4.6 Article

Behaviour of highly crystalline graphitic materials in lithium-ion cells with propylene carbonate containing electrolytes:: An in situ Raman and SEM study

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 52, 期 15, 页码 4884-4891

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2006.12.081

关键词

lithium-ion battery; intercalation; in situ Raman microscopy; graphite; propylene carbonate; exfoliation; SEM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microcrystalline flaked graphites SFG6 and SFG44 were evaluated with regard to their compatibility with propylene carbonate (PC) by in situ Raman microscopy and postmortem scanning electron microscopy (SEM) study. PC is employed as electrolyte component in lithium-ion batteries. However, when used with certain types of graphitic materials, exfoliation occurs. To compare the effects of exfoliation, the first lithium insertion properties of these graphitic materials were measured with in situ Raman microscopy. Lithium half-cells containing either I M LiClO4 1:1 (w/w) ethylene carbonate (EC):dimethyl carbonate (DMC) or 1: 1 (w/w) EC:PC were investigated. The commencement of the exfoliation process was detected in SFG44 EC:PC by the appearance of a shoulder band at 1597 cm(-1) on the G-band (1584 cm-1) below 0.9 V versus Li/Li+. The band (assigned as the exfoliation or E-band) at higher wavenumbers (1597 cm-1) corresponded to solvated lithium ions intercalated into graphite. The in situ Raman spectra of SFG6 in EC:DMC or EC:PC and SFG44 in EC:DMC did not show the E-band and instead displayed regular lithium intercalation spectra. In situ Raman microscopy and SEM were, further employed to study the exfoliation process observed for SFG44 in 1: 1 (w/w) EC:PC, when the potential was held under steady-state conditions at 0.8, 0.6 and 0.3 V, respectively. A blue-shift in the E-band from 1597 to 1607 cm(-1) was observed as the potential was lowered. SEM images showed dissimilar degrees of exfoliation at these three potentials. (c) 2007 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

4.6
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