| Literature DB >> 34336789 |
Yangyang Dong1, Tingting Li1, Dong Cai1, Shuo Yang1,2, Xuemei Zhou1, Huagui Nie1, Zhi Yang1.
Abstract
<Entities:
Keywords: lithium−sulfur battery; organic electrocatalyst; reaction kinetics; structure–activity relationship; sulfur conversion
Year: 2021 PMID: 34336789 PMCID: PMC8322034 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.703354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
SCHEME 1(A) Ragone plots of typical energy storage systems. (A) Figure reproduced from the data in Rosenman et al. (2015). (B) The galvanostatic charge–discharge profiles of a typical Li−S battery and the corresponding products at each voltage stage. (B) Figure reproduced from data in Liang et al. (2016).
SCHEME 2The dynamic catalytic cycle of sulfur conversion in Li−S batteries.
SCHEME 3Functionalities and effects of organic electrocatalyst in Li−S systems.
FIGURE 1Illustrations of organic electrocatalysts for sulfur hosts. (A) Synergistic effects of Ni3(HITP)2 and CNT on Li−S batteries. The enlarged image is the crystalline of Ni3(HITP)2. (B) Cycling performance of S@Ni3(HITP)2-CNT cathodes at sulfur loadings of 2.9 and 3.8 mg cm−2 under 0.2 C. (C) CV profiles of S@Ni3(HITP)2-CNT at various scan rates. (D) The fitted Li+ diffusion coefficient of S@Ni3(HITP)2-CNT at different redox peaks which indicates the improvement of dynamic performance by synergistic effects of Ni3(HITP)2 and CNTs. (A–D) Figure reproduced from the data in Cai et al. (2019). (E) A schematic diagram of the synthesis of S@EB-COF-PS. (F) S 2p XPS spectra of EB-COF-PS and S@EB-COF-PS. (G) N 1s XPS spectra of S@EB-COF-PS after 1 and 100 cycles of charge/discharge. (H–I) Illustrations of the S@EB-COF-PS battery during discharge/charge processes. (E–I) Figure reproduced from the data in Zeng et al. (2017). (J) The optimized structure of phthalazinone and triazine functioned groups combined with Li2S4. (K) Ultraviolet-visible absorption spectra and optical photos of Super P, reduced graphene oxide (rGO), P-CTFs, and P-CTFs@rGO immersed in Li2S6 solutions. (L) A schematic diagram of the discharge process of S/C, S/P-CTFs, S/P-CTFs@rGO cathodes. (J–L) Figure reproduced from the data in Troschke et al. (2020). (M) The synthetic processes of PPNC, PCNC, and PCNC/S. (N) Charge and discharge curves of PCNC/S-60 cathode at different current densities. (O) Cycling performance of PCNC/S-60 and o-PCNC/S cathodes at 4 C for 800 cycles. The inset is a schematic diagram of the capsule structure. (M–O) Figure reproduced from the data in Xiao et al. (2019).
FIGURE 2Evolutions of sulfur conversion by organic electrocatalytic additives. (A) The schematic synthesis of ferrocene functionalized GO-c-Fc. (B, C) Optimized configurations of GO-c-Fc with LiPSs. (A–C) Figure reproduced from the data in Mi et al. (2016). (D) The Li−S battery based on various CNTs-FG@hemin cathodes (FG = NH2, OH, COOH) and the adsorption mechanism of LiPSs on CNTs-COOH@hemin. (E, F) In-situ Raman spectra of CNTs-COOH@hemin cathode during the discharge and charge processes. (D–F) Figure reproduced from the data in Ding et al. (2020). (G) The schematic mechanisms of Gh/FePc+OFN for LiPS adsorption/conversion. (H) The comparison of rate performances of CNTs-S/Gh, CNTs-S/Gh/OFN, CNTs-S/Gh/FePc, and CNTs-S/Gh/FePc+OFN cathodes. (G, H) Figure reproduced from the data in Zhou S. et al. (2020). (I) A diagram of NQ-rGO composite and its catalytic effects on LiPSs. (J) The optimized configuration and the binding energy of Li2S4, Li2S6, and Li2S8 on rGO and NQ-rGO, respectively. (I, J) Figure reproduced from the data in Sun W. et al. (2020).
