4.7 Article

High-Entropy Oxide Nanofibers as Catalytic Host Promising High Volumetric Capacity of Sulfur-Based Composites for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

期刊

ACS APPLIED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.3c01087

关键词

lithium-sulfur batteries; high-entropy oxide; electrocatalysis; volumetric capacity; electrochemicalperformance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, high-entropy oxide (HEO) nanofibers were used as sulfur hosts for the first time, showing good rate capacity and cycling stability due to strong chemical interaction with lithium polysulfides. The tap density of the sulfur/HEO composite was also significantly higher than that of the sulfur/CNT composite, leading to a higher volumetric capacity. This research provides a promising strategy for improving the volumetric energy density and electrochemical performance of lithium-sulfur batteries.
The exploration of the appropriate sulfur host with favorablecatalyticactivity and high density is important to enhance the volumetric energydensity of lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries. In thiswork, high-entropy oxide (HEO) of (Ni0.2Co0.2Mn0.2Cu0.2Zn0.2)WO4 (HE-CWO)nanofibers is fabricated as the sulfur host for the first time. Themultiple metal cations in the single-phase structure of HE-CWO nanofibersenable strong chemical interaction with soluble lithium polysulfidesand fast conversion kinetics from polysulfides to the final dischargeproduct of Li2S2/Li2S. Therefore,the S/HE-CWO composite exhibits a good rate capacity with 656.3 mAh g(-1) at 5C rate and desirable cycling stabilitywith a slow fading rate of 0.080% per cycle for 500 cycles at 1C rate.Moreover, the tap density of the S/HE-CWO composite reaches 1.98 gcm(-3), nearly twice as high as that of the S/CNTcomposite (0.96 g cm(-3)), leading to a high volumetriccapacity of 1795.3 mA h cm(-3) (-composite). This work affords a promising strategy for improving the volumetricenergy density and 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

4.7
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