Supporting Information

Transcription

1 Copyright WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, Supporting Information for Adv. Mater., DOI: /adma A Polyethylene Glycol-Supported Microporous Carbon Coating as a Polysulfide Trap for Utilizing Pure Sulfur Cathodes in Lithium Sulfur Batteries Sheng-Heng Chung and Arumugam Manthiram*

2 Copyright WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, Supporting Information for Adv. Mater., DOI: /adma A Polyethylene Glycol-Supported Microporous Carbon Coating as a Polysulfide Trap for Utilizing Pure Sulfur Cathodes in Lithium-Sulfur Batteries By Sheng-Heng Chung and Arumugam Manthiram* S.-H. Chung, Prof. A. Manthiram Materials Science and Engineering Program & Texas Materials Institute The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA manth@austin.utexas.edu (A. Manthiram) Thin-film MPC/PEG-coated separator and MPC-coated separator fabrication: The composite separator was fabricated by thin-film coating of the MPC/PEG slurry on one side of a Celgard 2500 monolayer polypropylene (PP) membrane (CELGARD) by a tape casting method. The tape casting method uses an automatic film applicator (1132N, Sheen) with a standard number 1 blade at a traverse speed of 50 mm s -1. The MPC/PEG slurry was prepared by mixing 80 wt. % conductive carbon black with micropores and high surface area (Black Pearls 2000, CABOT) and 20 wt. % polyethylene glycol (PEG, average molecular weight =300, Aldrich) in 3000 μl isopropyl alcohol (IPA) overnight. After drying at 50 C for 24 h in an air-oven, the resultant MPC/PEG coating (0.15 mg cm -2 ) formed a thin-film polysulfide trap with a thickness of 8 μm attached to the Celgard separator. On the other side of the MPC/PEG-coated separator, the Celgard separator serves as the electrically insulating membrane. As a result, all cells with the composite separator were operated normally during electrochemical analyses, even during long-term cycling, without shorting. The MPC-coated separator was fabricated by the same process but without using PEG. 1

3 The size of the MPC/PEG-coated separator is scalable, which can be enlarged or reduced by changing the cutting die of the precision disc cutter (MSK-T-06, MTI). The thickness of the MPC/PEG coating can also be easily adjusted by using different standard blades (from number 0.5 (the thinnest sample) to number 6 (the thickest sample)). The fabrication process of the advanced separator is similar to conventional cathode preparation and the raw materials are common laboratory supplies that are available in many Li-ion battery research laboratories, demonstrating the feasibility of the MPC/PEG-coated separator. Pure sulfur cathode and sulfur-mpc composite cathode preparation: Both the pure sulfur cathode and the composite cathode were fabricated by coating the active material slurry onto an Al foil current collector by the tape casting method, followed by evaporation of the NMP solvent for 24 h at 50 C in an air oven. For the pure sulfur cathode, the active material slurry was prepared by mixing 70 wt. % precipitated sulfur, 15 wt. % Super P carbon (TIMCAL), and 15 wt. % polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF, Kureha) in N-methyl-2-pyrolidone (NMP) for 2 days. In this Communication, the pure sulfur cathode refers to the readily-prepared cathode containing only the necessary components: sulfur, conductive carbon additive, and binder. The sulfur-mpc composite cathode was prepared by mixing 80 wt. % sulfur-mpc nanocomposite, 10 wt. % Super P carbon, and 10 wt. % PVDF in NMP for 2 days. The sulfur-mpc nanocomposite was synthesized by an in situ deposition route, controlled to produce ~ 80 wt. % sulfur in a sulfur-mpc core-shell structure (Figure S11, Supporting Information). Therefore, cells used in the configuration comparison have a similar sulfur content of ~ 65 wt. % and cathode active material loading of 2.0 mg cm -2. The reason that MPC is selected as the carbon substrate in the composite cathode for the control cell is its enhanced cycle stability as compared to many other carbon substrates summarized in Figure S12 (Supporting Information), which make our comparative analysis reliable. 2

