4.8 Article

Fragmented Carbon Nanotube Macrofilms as Adhesive Conductors for Lithium-Ion Batteries

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 3049-3059

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nn500585g

关键词

adhesive conductor; conductive binder; lithium-ion batteries; carbon nanotube macrofilms; ultrasound

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CMMI-1067947]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing (NWPU), China [83-TZ-2013]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1067960] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymer binders such as poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) and conductive additives such as carbon black (CB) are indispensable components for manufacturing battery electrodes in addition to active materials. The concept of adhesive conductors employing fragmented carbon nanotube macrofilms (FCNTs) is demonstrated by constructing composite electrodes with a typical active material, LiMn2O4. The adhesive FCNT conductors provide not only a high electrical conductivity but also a strong adhesive force, functioning simultaneously as both the conductive additives and the binder materials for lithium-ion batteries. Such composite electrodes exhibit superior high-rate and retention capabilities compared to the electrodes using a conventional binder (PVDF) and a conductive additive (CB). An in situ tribology method combining wear track imaging and force measurement is employed to evaluate the adhesion strength of the adhesive FCNT conductors. The adhesive FCNT conductors exhibit higher adhesion strength than PVDF. It has further been confirmed that the adhesive FCNT conductor can be used in both cathodes and anodes and is proved to be a competent substitute for polymer binders to maintain mechanical integrity and at the same time to provide electrical connectivity of active materials in the composite electrodes. The organic-solvent-free electrode manufacturing offers a promising strategy for the battery industry.

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