4.7 Article

2,3-diaminophenazine as a high-rate rechargeable aqueous zinc-ion batteries cathode

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 607, 期 -, 页码 1262-1268

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2021.09.072

关键词

Aqueous zinc-ion battery; Energy storage; Electrochemistry; High rate and long cycle; Organic cathode

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a flexible organic molecule, 2,3-diaminophenazine (DAP), with ultrahigh rate performance and high capacity retention in rechargeable aqueous zinc-ion batteries. The Zn2+ storage mechanism and surface-controlled electrochemical behavior of DAP cathodes are revealed through ex-situ characterization and theoretical calculation. The long-cycle performance of DAP is attributed to its suppressed dissolubility and the use of a modified separator with carbon nanotubes (CNT) film.
Organic materials are attracting extensive attention as promising cathodes for rechargeable aqueous zinc-ion batteries (ZIBs). However, most of them fail to implement the requirement of batteries with combined high-rate and long-cycle performance. Herein, we report a flexible organic molecule 2,3-diaminophenazine (DAP) which exhibits ultrahigh rate performance up to 500C and high capacity retention of 80% after 10,000 cycles at 100C (25.5 A g(-1)). Moreover, the Zn2+ storage mechanism in the DAP electrode is revealed by ex-situ characterization technologies and theoretical calculation, and the redox active centers C=N participate in the reversible electrochemical reaction process. Furthermore, electrochemical analyses show that surface-controlled electrochemical behavior contributes to the high-rate performance of DAP cathodes. Besides, its excellent long-cycle performance can be ascribed to the suppressed DAP dissolubility by using a modified glass fiber separator with carbon nanotubes (CNT) film. Our work provides useful insight into the design of high-rate and long-life ZIBs. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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