4.6 Article

Stabilization of all-solid-state Li-S batteries with a polymer-ceramic sandwich electrolyte by atomic layer deposition

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 6, 期 46, 页码 23712-23719

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8ta09069f

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Automotive Battery Research Institute-Western University Joint Laboratory
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Canada Research Chair (CRC) Program
  4. Ontario Research Fund
  5. Canada Light Source (CLS)
  6. University of Western Ontario
  7. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All-solid-state lithium-sulfur batteries (ASSLSBs) are promising candidates as the power source for future electric vehicles due to their high energy density and superior safety properties. However, one of the major challenges of state-of-the-art ASSLSBs is related to the high interfacial resistance resulting from the instability between the solid-state electrolyte (SSE) and electrodes and/or the side reactions between polysulfides and SSE. Herein, we propose and demonstrate the significant enhancement of the cycling stability of an ASSLSB through atomic layer deposition interfacial engineering on the polymer/oxide ceramic/polymer sandwich-structured SSE. The results show that as few as 10 cycles of ALD Al2O3 on the LATP can endow ASSLSBs with a discharge capacity of 823 mA h g(-1) after 100 charge/discharge cycles, which is almost two times higher than that of the ASSLSB without an ALD coating and that of a Li-S battery with a liquid-based electrolyte. Such improvement is attributed not only to the blocking of the polysulfide shuttling effect via the use of a sandwich SSE but also the significant reduction of the side reaction between the polysulfide and oxide ceramic SSE, which introduces high interfacial resistance and degrades the electrochemical performance. The protection role and mechanism of the ALD layer is also confirmed and revealed by XRD, SEM and XPS measurements.

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