MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2346981532 · doi:10.1149/ma2015-01/2/599

Facile Process and Electrochemical Characterizations of Carbon Nanotube-LiFePO<sub>4</sub> Composite As a Cathode for High Rate Lithium Ion Batteries

2015· article· en· W2346981532 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xiangcheng Sun, Yuefei Zhang, Bo Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCarbon nanotubeLithium (medication)ElectrochemistryNanocompositeCathodeCyclic voltammetryChemical engineeringComposite numberLithium iron phosphateScanning electron microscopeNanotechnologyComposite materialElectrodeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: LiFePO4 nanoparticles were incorporated with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs) via a facile one-step at low temperature polyol process. The CNTs were fund to embed into the LiFePO4 particles that form a network to enhance the electrochemical performance of LiFePO4 electrode. Structural morphologies of these CNT-LiFePO4 composites were investigated by X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. The electrochemical properties were analyzed by charge/discharge testing and cyclic voltammetry. Primary results showed that the CNT-LiFePO4 composites exhibited enhanced electrochemical performance with a good reversibility and the electronic conductivity. Introduction: Lithium-ion batteries have been considered to play an important role in the electric vehicles (HEV) and plug-in HEV (PHEV) in the near future, which require high power density and high energy density. Thus, cathode materials with high rate capability are in demand [1, 2]. LiFePO4 shows promise as a cathode material for HEVs owing to its high specific capacity and excellent structural stability [3, 4]. However, its poor electronic conductivity and lithium diffusion significantly limit its performance at high rates [5-9]. Therefore, studies on LiFePO4 have focused on improving its rate capability. Coatings of conductive materials [5-10] has been reported to improve the electronic conductivity. Recent efforts have been made to improve rate performance of the LiFePO4 by the synthesized nanocomposites using carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [11]. These nano-carbons improve the high rate capability of LiFePO4, when they are uniformly dispersed in the composite. Herein we report the facile synthesis of CNT-LiFePO4composites with the CNT network providing a conduction path. Experimental: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (5 wt.% ) were functionalized via the mixed acid method in order to remove the impurities and acquire excellent dispersion in the polyol medium. CNT-LiFePO4 nanocomposites were obtained by using a polyol process as follows: first, the CNTs were added into 100 ml of ethylene glycol and a homogeneous dispersion was achieved by an ultrasonic process. Then, pristine LiFePO4 particles (~50 nm) were directly dissolved into the dispersion by mechanical agitation in a three-neck round flask. Lastly, the mixed dispersion was heated to above its boiling point and maintained for 10 h under stirring and refluxing. After cooling down, the products were separated from the solvent via centrifugation. In order to remove the organic residue impurities, the products were washed with deionized water several times. Finally, the CNT-LiFePO4composite powders were dried at 100 °C for 24 h. Structural morphology were characterized by X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopy (SEM, TEM). Electrochemical performances were investigated by galvanostatic charge-discharge and cyclic voltammetry (CV) over the voltage between 2.0 and 4.0 V using coin cells (CR2032) at a LAND-CT2001A battery-testing system. Results: The morphology of the composites were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as showed in Fig.1 that the LiFePO4 nanoparticles are dispersed uniformly with the CNT network. The electrochemical CVs tests were performed in the voltage of 2.0 and 4.0 V at the scanning rate of 0.1 mV s−1. A pair of redox peaks is clearly exhibited in the CNT-LiFePO4 composite cathode, which correspond to the two-phase charge-discharge reaction of the Fe2+/Fe3+ redox couple. The peak curves are very symmetric. The oxidation and reduction peaks appear at around 3.5 and 3.3 V with the potential gap of 0.2 V, which is less than the value of pristine LiFePO4 cathode as reported, and suggested that electrode reaction reversibility and the electronic conductivity of these composites are greatly enhanced owing to the incorporation of CNTs. Acknowledgements: Financial supports from University of Waterloo President’s Award, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (WIN) are greatly appreciated. References: [1] J. W. Fergus, J. Power Sources, 195 (2010) 939. [2] P. Gibot, M. Casas-Cabanas, L. Laffont, S. Levasseur, P. Carlach, S. Hamelet, J.-M. Tarascon, C. Masquelier, Nat. Mater., 7 (2008) 741. [3] A. K. Padhi, K.S. Nanjundaswamy, J.B. Goodenough, J. Electrochem. Soc., 144 (1997) 1188. [4] S. F. Yang, P.Y. Zavalij, M. S.Whittingham, Electrochem. Commun. 3 (2001) 505. [5] X. L. Yang, F. Mou, G. Peng, Z. X. Dai, Z.Y. Wen, J. Power Sources, 204 (2012) 182. [6] M. Konarova, I. Taniguchi, J. Power Sources, 195 (2010) 3661. [7] X. M. Lou, Y.X. Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. 21 (2011) 4156. [8] F. Q. Cheng, W. Wan, Z. Tan, Y.Y. Huang, H.H. Zhou, X.X. Zhang, Electrochim. Acta, 56 (2011) 2999. [9] Y. H. Huang, H.B. Ren, S.G. Yin, Y.H. Wang, Z.H. Peng, Y.H. Zhou, J. Power Sources, 195 (2010) 610. [10] Y.H. Huang, J.B. Goodenough, Chem. Mater., 20 (2008) 7237. [11] T. Muraliganth, A.V. Murugan, A. Manthiram, J. Mater. Chem., 18 (2008) 5661. Figure 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→