4.7 Article

Facile and Cheap Carbonized Cotton Cloth Interlayer Endows Lithium-Sulfur Batteries with High Performance in All Climates

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 2431-2440

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c04033

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, hollow carbonized cotton cloth (CCC) was introduced as an interlayer, which effectively reduced charge transfer resistance and prevented the shuttle effect of polysulfides in lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs). The CCC interlayer enabled high rate and cycling performances of LSBs in all climates. This novel interlayer exhibited ultralow price, light weight, easily scalable preparation, and all-climate good performance, making it highly promising for practical use in the future.
Lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs) have proven the potential for future power sources due to the ultrahigh theoretical specific capacity, material abundance, and eco-friendliness. However, the insulation of sulfur and the notorious shuttle effect of polysulfides impede the practical use. In this work, we introduced the hollow carbonized cotton cloth (CCC) as an interlayer by simple one-step carbonization. CCC reduces the charge transfer resistance and inhibits the shuttle effect, enabling LSBs with high rate and cycling performances in all climates. Specifically, the LSBs based on the CCC interlayer deliver rate capacities of 118, 399, and 879 mAh g-1 at 2 C at -30, 0, and 50 degrees C, respectively. Correspondingly in the 1 C cycling tests, the initial specific capacities are 168, 490, and 885 mAh g-1; the decay rates are 0.029% (1000 cycles), 0.034% (1000 cycles), and 0.056% (800 cycles). Moreover, with a higher sulfur loading of 2.3 mg cm-2, the ambient CCC battery achieves a decay rate of only 0.03% per cycle in the 1 C test (800 cycles). Compared with commercial carbon cloth, the ultralow price, light weight, easily scalable preparation, and all-climate good performance of CCC can extremely push LSBs to practical use in the future.

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