FIGURE 3The concepts and mechanisms of organic electrocatalytic binders for Li−S batteries. (A) The formation of networked binders by chitosan and rGO composites. (B) Long-cycling performance of Chi-rGO-1-based Li−S battery at 1 C. (A, B) Figure reproduced from the data in Kim et al. (2020). (C) Schematic diagrams of the effects of self-healing SPI-PAM adhesives. (D) Visual adsorption experiment of different binders soaked in 0.6 mmol L−1 of Li2S6 solution. (C, D) Figure reproduced from the data in Wang H. et al. (2020). (E, F) Morphology evolutions of PVDF and FG binders during cycling. (G, H) O 1s XPS spectra of FG after initial charge/discharge cycles at 0.1 C. (E–H) Figure reproduced from the data in Mo et al. (2020).
Some related reports on organic electrocatalytic cathodes for Li−S batteries.
| Electrocatalysts | Rate (C) | Initial capacity (mAh g−1) | Retention (mAh g−1) | S Loading (mg cm−2) | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ni-ZIF-8@CC | 0.2 | 1,080 | 500th, 715@1C | 1.5 |
|
| Cu-TDPAT | 0.1 | 1,000 | 500th, 745@1C | 1.2 |
|
| ZIF-67-S-PPy | - | - | 200th, 599@0.1C | - |
|
| S@Ni3(HITP)2-CNT | 0.1 | 1,358.6 | 100th, 848@0.2C | 1.5–1.8 |
|
| LPS-MOF-808@S/GEC | 0.5 | 858 ± 51 | 100th, 685@0.5C | - |
|
| Py-COF | 0.5 | 1,145 | 220th, 265@5.0C | 0.8–1.2 |
|
| COF-ETTA-ETTCA | 0.1 | 1,617 | 528th, 605@0.5C | 1.3 |
|
| EB-COF-PS | 0.1 | 1,136 | 300th, 468@4.0C | 1.5 |
|
| FCTF-S | 0.1 | 1,296 | 150th, 833@0.5C | 1.3 |
|
| NO-CTF-1 | 0.1 | 1,250 | 300th, 737@0.5C | 1.0–1.5 |
|
| P-CTFs@rGO | 0.05 | 1,375.2 | 500th, 920@0.5C | ∼1.5 |
|
| PCNC | 4.0 | 550 | 800th, 470@4.0C | - |
|
| Ferrocene | 0.2 | 1,205 | 550th, 588@1.0C | 1.0 |
|
| CNTs-COOH@hemin | 0.2 | 1,637.8 | 1800th, 205@1.0C | 1.2 |
|
| CoPc | 0.1 | 1,412.2 | 400th, 719@0.2 | 1.2 |
|
| CNTs-S/Gh/FePc+OFN | 0.2 | 1,604 | 1000th, 423@1.0C | ∼1.2 |
|
| S/NQ-rGO | 0.1 | 1,340 | 500th, 670@1.0C | 1.4 |
|
| TFPP | 0.2 | 1,492 | 1000th, 300@5.0C | 0.6–0.7 |
|
| Chitosan-rGO | 0.5 | 1,256 | 100th, 948@0.2C | 0.8–1.0 |
|
| SPI-PAM | 0.5 | 677.6 | 350th, 678@1.0C | 1.3 |
|
FIGURE 4The strategy and performance of organic electrocatalysts for Li−S interlayers. (A) Schematic illustration of a Gra-HsGDY interlayer. (A) Figure reproduced from the data in Kong et al. (2021). (B) The illustration of dual functional and population gradient CNT@PC60 interlayer in Li−S batteries. (B) Figure reproduced from the data in Hu et al. (2020). (C) Mechanism of physical barrier and chemical adsorption for LiPSs by the ZIF/CNFs interlayer. (C) Figure reproduced from the data in Li J. et al. (2021). (D) The configuration and reaction mechanisms of bimetallic Zr−Fc MOF/CNT interlayer in Li−S batteries. (D) Figure reproduced from the data in Wang Y. et al. (2021). (E) Schematic configuration of Gra/DTT interlayer and its electrochemical performance. (E) Figure reproduced from the data in Hua et al. (2017). (F) The modularly assembled XC72 carbon black nanoparticles for the MAXC interlayer. (F) Figure reproduced from the data in Ye et al. (2017). (G) Typical synthetic process of freestanding MSZC for Li−S interlayers. (G) Figure reproduced from the data in Qian et al. (2020).
