CuHCF with higher initial potassium content exhibited higher stability and longer cycle life.
Copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) is a promising Zn2+ insertion material as positive electrode in mild aqueous Zn-ion batteries for power grid applications, due to its excellent power capability, non-toxicity, low cost and easy synthesis route. Here, the effect of the reactants? concentration and ratio during the synthesis of the CuHCF on the performance of the resulting material has been investigated through morphological, crystallographic and compositional analysis. Despite the different reaction?s conditions, the synthesised CuHCF powders did not show any significant change in their average particle size and morphology. Nevertheless, different structural and compositional characteristics have been observed for the different samples. In particular, different amounts of potassium have been found in the crystal structure of the investigated CuHCF materials. Subsequent electrochemical analysis demonstrated that the CuHCF with higher initial potassium content showed higher stability and therefore achieved longer cycle life.

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