4.7 Article

Improved Li-ion diffusion process in TiO2/rGO anode for lithium-ion battery

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 727, 期 -, 页码 998-1005

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.08.121

关键词

Kinetics; Electrochemical performance; TiO2/rGO; Diffusion coefficient; Li-ion batteries

资金

  1. National Key Technology RD Program [2013BAF09B02]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51472152, 51702198]
  3. Innovation Team Assistance Foundation of Shaanxi Province [2013KCT-06]
  4. Scientific Special Foundation of Shaanxi Province Office of Education [15JK1074]
  5. Graduate Innovation Fund of Shaanxi University of Science and Technology [SUST-1502031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The low diffusion rate of pure TiO2 affects the inferior electrochemical performance such as cycling capacity and rate capability. Many works have been focusing on the material structural control to solve this problem, but the specific mechanism of the electrochemical process still needs further study. In this paper, we prepare titanium dioxide/reduced graphene oxide (TiO2/rGO) hybrids to comprehend the improved diffusion rate by using electrochemical kinetics characterization. Compared with pure TiO2, the TiO2/rGO hybrids have a reduced particle size and layer-shaped structure. For electrochemical test, the TiO2/rGO assembly exhibits high rate capability (similar to 270 mAh g(-1) at 0.1 A g(-1)), and excellent cycling capacity (similar to 180 mAh g(-1) at 0.5 A g(-1) after 2000 cycle). Studying the electrochemical reaction process finds that the charge transfer rate of titanium oxide were significantly increased due to the addition of graphene oxide. A diffusion controlled behavior of Li+ is found to dominate the charge-discharge process in TiO2/rGO hybrids, rather than the capacitive process of the pure TiO2 electrode. This dominated diffusion is believed to inspire both of superior rate and capacity of the TiO2/rGO hybrids in this work. (C) 2017 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