4.8 Article

Molecular Engineering of Covalent Organic Framework Cathodes for Enhanced Zinc-Ion Batteries

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 33, 期 39, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.202103617

关键词

aqueous batteries; covalent organic frameworks; zinc-ion batteries; zinc ions

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) [OSR-CRG2017-3379]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) show promising performance as electrode materials for electrochemical storage, particularly in zinc-ion batteries, when the quinone group is introduced into their structure to enhance Zn2+ storage capability and increase average charge-discharge potential. This study highlights the importance of molecular engineering in improving the practical charge storage performance of COFs.
Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are potentially promising electrode materials for electrochemical charge storage applications thanks to their pre-designable reticular chemistry with atomic precision, allowing precise control of pore size, redox-active functional moieties, and stable covalent frameworks. However, studies on the mechanistic and practical aspects of their zinc-ion storage behavior are still limited. In this study, a strategy to enhance the electrochemical performance of COF cathodes in zinc-ion batteries (ZIBs) by introducing the quinone group into 1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene-based COFs is reported. Electrochemical characterization demonstrates that the introduction of the quinone groups in the COF significantly pushes up the Zn2+ storage capability against H+ and elevates the average (dis-)charge potential in aqueous ZIBs. Computational and experimental analysis further reveals the favorable redox-active sites that host Zn2+/H+ in COF electrodes and the root cause for the enhanced electrochemical performance. This work demonstrates that molecular engineering of the COF structure is an effective approach to achieve practical charge storage performance.

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