4.6 Article

Flexible and lightweight interlayer boosts lithium-sulfur batteries for wide temperature range applications

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 433, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2022.141291

关键词

Lithium -sulfur batteries; Carbonized cotton tissue; Multifunctional interlayer; Polysulfide barrier; Wide -temperature operation

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
  2. Shenzhen Basic Research Project
  3. [2019A1515011573]
  4. [2019A1515011955]
  5. [20200829101039001]
  6. [GXWD20201231165806004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study addresses the issues faced by lithium-sulfur batteries and demonstrates their excellent performance with the use of carbonized cotton tissue as an interlayer, even at different temperatures.
Lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs) have been extensively investigated in view of their ultrahigh theoretical specific capacity, whereas their practical applications are restricted by various factors such as the shuttle effect, sluggish reaction kinetics, and extreme temperature conditions. Herein, the carbonized cotton tissue (CCT) is developed as an interlayer for LSBs due to the accessibility of the materials and the tunability of the structure. The CCT obtained at the optimized carbonization temperature can simultaneously possess favorable structural stability and exceptional conductivity. Benefiting from the CCT interlayer, LSBs with a sulfur loading of 2 mg cm-2 can deliver excellent cycling performance (966 mAh g-1@0.2 C and 756 mAh g-1@1 C) and exceptional rate performance (648 mAh g-1@2 C). Furthermore, the strategy of equipping LSBs with the CCT interlayer has been proven to be effective in a wide temperature range, and the mechanism of which has been explored in depth as well. Specifically, the batteries can deliver high capacities of 1072 mAh g-1 and 650 mAh g-1 at 50 degrees C and 0 degrees C, respectively. The present work provides significant insight into the commercial viability of LSBs.

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