4.3 Review

Revisiting polyanionic LiFePO4 battery material for electric vehicles

期刊

FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS LETTERS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S1793604721300061

关键词

Lithium iron phosphate; Li-ion battery; electric vehicle; automobile battery

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51872192, 51672182]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20180002]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China [19KJA170001]
  4. Key Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province [BE2019061]
  5. PriorityAcademic Program Development (PAPD) of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyanionic phosphates like LiFePO4 exhibit excellent lattice stability and safety features due to the strong covalent bond of P-O, which constrains oxygen atoms and minimizes defects in the oxygen site, resulting in stable frameworks. Furthermore, the presence of the strong P-O covalent bond stabilizes the anti-bonding transitional metal redox couple through an M-O-P inductive effect, generating a relatively high potential.
Although oxide cathodes have been widely used in these Li-ion batteries, these cathodes suffer from instability of the oxygen close-packed structure. In contrast, polyanionic phosphates such as LiFePO4 have incredible lattice stability and safety features owing to the strong covalent bond of P-O, which constrains the oxygen atoms and minimizes the defects of the oxygen site, resulting in stable frameworks. In addition, the presence of the strong P-O covalent bond stabilizes the anti-bonding transitional metal redox couple through an M-O-P inductive effect to generate a relatively high potential. Hence, polyanionic LiFePO4 has been an ideal choice of cathode materials for batteries deployed in electric vehicles. In this review, we revisit the basic features and development of LiFePO4, as an attempt to speeding its future deployment in massive electric vehicles.

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

4.3
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