4.7 Article

Insight into the Inhibition of Shuttle by Metal-Modified Covalent Triazine Frameworks and Graphene Composites with the Solvent Interaction in Lithium Sulfur Batteries

期刊

ACS APPLIED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 825-831

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.1c03272

关键词

metal-modified covalent triazine frameworks; composite materials; solvent effects; density functional theory; lithium sulfur batteries

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21606040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, composites of covalent triazine frameworks modified by metals and graphene were designed as host cathodes for lithium sulfur batteries to inhibit the shuttle effect of lithium polysulfides. The solvation effect was investigated using solvents with different dielectric constants and polarity, and the effective adsorption energy range of lithium polysulfides on the material was evaluated.
The shuttle effect of lithium polysulfides is a key problem that has degraded the performance and limited the commercialization of lithium sulfur batteries. Currently, the composites with covalent triazine frameworks (M-CTFs) modified by metals in the fourth period and graphene (M-CTF/G, M = Li, Ti similar to Zn) were designed as host cathodes and are expected to inhibit the shuttling effect through the modification by the polar metal. Using density functional theory, it was demonstrated that M-CTF/G displayed synergistic adsorption performance of Li2S4 with unsaturated metal-N3 coordinated groups as active sites in the M-CTF. In addition, three solvents with different dielectric constants and polarity, namely, dioxolane, dimethoxyethane dimethyl, and tetramethylurea, were used to investigate the solvent effect, and the effective adsorption energy range of Li2S4 on M-CTF/G was evaluated in the presence of solvents. The theoretical results obtained in this work provide guidance in the design of the cathode and understanding of solvent effects in lithium sulfur batteries.

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