4.8 Article

Insight into cobalt-doping in Li2FeSiO4 cathode material for lithium-ion battery

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 274, Issue -, Pages 194-202

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.10.048

Keywords

Lithium ion battery; Cathode; Lithium iron silicate; Cobalt-doping

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51302153, 51272128]
  2. Key Project of Hubei Provincial Department of Education [D20131303]
  3. Opening Project of CAS Key Laboratory of Materials for Energy Conversion [CKEM131404]
  4. Scientific Fund of China Three Gorges University [KJ2012B043]
  5. Pew Foundation of Master Dissertation of China Three Gorges University [2013PY024]
  6. Faculty Research Grant (FRG) from Sam Houston State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents the preparation and electrochemical performance of cobalt-doped Li2FeSiO4/C (Codoped LFS/C) composite by using a solid-state reaction assisted with refluxing process. The Co-doped LFS/C composite delivers a higher discharge capacity of 142.5 mAh g(-1) at 3.0 C even after 100 cycles compared with pristine LFS/C. A clear feature of cobalt-doping in Li2FeSiO4 has been specified by X-ray powder diffraction, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy coupled with Ar-ion sputtering, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy. It is confirmed that Co has been successfully doped into the lattice of LFS, and Co-doping does not change the monoclinic structure of LFS and the oxidation state of Fe. Positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy analysis further demonstrates that Co-doping increases the defect concentration and the electronic conductivity of LFS. The results clarify the nature of cobalt-doping in LFS and are helpful for understanding the enhancement mechanism of the electrochemical performance of LFS and other cathode materials. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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