4.7 Article

Characterization and electrochemical performances of MoO2 modified LiFePO4/C cathode materials synthesized by in situ synthesis method

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 604, 期 -, 页码 239-244

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.03.134

关键词

Lithium iron phosphate; Molybdenum dioxide; Lithium ion battery; Composite materials; Ionic conduction; Electrochemical performance

资金

  1. Applied Basic Research Project of Sichuan Province [2011JY0101]
  2. Key Fund Project of Sichuan Education Department [13ZA0111]
  3. Natural Science Fund Project of Sichuan Education Department [11ZB239]
  4. Science and Technology Research Project of Mianyang [12G031-1]
  5. Key Project of Mianyang Normal University [2012A11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The MoO2 modified LiFePO4/C cathode materials were synthesized by in situ synthesis method. Phase compositions and microstructures of the products were characterized by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD), SEM, TEM and EDS. Results indicate that MoO2 can sufficiently coat on the LiFePO4 surface and does not alter LiFePO4 crystal structure, the existence of MoO2 decreases the particles size and increases the tap density of cathode materials. The electrochemical behavior of cathode materials was analyzed using galvanostatic measurement, cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The results show that the existence of MoO2 improves electrochemical performance of LiFePO4 cathode materials in specific capability and lithium ion diffusion and charge transfer resistance. The initial charge-discharge specific capacity and apparent lithium ion diffusion coefficient increase, the charge transfer resistance decreases with MoO2 content and maximizes around the MoO2 content is 5 wt%. It has been had further proved that the MoO2 adding enhances the electronic conductivity and lithium ion transport to improve the electrochemical performance of LiFePO4 cathode materials. (C) 2014 Elsevier 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

4.7
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