4.8 Article

Effect of Eliminating Water in Prussian Blue Cathode for Sodium-Ion Batteries

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202111727

关键词

phase transitions; Prussian blue; sodium; synchrotron X-ray diffraction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51971124, 52171217]
  2. Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) Project [G00849]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201606370024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prussian blue analogs (PBAs) are promising cathode materials for sodium-ion batteries due to their low cost, comparable energy density and long cycle life. However, the crystal water in PBAs can have significant side effects on battery performance. Researchers have developed a heat-treatment method to remove water from PBAs, improving their high temperature storage performance.
Prussian blue analogs (PBAs) are promising cathode materials for sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) due to their low-cost, similar energy density comparable with that of LiFePO4 in lithium-ion batteries, and long cycle life. Nevertheless, crystal water (approximate to 10 wt%) in PBAs from aqueous synthesis environments can bring significant side effects in real SIBs, especially for calendar life and high temperature storage performance. Therefore, it is of great importance to eliminate crystal water in PBAs for future commercial applications. Herein, a facile heat-treatment method is reported in order to remove water from Fe-based PBAs. Although the heat-treated sample can be easily rehydrated in air, it still exhibits a stable cycling performance over 2000 times under controlled charge cut-off voltage. In situ synchrotron high-temperature powder X-ray diffraction demonstrates that the as-prepared sample is maintained at a new trigonal phase after dehydration. Moreover, the redox reaction of low-spin Fe2+/Fe3+ is activated and the high-temperature storage performance of as-prepared sample is significantly improved after removal of water.

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

4.8
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