4.6 Article

Preparation of Carbon-Coated Silicon Nanoparticles with Different Hydrocarbon Gases in Induction Thermal Plasma

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 125, 期 28, 页码 15551-15559

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c03209

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon nanoparticles coated with carbon coating can solve stability issues in lithium ion batteries, and the use of induction thermal plasma synthesis technology can achieve this goal, introducing a new injection method to limit unfavorable byproducts. The choice of appropriate carbon sources has a significant influence on the properties and thermal decomposition of the carbon coating.
Silicon appears as a promising candidate to replace the graphite anode for lithium ion batteries (LIBs) due to its extremely high charge capacity. However, the large volume expansion during charging leads to serious stability problems. Silicon nanoparticles coated with protective coatings are reliable to solve this problem and facilitate the practical implementation of the silicon anode. In this study, induction thermal plasma was applied to synthesize silicon nanoparticles with amorphous hydrogenated carbon coating, and the effects of additional carbon sources were investigated. A novel but simple injection method of hydrocarbons was introduced to limit the unfavorable formation of byproducts. The thickness of carbon coating ranges from 2 to 8 nm with a higher hydrocarbon gas flow rate, while silicon particles show a constant mean diameter of around 70 nm. The properties of carbon coating, like sp(2) ratio and H-content, are tunable, and the thermal decomposition mechanism of carbon sources is believed as a key factor. Graphene flakes can also be obtained with abundant carbon and hydrogen radicals released. Based on the material characterizations, acetylene is regarded as a better candidate to prepare carbon coating. The above results show significance for the design of next generation of LIBs.

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