4.8 Article

Comparative performance of LiFePO4 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode materials for lithium batteries with solid-liquid hybrid electrolytes

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 515, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230639

Keywords

Solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte; Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)(3); LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode; LiFePO4 cathode

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid-state lithium metal batteries have excellent safety and energy density, but face challenges such as large interface resistance. By using a solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte, this study was able to improve battery performance and stability, delivering high discharge capacity and capacity retention rates in different battery systems.
Solid-state lithium metal batteries have excellent safety and energy density features compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries. However, they also suffer from large interface resistance and unstable contact with lithium metal resulting in a low rate and short cycle performance. Here, we utilize liquid electrolyte (LE) drips at the Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)(3) (LATP)/electrode interface to form a solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte and reduce the interface impedance. In addition, the resulting solid-liquid electrolyte interface (SLEI) can prevent the reduction of LATP by lithium. Li/Li symmetric batteries exhibit excellent cycle stability of 500 h at 0.2 mA cm(-1) when the volume ratio of liquid electrolyte to solid electrolyte LATP is 15% (SE-15% LE). The LiFePO4/SE-15%LE/Li battery system exhibit a high discharge capacity (151 mAh g(-1)) at 0.1 C and an excellent capacity retention rate (96.5% after 100 cycles at 25 degrees C). Moreover, the NCM622/SE-15% LE/Li battery system delivers an ultrahigh specific capacity of 184.3 mAh g(-1) at 0.1 C. Overall, this study compares and explains the performance of the two cathode material systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available