4.8 Article

Lithium Ion Battery Peformance of Silicon Nanowires with Carbon Skin

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 915-922

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nn405710w

关键词

silicon; tin; nanowires; anode; carbon coating; lithium-ion battery; in situ TEM

资金

  1. Robert A. Welch Foundation [F-1464]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001091]
  3. DOE's Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  4. DOE [DE-AC05-76RLO1830]
  5. Department of Defense through the National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program
  6. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network via the NSF [ECCS-0335765]
  7. Nanotechnology Platform of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  8. Chemical Imaging Initiative at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
  9. program Understanding Charge Separation and Transfer at Interfaces in Energy Materials (EFRC: CST), an Energy Frontier Research Center
  10. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [12J08258] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon (Si) nanomaterials have emerged as a leading candidate for next generation lithium-ion battery anodes. However, the low electrical conductivity of Si requires the use of conductive additives in the anode film. Here we report a solution-based synthesis of Si nanowires with a conductive carbon skin. Without any conductive additive, the Si nanowire electrodes exhibited capacities of over 2000 mA h g(-1) for 100 cycles when cycled at C/10 and over 1200 mA h g(-1) when cycled more rapidly at 1C against Li metal. In situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) observation reveals that the carbon skin performs dual roles: it speeds lithiation of the Si nanowires significantly, while also constraining the final volume expansion. The present work sheds light on ways to optimize lithium battery performance by smartly tailoring the nanostructure of composition of materials based on silicon and carbon.

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