4.8 Article

Core-shell Si@TiO2 nanosphere anode by atomic layer deposition for Li-ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 308, 期 -, 页码 75-82

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.01.049

关键词

Silicon nanospheres; Titanium dioxide overcoating; Atomic layer deposition (ALD); Cycling performance; Buffering effect

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50902044, 21473169, 51402283]
  2. 863 Program of China [2015AA034201]
  3. State Scholarship Fund from China Scholarship Council [201308410027]
  4. Program for Science & Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province, China [16HASTIT042]
  5. Recruitment Program of Global Youth Experts
  6. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars
  7. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering
  8. UT-Battelle, LLC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon (Si) has been regarded as next-generation anode for high-energy lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) due to its high Li storage capacity (4200 mA h g(-1)). However, the mechanical degradation and resultant capacity fade critically hinder its practical application. In this regard, we demonstrate that nanocoating of Si spheres with a 3 nm titanium dioxide (TiO2) layer via atomic layer deposition (ALD) can utmostly balance the high conductivity and the good structural stability to improve the cycling stability of Si core material. The resultant sample, Si@TiO2-3 nm core-shell nanospheres, exhibits the best electrochemical performance of all with a highest initial Coulombic efficiency and specific charge capacity retention after 50 cycles at 0.1C (82.39% and 1580.3 mA h g(-1)). In addition to making full advantage of the ALD technique, we believe that our strategy and comprehension in coating the electrode and the active material could provide a useful pathway towards enhancing Si anode material itself and community of LIBs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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