The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mechanistic Origin of the High Performance of Yolk@Shell Bi2S3@N-Doped Carbon Nanowire Electrodes
Abstract
High-performance lithium-ion batteries are commonly built with heterogeneous composite electrodes that combine multiple active components for serving various electrochemical and structural functions. Engineering these heterogeneous composite electrodes toward drastically improved battery performance is hinged on a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of multiple active components and their synergy or trade-off effects. Herein, we report a rational design, fabrication, and understanding of yolk@shell Bi 2 S 3 @N-doped mesoporous carbon (C) composite anode, consisting of a Bi 2 S 3 nanowire (NW) core within a hollow space surrounded by a thin shell of N-doped mesoporous C. This composite anode exhibits desirable rate performance and long cycle stability (700 cycles, 501 mAhg –1 at 1.0 Ag –1, 85% capacity retention). By in situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM), X-ray diffraction, and NMR experiments and computational modeling, we elucidate the dominant mechanisms of the phase transformation, structural evolution, and lithiation kinetics of the Bi 2 S 3 NWs anode. Our combined in situ TEM experiments and finite element simulations reveal that the hollow space between the Bi 2 S 3 NWs core and carbon shell can effectively accommodate the lithiation-induced expansion of Bi 2 S 3 NWs without cracking C shells. This work demonstrates an effective strategy of engineering the yolk@shell-architectured anodes and also sheds light onto harnessing the complex multistep reactions in metal sulfides to enable high-performance lithium-ion batteries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation
Jain, A., Ong, S. P., Hautier, G., Chen, W., Richards, W. D., Dacek, S., Cholia, S., Gunter, D., Skinner, D., Ceder, G., et al. (2013) · APL Materials · doi:10.1063/1.4812323 · Cited by 13,094
Python Materials Genomics (pymatgen): A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis
Ong, S. P., Richards, W. D., Jain, A., Hautier, G., Kocher, M., Cholia, S., Gunter, D., Chevrier, V. L., Persson, K. A., & Ceder, G. (2013) · Computational Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 · Cited by 4,534
Cited by
Leng, J., Wang, Z., Wang, J., Wu, H.-H., Yan, G., Li, X., Guo, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, Q., & Guo, Z. (2019) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c8cs00904j · Cited by 425
Self-citationZheng, Z., Wu, H.-H., Liu, H., Zhang, Q., He, X., Yu, S., Petrova, V., Feng, J., Kostecki, R., Liu, P., et al. (2020) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.9b08575 · Cited by 334
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, L., Wu, H.-H., Yang, C., Zhang, Q., Zhong, G., Zheng, Z., Chen, H., Wang, J., He, K., Wang, B., Zhu, T., Zeng, X. C., Liu, M., & Wang, M.-S.
- Venue
- ACS Nano
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2018-11-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 12597-12611
- ISSN
- 1936-0851 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-086X
- OpenAlex
- W2899760516
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.