4.6 Article

Y-Doped Na2ZrO3: A Na-Rich Layered Oxide as a High-Capacity Cathode Material for Sodium-Ion Batteries

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 4785-4792

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00196

关键词

Sodium-ion batteries; Cathodes; Na-rich layered oxide; Capacity; Cycle life

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, 21503025]
  4. Key Program for International Science and Technology Cooperation Projects of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFE0125900]
  5. National University of Singapore
  6. National Research Foundation
  7. Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under Competitive Research Programme (CRP Award) [NRF-CRP 8-2011-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The renewed interest in sodium-ion batteries reflects the persistent concern about the lithium resources that have widespread applications but an uneven distribution, and the overwhelming need for large-scale energy storage. Most exploration has focused on the conventional layered oxides NaxMO2 that stem from lithium-ion cathodes. However, exploring cathode materials with high capacities, long cycle, lives, and low costs because of the large ionic radius and high atomic weight of sodium is a great challenge. Here we report a Na-rich layered oxide, yttrium-doped Na2ZrO3, that serves as a cathode material in sodium ion batteries. This material delivers a large reversible capacity of similar to 180 mAh g(-1) and a good cycle life with no sign of obvious capacity decay over 1500 cycles along with a low cost. The redox reactivity of oxygen is shown to be involved in the sodium extraction insertion processes. This work not only provides a cathode contender to conventional layered oxides NaxMO2 but also suggests that broad classes of defective Na-rich layered oxides could be discovered.

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