4.6 Article

Carbon-black-based self-standing porous electrode for 500 Wh/kg rechargeable lithium-oxygen batteries

期刊

CELL REPORTS PHYSICAL SCIENCE
卷 2, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100506

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  2. ALCA-SPRING (Advanced Low Carbon Technology Research and Development Program - Specially Promoted Research for Innovative Next Generation Batteries) Project of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) [JPMJAL1301]
  3. National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS) Battery Research Platform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a carbon black powder-based self-standing membrane that improved the discharge capacity of lithium-oxygen batteries, resulting in the fabrication of a 500Wh/kg class rechargeable lithium-oxygen battery, which demonstrated repeated discharge/charge cycles at 0.1C-rate.
While lithium-oxygen batteries exhibit high theoretical energy densities that by far exceed those of conventional lithium-ion batteries, there are a limited number of examples that actually demonstrate cells with high energy density. The limitation of the positive electrode with a capacity high enough to sustain repeated discharge/charge cycles under high areal capacity conditions hinders the implementation of the lithium-oxygen batteries with practically high energy density. In this study, we develop a carbon black powder-based self-standing membrane, which exhibits a discharge capacity of similar to 7,000 mAh/g(electrode) even under high current density conditions (>0.4 mA/cm(2)). Using the developed self-standing carbon membrane as the positive electrode, a 500-Wh/kg class rechargeable lithium-oxygen battery was fabricated and a repeated discharge/charge cycle was demonstrated at 0.1 C-rate. The results obtained in this study provide new material research directions to realize high energy density rechargeable lithium-oxygen batteries and facilitate their future development.

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

4.6
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