4 Carbon materials for the Comparative Analysis of Cell Configurations: A reliable comparison between different high-performance cell configurations (the composite cathode and the composite separator) is the key factor to demonstrate that the composite separator could be a suitable method to suppress polysulfide diffusion. Thus, the comparative analysis should use the same raw materials. Moreover, the selected materials in both cell configurations should have enhanced cell performance as compared to the pure sulfur cathodes. We use MPC as the carbon substrate in this Communication because the S-MPC composite shows the most stable cyclability compared to other composite cathodes, as shown in Figure S12. We did not select other carbon substrates because of their limited improvement on the cycling performance for the composite cathodes, including the S-Super P (black) and S-MWCNT (dark cyan) nanocomposites. As a reference, Super P carbon and MWCNT were used in our previous carbon-coated separators. [37,38] Cell assembly: The CR2032-type coin cells were assembled with the pure sulfur cathode, MPC/PEG-coated separator, lithium anode (Aldrich), and nickel foam spacers. The MPC/PEG-coated separator was placed with the polysulfide trap facing the pure sulfur cathode. Cell components were dried in a vacuum oven for one hour at 50 C prior to cell assembly. All cells were assembled in an argon-filled glove box. The electrolyte was prepared by dissolving 1.85 M LiCF 3 SO 3 salt (Acros Organics) and 0.1 M LiNO 3 co-salt (Acros Organics) in a 1:1 volume ratio of 1, 2-dimethoxyethane (DME, Acros Organics) and 1, 3- dioxolane (DOL, Acros Organics). Microanalysis and materials characterization: The microstructural, morphological, and elemental analyses of the MPC/PEG-coated separator and cathodes before and after cycling were inspected by a field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) (FEI Quanta 650 SEM) equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDX) for collecting elemental 3

5 mapping signals. The cycled cathodes were retrieved inside an argon-filled glove box, rinsed with blank electrolyte for 3 minutes, and transported in an argon-filled sealed vessel. The blank electrolyte that used for rinsing the cycle samples contained only the 1:1 volume ratio of DME/DOL. The Al foil Current collector of the cross-sectional SEM sample was peered from the cathode carefully before SEM observation. The scraped-surface SEM samples were prepared by scraping the cycled MPC/PEG coating from the cycled composite separator by a razor blade. The nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherms were measured at -196 C with an automated gas sorption analyzer (AutoSorb iq2, Quantachrome Instruments). The surface area was calculated by the Brunner-Emmett-Teller (BET) method with a 7-point BET model with the correlation coefficient above The pore-size distributions and pore volumes were determined by the Barrett-Joyer-Halenda (BJH) method, Horvath-Kawazoe (HK) method, and a density functional theory (DFT) model. The thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) data were collected with a thermo-gravimetric analyzer (TGA 7, Perkin-Elmer) at a heating rate of 5 C min -1 from room temperature to 500 C with an air flow of 20 ml min -1 to determine the sulfur content in the sulfur-mpc nanocomposite. Electrochemical analyses: The assembled cells were allowed to rest for 30 minutes at 25 C before the electrochemical measurements. The electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data were recorded with a computer-interfaced impedance analyzer in the frequency range of 1 MHz to 100 mhz with an applied voltage of 5 mv. The impedance analysis system has a potentiostat (SI 1287, Solartron) as the electrochemical interface coupled with an impedance analyzer (SI 1260, Solartron). The cyclic voltammetry (CV) data were performed with a universal potentiostat (VoltaLab PGZ 402, Radiometer Analytical) between 1.8 and 2.8 V at a scan rate of 0.1 mv s -1. The discharge/charge profiles and cyclability data were collected with a programmable battery cycler (Arbin Instruments). The cells were first discharged to 1.8 V and then charged to 2.8 V for a full cycle. The complete electrochemical cycling performance 4

6 was investigated at a C/5 rate, based on the mass and theoretical capacity of sulfur (1C = 1672 ma h g -1 ). The rate capability of cells was measured at C/5, C/2, and 1C rates. Figure S1 Digital images of the composite separators: (a) MPC/PEG-coated separator, (b) folded/crumpled MPC/PEG-coated separator, (c) recovered MPC/PEG-coated separator, and (d) cycled MPC/PEG-coated separator. Figures S1a to S1c show the high flexibility and mechanical strength of the MPC/PEG-coated separator as well as the excellent adhesion between the coating layer and the Celgard PP, ensuring the normal functions of the MPC/PEG coating in the cell as the polysulfide trap and as the upper-current collector. The cycled MPC/PEG-coated separator retains the complete coating layer, consistent with the above statement and implying that it may accommodate the volume change of the trapped active material. 5

7 Figure S2 Low-magnification SEM observation and elemental mapping of the MPC/PEGcoated separator. The MPC clusters are in close contact with each other due to the PEG binder, allowing the conductive polysulfide trap to have efficient electron conduction. Figure S3 (a) Low and (b) high magnification SEM observation and elemental mapping of the MPC nanoparticles. The commercial carbon black (Black Pearls 2000 MPC) consists of nanoparticles with high electrical conductivity, high surface area, and abundant micropores. These physical characteristics make it a promising material for trapping the migrating polysulfides. 6

