4.7 Article

?One Stone Two Birds? Strategy of Synthesizing the Battery Material Lithium Sulfide: Aluminothermal Reduction of Lithium Sulfate

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 14, 页码 5576-5585

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.3c00087

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers propose an aluminothermal method for synthesizing lithium sulfide, which has advantages of lower temperature, shorter completion time, no greenhouse gas emissions, and valuable byproducts like aluminum oxide compared to the traditional carbothermal method. The homemade lithium sulfide shows competitive performance in battery tests and using the byproduct aluminum oxide can enhance the battery's capacity without affecting its rate capability. This one stone two birds method has great potential for practical applications in developing Li-S batteries.
Lithium sulfide (Li2S) is a critical material for clean energy technologies, i.e., the cathode material in lithium-sulfur batteries and the raw material for making sulfide solid electrolytes in all -solidstate batteries. However, its practical application at a large scale is hindered by its industrial production method of reducing lithium sulfate with carbon materials at high temperatures, which emits carbon dioxide and is time-consuming. We hereby report a method of synthesizing Li2S by thermally reducing lithium sulfate with aluminum. Compared with the carbothermal method, this aluminothermal approach has several advantages, such as operation at lower temperatures, completion in minutes, no emission of greenhouse gases, and valuable byproducts of aluminum oxide (Al2O3). The home-made Li2S demonstrates competitive performance in battery tests versus the commercial counterpart. Moreover, using the byproduct Al2O3 to coat the cathode side of the separator can enhance the battery's capacity without influencing its rate capability. Thus, this one stone two birds method has great potential for practical applications of developing Li-S 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