4.8 Article

Dense Graphene Monolith for High Volumetric Energy Density Li-S Batteries

期刊

ADVANCED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 8, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201703438

关键词

graphene monolith; ink-bottle-like pores; lithium-polysulfide batteries; polysulfides; volumetric performance

资金

  1. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, China [51525204]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1401243, 51702229]
  3. Shenzhen Basic Research Project [JCYJ20150529164918734, JCYJ 20170412171630020]
  4. Office of Vehicle Technologies of the U.S. Department of Energy through Advanced Battery Materials Research (BMR) Program
  5. DOE Office of Science by UChicago Argonne, LLC [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the outstanding gravimetric performance of lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries, their practical volumetric energy density is normally lower than that of lithium-ion batteries, mainly due to the low density of nanostructured sulfur as well as the porous carbon hosts. Here, a novel approach is developed to fabricate high-density graphene bulk materials with ink-bottle-like mesopores by phosphoric acid (H3PO4) activation. These pores can effectively confine the polysulfides due to their unique structure with a wide body and narrow neck, which shows only a 0.05% capacity fade per cycle for 500 cycles (75% capacity retention) for accommodating polysulfides. With a density of 1.16 g cm(-3), a hybrid cathode containing 54 wt% sulfur delivers a high volumetric capacity of 653 mA h cm(-3). As a result, a device-level volumetric energy density as high as 408 W h L-1 is achieved with a cathode thickness of 100 mu m. This is a periodic yet practical advance to improve the volumetric performance of Li-S batteries from a device perspective. This work suggests a design principle for the real use Li-S batteries although there is a long way ahead to bridge the gap between Li-S batteries and Li-ion batteries in volumetric performance.

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