4.7 Article

Lithium dextran sulfate as dynamic and sustainable coating to stabilize lithium deposition

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY ENERGY
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mtener.2023.101298

关键词

Lithium metal batteries; Lithium-free anode; Lithium dendrites; Dynamic binders; Interface stabilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a renewable lithium dextran sulfate (LDS) binder that can dynamically bind to current collectors and metallic Li, and regulate Li-ion diffusion. The full cells with LDS coated Cu foil as anode exhibit excellent cycling stability and Coulombic efficiency.
Lithium metal batteries (LMBs) are attractive because of ultra-high energy density, but the critical problem of lithium dendrites hinders their commercialization. Intensive researches have been devoted to homogenizing the electron distribution of the current collectors to prevent the lithium dendrite. In this work, a renewable lithium dextran sulfate (LDS) binder that can reversibly, dynamically, and strongly bind to the Cu current collectors as well as metallic Li through the -O-SO3- functional group, and has the special characteristic of single-ion-conducting is proposed to regulate homogeneous Li-ion diffusion, stabilize the electrode interface, and considerably decrease the surface stress, thus guide uniform lithium deposition and propagation, endowing the lithium-free LMBs with outstanding areal capacity and cycling stability. The full cells employing the LDS coated Cu foil as Li-free anode and 4.6 V LiCoO2 (LCO) as cathode exhibit an initial capacity of 189 mAh/g with a Coulombic efficiency (CE) of 97%. And the CE increases to more than 99.7% after 20 cycles. The reversible capacity retention rate was more than 72.1% after 100 cycles. This simple strategy of ion distribution homogenization by dynamic binder coating is inspiring to tackle the long-standing problem of metal dendrites for commercial feasibility of anode-free batteries. (c) 2023 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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