4.8 Article

Complementary surface modification by disordered carbon and reduced graphene oxide on SnO2 hollow spheres as an anode for Li-ion battery

期刊

CARBON
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 342-348

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2017.12.015

关键词

Porous SnO2 hollow spheres; Disordered carbon; Reduced graphene oxide; Double coating; Li-ion batteries

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2016R1A2B4012938]
  2. U.S. Office of Naval Research Global [ONRG: N62909-16-1-2083]
  3. NST grant by the Korea government (MSIP) [CAP-15-04-KITECH]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the efforts to apply SnO2 as an anode, the adoption of carbonaceous materials has been considered as a decent strategy to mitigate volume expansion problem (similar to 300%) during cycling. Nevertheless, it still needs in-depth examinations to identify the individual role of each coating material and further improvements for practical applications. To understand the underlying correlations of various carbon coatings with electrochemical performance of active materials, disordered carbon and reduced graphene oxide (RGO) are selectively used for SnO2 hollow spheres. The disordered carbon, which covered the surfaces of and voids between the primary particles, acts as a buffer layer for volume expansion, and the RGO, that interconnected the hollow secondary particles, provides a 2D-electronic path to the electrode. Finally, both of them are utilized on the SnO2 hollow spheres, namely the double coating is conducted from the expectation of synergistic effects, and it successfully exhibits a moderate capacity after 100 cycles even at 1 C with a low carbon content (7.7 wt. %). The essential factors that are inherently present and thereby significantly affect the electrochemical performance of the SnO2 electrode are successfully identified by a facile dual-carbon modification, so that this strategy will be applicable to other potential active materials. (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

4.8
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