4.6 Review

Solvent Co-intercalation: An Emerging Mechanism in Li-, Na-, and K-Ion Capacitors

期刊

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 4228-4244

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01801

关键词

-

资金

  1. KIRAN division of the Department of Science & Technology (DST) [DST/WOS-B/2018/2039]
  2. DST through the Swarnajayanti Fellowship [DST/SJF/PSA-02/2019-20]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning)
  4. [2019R1A4A2001527]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the significant advances in co-intercalation chemistry and research progress in MICs with a graphite anode and activated carbon cathodes. The progress indicates high-performance hybrid-ion capacitors with high power capability and fast reaction kinetics, although there is a need to find methods to improve the energy-storage capability of such MICs to realize their commercial reality.
Solvated-ion intercalation or co-intercalation reactions make graphite a versatile anode for Na-ion chemistry and beyond. This alternate intercalation mechanism could overcome the difficulties faced by conventional intercalation reactions with graphite. The proper choice of the solvent molecule could co-intercalate Na-, Li-, and Kions with high capacity and power density values, which are tailor-made for metal-ion capacitor (MIC, M = Li, Na, and K) applications. This review summarizes significant advances in co-intercalation chemistry, research progress in MICs with a graphite anode, and activated carbon cathodes in glyme family solutions. Also, we compare the advantages and challenges of MICs with the co-intercalation-based mechanism in place of conventional graphite anodes with bare-ion intercalation. The progress indicates high-performance hybrid-ion capacitors with high power capability and fast reaction kinetics. At the same time, it is essential to find methods to improve the energy-storage capability of such MICs to realize their commercial reality.

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