Li 1.3 Al 0.3 Ti 1.7 (PO 4 ) 3 ‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 was prepared by wet chemical route. The phase, surface morphology, and electrochemical properties of the prepared powders were characterized by X‐ray diffraction, scanning electron micrograph, and galvanostatic charge‐discharge experiments. Li 1.3 Al 0.3 Ti 1.7 (PO 4 ) 3 ‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 has similar X‐ray diffraction patterns as LiMn 2 O 4 . The corner and border of Li 1.3 Al 0.3 Ti 1.7 (PO 4 ) 3 ‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 particles are not as clear as the uncoated one. The two powders show similar values of lithium‐ion diffusion coefficient. When cycled at room temperature and 55°C for 40 times at the charge‐discharge rate of 0.2C, Li 1.3 Al 0.3 Ti 1.7 (PO 4 ) 3 ‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 shows the capacity retentions of 98.2% and 93.9%, respectively, which are considerably higher than the values of 85.4% and 79.1% for the uncoated one. Both the capacity retention differences between Li 1.3 Al 0.3 Ti 1.7 (PO 4 ) 3 ‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 and LiMn 2 O 4 cycling at room temperature and 55°C become larger with the increase of charge‐discharge rate. When the charge‐discharge rate reaches 2C, the capacity retention of LATP‐coated LiMn 2 O 4 becomes 8.4% higher than the uncoated LiMn 2 O 4 for room temperature cycling, and it becomes 11.1% higher than the latter when cycled at 55°C.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: