4.8 Article

Electrochemical Li-ion storage in defect spinel iron oxides: the critical role of cation vacancies

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 1495-1502

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0ee00819b

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-98CH10886]
  2. Office of Naval Research
  3. Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center's In-house Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are the preferred power source for consumer electronic devices, but the cost and toxicity of many cathode materials limit their scale-up. Worldwide research efforts are addressing this concern by transitioning from conventional Co- and Ni-based intercalation hosts towards Fe-and Mn-based alternatives. The unfavorable energetics of the Fe2+/3+ redox couple and limited Li-insertion capacities render the use of iron oxides impractical. We address this limitation with the defect spinel ferrite gamma-Fe2O3 as a model structure for Li-ion insertion by replacing a fraction of the Fe3+ sites with highly oxidized Mo6+ to generate cation vacancies that shift the onset of Li-ion insertion to more positive potentials as well as increase capacity. In the present study, native and Mo-substituted iron oxides are synthesized via base-catalyzed precipitation in aqueous media, yielding nanocrystalline spinel materials that also exhibit short-range disorder characteristic of a proton-stabilized structure. The Mo-substituted ferrite reported herein is estimated to have similar to 3x as many cation vacancies as gamma-Fe2O3 with a corresponding increase in the Li-ion capacity to >100 mA h g(-1) between 4.1 and 2.0 V vs. Li/Li+. This dual enhancement in capacity and insertion potential will enable these and related defect spinel ferrites to be explored as positive electrode materials for lithium batteries, while retaining the cost advantages of a material whose metal composition is still predominately iron based.

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