4.5 Article

Porous Amorphous Co2P/N,B-Co-doped Carbon Composite as an Improved Anode Material for Sodium-Ion Batteries

期刊

CHEMELECTROCHEM
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 1395-1401

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/celc.201700093

关键词

sodium-ion batteries; cobalt phosphide; amorphous; co-doped carbon; anode materials

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51602048, 21471100]
  2. Science Technology Program of Jilin Province [20150520027JH]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) represent a promising alternative to lithium-ion batteries, owing to the much higher abundance and lower cost of sodium resources in comparison with lithium. However, the electrode materials of SIBs usually suffer from more severe issues, such as low specific capacity and poor cyclability, owing to the much larger Na+ diameter and drastic volumetric variations during sodiation/desodiation. Hence, it is still a huge challenge to develop superior electrode materials for reversible Na storage. In comparison with the crystalline materials conventionally used in batteries, amorphous ones may offer a more stable framework for the uptake of Na. To address these issues, a porous composite composed of amorphous Co2P and N, B-co-doped carbon (A-Co2P/C(x)Ny(Bz)-650) is prepared by controlling the annealing temperature at 650 degrees C after freeze-drying the precursors. As-prepared A-Co2P/CxNyBz-650 exhibits much better Na-storage properties in terms of higher Nastorage capacity, longer cycling stability, and excellent rate performance compared with the crystalline counterparts. These may benefit from the fact that the amorphous framework can provide easier Na+ accessibility and better strain accommodation, originating from volumetric variations during sodiation/desodiation. More importantly, the electrolyte for all of the electrochemical tests are NaPF6 based, which is more accessible for practical applications because of its higher safety compared with the commonly used NaClO4-based electrolyte.

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

4.5
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