4.7 Article

Nanoengineered Ultralight and Robust All-Metal Cathode for High-Capacity, Stable Lithium-Oxygen Batteries

期刊

ACS CENTRAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 598-604

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00120

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China [2012CB215500, 2014CB932300]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA09010404]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2016YFB0100100]
  4. Technology and Industry for National Defence of the People's Republic of China [JCKY2016130B010]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21422108, 51472232]
  6. Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Program [20160101289JC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The successful development of Li-O-2 battery technology depends on resolving the issue of cathode corrosion by the discharge product (Li2O2) and/or by the intermediates (LiO2) generated during cell cycling. As an important step toward this goal, we report for the first time the nanoporous Ni with a nanoengineered AuNi alloy surface directly attached to Ni foam as a new all-metal cathode system. Compared with other noncarbonaceous cathodes, the Li-O-2 cell with an all-metal cathode is capable of operation with ultrahigh specific capacity (22,551 mAh g(-1) at a current density of 1.0 A g(-1)) and long-term life (286 cycles). Furthermore, compared with the popularly used carbon cathode, the new all-metal cathode is advantageous because it does not show measurable reactivity toward Li2O2 and/or LiO2. As a result, extensive cydability (40 cycles) with 87.7% Li2O2 formation and decomposition was obtained. These superior properties are explained by the enhanced solvation-mediated formation of the discharge products as well as the tailored properties of the all-metal cathode, including intrinsic chemical stability, high specific surface area, highly porous structure, high conductivity, and superior mechanical stability.

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

4.7
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