FIGURE 5Typical strategies for separator modifying by organic electrocatalysts in Li−S batteries. (A) The concept of ionic sieve by MOF@GO modified separator for inhibiting the dissolution of LiPSs. (A) Figure reproduced from the data in Bai et al. (2016). (B) Schematic illustration of TA/Fe3+-PP separators. (B) Figure reproduced from the data in Zhang H. et al. (2018). (C) The preparation process of the PP-Ox--U functionalized separators. (C) Figure reproduced from the data in Zhou H. et al. (2020). (D) Effects of Ti3C2 MXenes in Ti3C2@iCON modified separators for improving the electrochemical performance. (E) The structure of charge-neutral COF containing β-ketoene units and UV-vis absorption spectra and digital photographs (inset) of Li2S6 solution after the addition of iCON. (D, E) Figure reproduced from the data in Li P. et al. (2021). (F) The design strategy of TP-BPY-COF-modified separators. (F) Figure reproduced from the data in Xu et al. (2019).
FIGURE 6Redox mediators by organic electrocatalysts in electrolyte for the reduction process of Li−S batteries. (A) The stable configurations of DBBQ and DBBQ-Li2Sx (x = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8) with various binding energies. (B) The LUMO and HOMO energy levels of electrolyte before and after the reactions between DBBQ and Li2S4. (A, B) Figure reproduced from the data in Wang Z. et al. (2020). (C, D) In-situ Raman spectra of S/C cathodes with/without BPD additives. (E) The peak intensity of S3 • and BPD-S3 − as a function of time under the presence/absence of BPD additives. (F) (−)ESI mass spectrum of the same 5 mM “Li2S4” solution with 5 mM BPD. (C–F) Figure reproduced from the data in Wu et al., 2017. (G) Schematic illustration of NiDME additives to catalyze LiPSs in Li−S batteries. (H) Potentiostatic discharge curve of Li2S deposition under the addition of NiDME. (G, H) Figure reproduced from the data in Luo et al. (2020).
FIGURE 7The oxidation processes and specific solid–solid transformations of LiPSs by organic electrocatalytic redox mediators in electrolyte. (A) The comparison of direct oxidation and redox mediator-assisted oxidation of Li2S in Li−S batteries. (B) Morphology evolutions of Li2S precipitation on the surface of cathode with and without AQT additives. (A, B) Figure reproduced from the data in Tsao et al. (2019). (C, D) The schematic illustration of the oxidation–reduction process of Li2S catalyzed by CrCp* 2 and NiCp* 2 and their corresponding CV profiles. (E) The galvanostatic charge/discharge curves of a Li−S battery under the presence of CrCp* 2 and NiCp* 2. (C–E) Figure reproduced from the data in Li et al. (2015). (F–H) The proposed chemical reaction paths between DPTT and LiPSs. (G) The effect of DPTT mediator by UV-vis absorption spectra. (F–H) Figure reproduced from the data in Xiang et al. (2019). (I) The diagrams of sulfur reduction processes with/without DCBQ additives. (J) Potential energy levels of Li2S4 reduction process under the presence/absence of DCBQ additive. (I, J) Figure reproduced from the data in Chen et al. (2021).
FIGURE 8Schematic illustration of the stabilization and enrichment of quinonoid imines by PA and their reversible transformations in Li−S batteries. Figure reproduced from the data in Chen C.-Y. et al. (2017).