4.8 Article

MIL-100(V) and MIL-100(V)/rGO with various valence states of vanadium ions as sulfur cathode hosts for lithium-sulfur batteries

期刊

NANO RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 344-353

出版社

TSINGHUA UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s12274-016-1326-0

关键词

metal-organic framework; MIL-100(V); MIL-100(V)/reduced; graphene oxide (rGO); lithium-sulfur batteries

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21471091]
  2. Academy of Sciences large apparatus United Fund [11179043]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University [2015JC007]
  4. Taishan Scholar Project of Shandong Province [ts201511004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MIL-100(V) is an inorganic-organic hybrid material composed of trimesic acid ligands and vanadium trimer supertetrahedra. MIL-100(V) is expected to be a good host for sulfur impregnation and an excellent sulfur cathode host for Li-S batteries, not only because of its unique mesoporous structure, but also owing to the presence of vanadium ions with various valence states, which can offer different Lewis acid sites and allow for strong interactions with sulfur and lithium polysulfides. In this study, mesoporous MIL-100(V) and MIL-100(V)/reduced graphene oxide (rGO) composites have been applied as novel hosts for Li-S batteries for the first time. When tested as cathodes for Li-S batteries, both S@MIL-100(V) and S@MIL-100(V)/rGO exhibit excellent electrochemical performance. The S@MIL-100(V) cathode has been demonstrated to have a reversible capacity of similar to 550 mAh/g at 0.1 C (1 C = 1,675 mAh/g) after 200 cycles with low capacity fading of 0.17% per cycle. Moreover, S@MIL-100(V)/rGO maintains a capacity of 650 mAh/g at 0.1 C after 75 cycles, whereas at 0.5 C, the capacity is maintained at 500 mAh/g after 200 cycles and 450 mAh/g after 300 cycles. The above results reveal that the use of MIL-100(V) and MIL-100(V)/rGO as hosts for Li-S batteries can effectively enhance the cycling stability and improve the electrochemical performance of 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

4.8
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