Explores Sc2O3 doping's effects on cycling performance in nickel-rich cathodes, indicating enhanced battery stability and performance.
Nickel‐rich layered oxide cathodes are considered highly promising candidates for next‐generation lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs), owing to their high energy density. Nevertheless, their practical application remains constrained by limited cycling stability and rate capability. This study explores the influence of Sc 2 O 3 doping on the electrochemical performance and structural stability of LiNi 0.88 Co 0.09 Mn 0.03 O 2 (LNCM88). Sc 2 O 3 was incorporated at doping levels of 0.5, 1, and 2.5 wt%, and its effects were systematically investigated using several characterization techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), X‐ray diffraction (XRD), and X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). These analyses confirmed successful Sc 2 O 3 incorporation without significant changes in the cathode morphology. Electrochemical characterizations showed that, although the initial capacity decreased with increasing Sc content, capacity retention and rate performance improved significantly. Notably, the sample doped with 1 wt% Sc 2 O 3 demonstrated a discharge capacity of 195.1 mAh g −1 after 100 cycles at 0.1 C, with a retention rate of approximately 93.1%. These findings highlight the efficacy of Sc 2 O 3 doping as a viable strategy to enhance the electrochemical properties and commercial potential of nickel‐rich layered cathodes in LIB applications. Full cell results revealed that the Sc 2 O 3 ‐doped LNCM88 delivers improved capacity retention, maintaining 83.2% at 1 C after 300 cycles, compared to only 76.4% for the undoped material under identical conditions. High‐rate cycling results further demonstrate that 1 wt% Sc doping significantly enhances the durability of LNCM88, making it a promising strategy for improving the performance of nickel‐rich layered cathode materials in high‐power lithium‐ion battery applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mehdipour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: