4.8 Article

Comparison of reduction products from graphite oxide and graphene oxide for anode applications in lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 2585-2595

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6nr07650e

关键词

-

资金

  1. JST ALCA Program [22310074]
  2. NIMS microstructural characterization platform as a program of the Nanotechnology Platform of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25410256] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrazine-reduced graphite oxide and graphene oxide were synthesized to compare their performances as anode materials in lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries. Reduced graphite oxide inherits the layer structure of graphite, with an average spacing between neighboring layers (d-spacing) of 0.374 nm; this exceeds the d-spacing of graphite (0.335 nm). The larger d-spacing provides wider channels for transporting lithium ions and sodium ions in the material. We showed that reduced graphite oxide as an anode in lithium-ion batteries can reach a specific capacity of 917 mA h g(-1), which is about three times of 372 mA h g(-1), the value expected for the LiC6 structures on the electrode. This increase is consistent with the wider d-spacing, which enhances lithium intercalation and de-intercalation on the electrodes. The electrochemical performance of the lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries with reduced graphite oxide anodes show a noticeable improvement compared to those with reduced graphene oxide anodes. This improvement indicates that reduced graphite oxide, with larger interlayer spacing, has fewer defects and is thus more stable. In summary, we found that reduced graphite oxide may be a more favorable form of graphene for the fabrication of electrodes for lithium-ion and sodium-ion batteries and other energy storage devices.

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