4.6 Article

Hydrothermal synthesis of antimony oxychlorides submicron rods as anode materials for lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 254, 期 -, 页码 246-254

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2017.09.136

关键词

Antimony oxychlorides; Submicron rods; Anode materials; Lithium-ion batteries; Sodium-ion batteries

资金

  1. National Natural Foundation of China [51672234, 51202209]
  2. Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province [15B229, 16C1534]
  3. Research Foundation for Hunan Youth Outstanding People from Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Department [2015RS4030]
  4. Hunan Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemical Engineering Technology
  5. Environmental Benignity and Effective Resource Utilization
  6. Program for Innovative Research Cultivation Team in University of Ministry of Education of China [1337304]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimony oxychlorides submicron rods have been successfully synthesized by a simple and facile hydrothermal reaction, as characterized by a series of physical tests. Antimony oxychlorides material shows outstanding lithium-storage performance, which has a high initial discharge capacity of 1355.6 mAh g(-1) and maintaining a discharge capacity of 402 mAh g(-1) after 100 cycles at a current density of 50 mA g(-1) in the voltage range of 0.01-2.0 V (vs. Li/Li+). Even up to 5000 mA g(-1), the discharge capacity of 485 mAh g(-1) is obtained, indicating an excellent rate capability and a prominent cycle performance. What's more, antimony oxychlorides material also exhibits brilliant cycle property in NIBs at a current density of 50 mA g(-1) in the voltage range of 0.01-2.0 V (vs. Na/Na+). Antimony oxychlorides submicron rods have remarkable rate performance and distinguished cycle capability, indicating that antimony oxychlorides material is one of promising anode materials for both lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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