SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2014 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 5

Performance degradation of LixFePO4 (x = 0, 1) induced by postannealing

Xiaofei SUN
Youlong XU
Xiaoyu ZHENG
Xiangfei MENG
Rui ZHANG
Pages
837–849
Publication Date
2014-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, the ``self-healing'' process along with cycling is analyzed by in-situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Olivine LiFePO4 has been studied for more than a decade as a promising cathode material for rechargeable lithium batteries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Micro-sized LiFePO4 is prepared by an optimized hydrothermal method in this paper.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, the ``self-healing'' process along with cycling is analyzed by in-situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Lithium iron phosphate · hydrothermal synthesis · postannealing

Abstract

Olivine LiFePO4 has been studied for more than a decade as a promising cathode material for rechargeable lithium batteries. However, the low electric conductivity and tap density still hinder its large-scale commercialization. Micro-sized LiFePO4 is prepared by an optimized hydrothermal method in this paper. The influence of postannealing on the physicochemical properties of LiFePO4 and FePO4 is investigated to understand the plausible mechanism for performance degradation. It is found that postannealing even chemical delithiation greatly affects the particle size, morphology, pore distribution, surface area, and probably the lattice strain of LixFePO4 (x = 0, 1). Consequently, the electrochemical performances of annealed materials are severely deteriorated because of the sluggish lithium diffusion, difficult electrolyte accessibility, and incomplete phase transition during charge/discharge. In addition, the ``self-healing'' process along with cycling is analyzed by in-situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction.

Özet

Olivine LiFePO4 has been studied for more than a decade as a promising cathode material for rechargeable lithium batteries. However, the low electric conductivity and tap density still hinder its large-scale commercialization. Micro-sized LiFePO4 is prepared by an optimized hydrothermal method in this paper. The influence of postannealing on the physicochemical properties of LiFePO4 and FePO4 is investigated to understand the plausible mechanism for performance degradation. It is found that postannealing even chemical delithiation greatly affects the particle size, morphology, pore distribution, surface area, and probably the lattice strain of LixFePO4 (x = 0, 1). Consequently, the electrochemical performances of annealed materials are severely deteriorated because of the sluggish lithium diffusion, difficult electrolyte accessibility, and incomplete phase transition during charge/discharge. In addition, the ``self-healing'' process along with cycling is analyzed by in-situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction.

🔖

Cite This Article

SUN, X., XU, Y., ZHENG, X., MENG, X., ZHANG, R. (2014). Performance degradation of LixFePO4 (x = 0, 1) induced by postannealing. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 5, 837–849. https://ajindex.com/articles/184788

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Armand, M.; Tarascon, J. M. Nature 2008, 451, 652–657.
  2. Whittingham, M. S. Proc. IEEE 2012, 100, 1518–1534.
  3. Dunn, B.; Kamath, H.; Tarascon J. M. Science 2011, 334, 928–935.
  4. Goodenough, J. B. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2012, 16, 2019–2029.
  5. Cheng, F. Y.; Liang, J.; Tao, Z. L.; Chen J. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 1695–1715. Kang K. S.; Meng, Y. S.; Breger, J.; Grey, C. P.; Ceder, G. Science 2006, 311, 977–980.
  6. Kraytsberg, A.; Ein-Eli, Y. Adv. Energy Mater. 2012, 2, 922–939.
  7. Gong, Z. L.; Yang, Y. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3223–3242.
  8. Nyten, A.; Abouimrane, A.; Armand, M.; Gustafsson, T.; Thomas, J. O. Electrochem. Commun. 2005, 7, 156–160.
  9. Kim, J. C.; Moore, C. J.; Kang, B.; Hautier, G.; Jain, A.; Ceder, G. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2011, 158, A309–A315. Sun, X.; Xu, Y.; Jia, M.; Ding, P.; Liu, Y.; Chen, K. J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 2501–2507.
  10. Barpanda, P.; Ati, M.; Melot, B. C.; Rousse, G.; Chotard, J. N.; Doublet, M. L.; Sougrati, M. T.; Corr, S. A.; Jumas, J. C.; Tarascon, J. M. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 772–779.
  11. Goodenough, J. B.; Kim, Y. Chem. Mater. 2010, 22, 587–603.
  12. Manthiram, A. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2011, 2, 176–184.
  13. Padhi, A. K.; Nanjundaswamy, K. S.; Goodenough, J. B. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1997, 144, 1188–1194.
  14. Park, O. K.; Cho, Y.; Lee, S.; Yoo, H. C.; Song, H. K.; Cho, J. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 1621–1633.
  15. Morgan, D.; Ven, A. V. d.; Ceder, G. Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 2004, 7, A30–A32. Islam, M. S.; Driscoll, D. J.; Fisher, C. A. J.; Slater, P. R. Chem. Mater. 2005, 17, 5085–5092.
  16. Nishimura, S. I.; Kobayashi, G.; Ohoyama, K.; Kanno, R.; Yashima, M.; Yamada, A. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 707–711.
  17. Andersson, A. S.; Thomas, J. O. J. Power Sources 2001, 97–98, 498–502.
  18. Guoying, C.; Xiangyun, S.; Thomas, J. R. Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 2006, 9, A295–A298. Laffont, L.; Delacourt, C.; Gibot, P.; Wu, M. Y.; Kooyman, P.; Masquelier, C.; Tarascon, J. M. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 5520–5529.
  19. Delmas, C.; Maccario, M.; Croguennec, L.; Le Cras, F.; Weill, F. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 665–671.
  20. Yamada, A.; Koizumi, H.; Nishimura, S. I.; Sonoyama, N.; Kanno, R.; Yonemura, M.; Nakamura, T.; Kobayashi, Y. Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 357–360.
  21. Gu, L.; Zhu, C.; Li, H.; Yu, Y.; Li, C.; Tsukimoto, S.; Maier, J.; Ikuhara, Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 4661–4663.
  22. Malik, R.; Zhou, F.; Ceder, G. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 587–590.
  23. Bai, P.; Cogswell, D. A.; Bazant, M. Z. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 4890–4896.
  24. Wang, J.; Sun, X. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 5163–5185.
  25. Kang, B.; Ceder, G. Nature 2009, 458