4.7 Article

Na-rich layered Na2Ti1-xCrxO3-x/2 (x=0, 0.06): Na-ion battery cathode materials with high capacity and long cycle life

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00346-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chongqing University
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [0241005202014, 0903005203403]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11632004, 51572182, 11372104, 11372363, 11332013, 5121543]
  4. Key Program for International Science and Technology Cooperation Projects of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFE0125900]
  5. National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Competitive Research Programme (CRP) [NRF-CRP 8-2011-04]
  6. Ministry of Education of Singapore ier 2 MOE [2015-T2-1-011]
  7. National University of Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rechargeable lithium batteries have been well-known and indispensable for portable electronic devices, and have the potential to be used in electric vehicles and smart grids. However, the growing concerns about the availability of lithium resources for large-scale applications have revived interest in sodium ion batteries. Of many obstacles to commercialization of Na-ion batteries, achieving simultaneously a large reversible capacity and good cycling capability of electrode materials remains a major challenge. Here, we report a new cathode material, Na-rich layered oxide Na2Ti0.94Cr0.06O2.97, that delivers high reversible capacity of 336 mAh g(-1) at current density of 18.9 mA g(-1) along with promising cycling capability of 74% capacity retention over 1000 cycles at current of 378 mA g(-1). The high capacity is associated to the redox reaction of oxygen, which is confirmed here by a combined experimental and theoretical study. The present work therefore shows that materials beyond mainstream layered oxides and polyanion compounds should be considered as candidate high-performance cathodes for Na-ion batteries.

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