4.8 Article

Layered Li(Ni0.5-xMn0.5-xM′2x)O2 (M′ = Co, Al, Ti; x = 0, 0.025) cathode materials for Li-ion rechargeable batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 112, 期 1, 页码 41-48

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00360-9

关键词

lithium-ion rechargeable battery; cathode materials; lithium manganese nickel oxides; layered structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Layered Li(Ni0.5-xMn0.5-xM'(2x))O-2 materials (M' = Co, Al, Ti; x = 0, 0.025) were synthesized using a manganese-nickel hydroxide precursor, and the effect of dopants on the electrochemical properties was investigated. Li(Ni0.5Mn0.5)02 exhibited a discharge capacity of 120 mAh/g in the voltage range of 2.8-4.3 V with a slight capacity fade up to 40 cycles (0.09% per cycle); by doping of 5 mol% Co, Al, and Ti, the discharge capacities increased to 140, 142, and 132 mAh/g, respectively, and almost no capacity fading was observed. The cathode material containing 5 mol% Co had the lowest impedance, 47 Q cm 2, while undoped, Ti-doped, and Al-doped materials had impedance of 64, 62, and 99 Omega cm(2), respectively. Unlike the other dopants, cobalt was found to improve the electronic conductivity of the material. Further improvement in the impedance of these materials is needed to meet the requirement for powering hybrid electric vehicle (HEV, <35 Omega cm(2)). In all materials, structural transformation from a layered to a spinel structure was not observed during electrochemical cycling. Cyclic voltammetry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data suggested that Ni and Mn exist as Ni2+ and Mn4+ in the layered structure. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) data showed that exothermic peaks of fully charged Li1-y(Ni0.5-xMn0.5-xM'(2x))O-2 appeared at higher temperature (270-290 degreesC) than LiNiO2-based cathode materials, which indicates that the thermal stability of Li(Ni0.5-xMn0.5-xM'(2x))O-2 is better than those of LiNiO2-based cathode materials. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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