4.6 Article

Surfactant-free self-assembly of reduced graphite oxide-MoO2 nanobelt composites used as electrode for lithium-ion batteries

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 972-981

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2016.06.139

关键词

surfactant-free; self-assembly; rGO-MoO2 composite; anode; lithium battery

资金

  1. Key Projects in Nature Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2011030]
  2. Major Project of Educational Commission of Jiangsu Province of China [13KJA430004]
  3. Project of Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  4. Changjiang Scholars Program [T2011170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene/metal oxide nanocomposites are promising electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), in which synergistic effects between the two components may benefit the overall capacity, rate capability and cycling stability. Here, we report a simple and easy scale-up method for the preparation of high-quality reduced graphite oxide-MoO2 (rGO-MoO2) nanobelt composites, which demonstrate attractive electrochemical performance as LIB anodes. MoO3 nanobelts are first prepared by a simple hydrothermal route and distributed homogeneously in water, and then graphite oxide (GO) is prepared by a modified Hummers method and introduced into the solution. Both materials slowly self-assemble to form GO-MoO3 nanocomposite in a surfactant-free manner. After thermal reduction, rGO-MoO2 nanobelt composites are obtained, as confirmed by FE-SEM and TEM. Using such composite as LIB electrodes, a reversible capacity of 754 mAh g(-1) is obtained after 80 cycles at 0.2 A g(-1), and the electrode also demonstrates superior rate capabilities. These results are comparable to or even higher than those of other reported graphene-MoO2 composites, which are fabricated in more complicated fashions, thus rendering the current product as highly promising electrode materials for practical use. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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