8 Figure S4 Surface area analyses of the MPC and the cycled MPC/PEG coating: (a) isotherms, (b) pore size distributions with the Barrett-Joyer-Halenda (BJH) method, and (c) pore size distributions with the Horvath-Kawazoe (HK) and the density functional theory (DFT) methods. The IUPAC type I isotherms and the high fraction of micropores demonstrate that MPCs have a high surface area, large porous space, and high microporosity. After cycling, the decrease in the surface area and microporous trapping sites demonstrates the efficient trapping capability of the MPC/PEG coating toward the cycled products. In Figure S4b, the BJH model is used for analyzing a broad pore size distribution. In Figure S4c, the HK model displays the micropore filling behavior and the DFT model summarizes the adsorption characterization of micro/mesopores. 7

9 Figure S5 Low magnification SEM observation and elemental mapping of the cycled MPC/PEG-coated separator. In the wide-range morphological observation, the obvious elemental sulfur signals demonstrate that the migrating polysulfides were intercepted and absorbed by the MPC/PEG coating because of its excellent physical and chemical polysulfide-trapping capability. Figure S6 SEM observation and elemental mapping of the pure sulfur cathode utilizing a MPC/PEG-coated separator (a) before and (b) after cycling. The fresh cathode shows a few micron-sized sulfur agglomerations surrounded by Super P carbon. After cycling, the rearranged active material displays a uniform distribution. The corresponding elemental sulfur signals show neither dense spots nor vacancies in the cycled cathode, implying an optimized electrochemical environment with no active material loss. 8

10 Figure S7 Low- and high-magnification SEM observation and elemental mapping of the sulfur-mpc nanocomposites. (a) Wide-range morphological observation (low magnification) and (b) local microstructural observation (high magnification). SEM observation and elemental mapping of the sulfur-mpc composite cathode (c) before and (d) after cycling. The synthesized nanocomposites were composed of micron-sized sulfur cores covered with nano-sized MPC shells. The cycled cathode shows dense nonconductive precipitates on its surface. This demonstrates that the nanocomposite does not successfully suppress the diffusion of polysulfides within the nanocomposite and even in the composite cathode region. 9

11 Figure S8 Electrochemical analyses of Li-S cells with the sulfur-mpc composite cathode and the Celgard separator. (a) discharge/charge curves and (b) cycle stability at various C rates. Although the sulfur-mpc composite cathode shows better cycling performance than pure sulfur cathodes, the fast capacity fading during initial cycles results in a limited-improvement of the electrochemical utilization of the active material and leads to poor cyclability. Figure S9 Low- and high-magnification SEM observation and elemental mapping of the separator side of the cycled MPC coating separator. (a) wide-range morphological observation (low magnification) and (b) local microstructural observation (high magnification). 10

12 Figure S10 Electrochemical analyses of Li-S cells with a pure sulfur cathode and the MPCcoated separator. (a) discharge/charge curves and (b) cycle stability at various C rates. The comparison with a conventional cell configuration utilizing a composite cathode emphasizes the improvements of applying the MPC-coated separator, evidencing that the conductive polysulfide trap in cells leads to better electrochemical performance and higher feasibility than the composite cathode. The capacity retention and fade rate were calculated based on the highest discharge capacity and the reversible capacity after 200 cycles. A similar increase in capacity during the initial 10 cycles is observed with the MPC-coated separator system also and may result from the rearrangement of the active material. 11

13 Figure S11 Thermogravimetric analysis of sulfur and sulfur-mpc nanocomposites. The pure sulfur shows a weight loss starting at its melting point (115 C) and loses all of the weight at 220 C. The sulfur-mpc composite consists of ~ 78 wt. % sulfur and 22 wt. % MPC. Therefore, the sulfur content in the composite cathode is 62.4 wt. %, which is close to the sulfur content of the pure-sulfur cathode used in cells with MPC- and MPC/PEG-coated separators. Figure S12 Cycling performance of various composite cathodes at a C/5 rate. This is to provide a guide to a reliable comparison of different high-performance cell configurations (the S-MPC composite cathode and the MPC/PEG-coated separator). The comparative analysis should use the same carbon materials. The MPC was selected as the carbon substrate in this Communication because the S-MPC composite shows the most stable cyclability. 12