4.7 Article

Construction of KB@ZIF-8/PP Composite Separator for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries with Enhanced Electrochemical Performance

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 13, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym13234210

关键词

lithium-sulfur battery; separator; shuttle effect; metal-organic framework; chemisorption

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2019YFA0705701]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21978332, 22075329, 51573215, 21706294, 22179149]
  3. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2017B090901003, 2019A1515010803, 2020A1515011445, 2021A0505030022]
  4. Guangzhou Scientific and Technological Planning Project [201904010271, 201804020025, 201707010424]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18lgpy32, 19lgpy07, 20lgpy11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new strategy is developed to construct a KB@ZIF-8/PP separator, which can absorb polysulfides through Lewis acid-base interaction, effectively suppressing the shuttle effect and enhancing the electrochemical performance of lithium-sulfur batteries.
Lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs) have attracted wide attention, but the shuttle effect of polysulfide hinders their further practical application. Herein, we develop a new strategy to construct a Ketjen black@zeolite imidazole framework-8/polypropylene composite separator. Such a separator consists of Ketjen black (KB), zeolite imidazole framework-8 (ZIF-8) and polypropylene (PP) with a low coating load of 0.06 mg cm(-2) and is denoted as KB@ZIF-8/PP. KB@ZIF-8/PP can absorb polysulfides because of the Lewis acid-base interaction between ZIF-8 and polysulfides. This interaction can reduce the dissolution of polysulfides and suppress the shuttle effect, thereby enhancing the electrochemical performance of the battery. When tested at a current density of 0.1 C, an LSB with a KB@ZIF-8/PP separator exhibits low polarization and achieves a high initial capacity of 1235.6 mAh/g and a high capacity retention rate of 59.27% after 100 cycles.

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