4.6 Article

Effect of lead and tin additives on surface morphology evolution of electrodeposited zinc

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 242, 期 -, 页码 364-372

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2017.04.130

关键词

Zn batteries; Additive; Mossy structures

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI Grant [25249104]
  2. Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects [2016B-161]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25249104] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of Pb and Sn additives on electrodeposition of Zn were investigated for the applications in Zn secondary battery, focused on their roles on morphological evolution. Similarly to well-known effect of Pb addition to smoothly electrodeposit Zn film surface, Sn also exhibited to suppress the formation of mossy structures, which were highly filamentous Zn electrodeposits to cause frequently battery failure. Pb significantly shifted deposition potential of Zn to negative value at concentration less than 1.0 mmol dm(-3), while Sn showed no substantial effect even at 50 mmol dm(-3). The morphological evolution analysis demonstrated that the addition of 1.0 mmol dm(-3) Pb significantly altered nucleation behavior of Zn at initial stages of deposition; stacking of layer-like structures (microsteps) were altered to discrete and uniform nuclei of Zn preferentially oriented to (002) direction. In contrast, with Sn additive, morphological features at the initial stage of deposition were similar to that without additive. However, microsteps evolution was gradually suppressed and relatively strong (002) texture of electrodeposited Zn was mitigated by Sn addition. These results suggested that the beneficial roles of Pb and Sn addition on Zn morphological evolution were ascribed to different reasons; Pb diminished the active growth sites of Zn surface by suppressing the deposition reaction of Zn, while Sn suppressed microsteps evolution by different texture evolution of Zn. (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