Metal Organic Framework (MOF) derived Electrodes with Robust and Fast Lithium Storage for Li-Ion Hybrid Capacitors
Deepak P. Dubal,1,4*$ Kolleboyina Jayaramulu,2,3*$ Sunil Janaky,5Štěpán Kment,3 Pedro Gomez-Romero,4 Chandrabhas Narayana,5 Radek Zbořil3* and Roland A. Fischer2*
1Dr. D. P. Dubal
School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia
Email: dubaldeepak2@gmail.com
2Dr. K. Jayaramulu, Prof. Dr. R. A. Fischer
Chair of Inorganic and Metal-Organic Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Catalysis Research Centre, Technical University of Munich, 85748 Garching, Germany
Email: jaya.kolleboyina@tum.de Email: roland.fischer@tum.de
3Dr. K. Jayaramulu, Dr. S. Kment, Prof. Dr. R. Zboril Regional Centre of Advanced Technologies and Materials,
Faculty of Science, Palacky University, Šlechtitelů 27, 783 71, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Email: radek.zboril@upol.cz
4Dr. D. P. Dubal, Prof. Dr. P. Gomez-Romero
Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), CSIC and the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, Bellaterra 08193, Barcelona, Spain
5Prof. Dr. C. Narayana, Ms. S. Janaky Chemistry and Physics of Materials Unit,
Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR) Jakkur, Bangalore, 560064, India
$Both authors contributed equally.
Keywords: MOF-derived Materials, manganese oxide, nanoporous carbon, Li-ion capacitors, Energy Storage, Energy Density
1
Experimental and related aspects Materials
All reagents and solvents were commercially available and used as supplied without further purification. MnCl2·4H2O, 1,4-napthalenedicarboxylate, and KOH were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.
Synthesis of [Mn(1,4-ndc)]n (1):
The synthesis procedure of 1 has been described by Kitagawa et al.[1]. Reaction of MnCl2·4H2O (1.0 mmol) with 1,4-napdcH2 (1.0 mmol) and KOH (2.0 mmol) in water (10–12 ml) at 180 °C for 72h h resulted in pink colored powder in 40% yield with respect to Mn.
1. T. K. Maji, W. Kaneko, M. Ohba, S. Kitagawa, Chem. Commun. 2005, 4613-4615.
Synthetic procedure for KMOF:
Nanocrystals of KMOF were prepared according to a slightly modified procedure from literature.
(ref) In a 20 ml of Teflon, 1.51 g of BTC, 0.632 g of KNO3, 0.074 g NH4F of were dissolved in 15 mL of DMF under sonication. The autoclave was tightly closed and placed in an oven at 120 °C for 3 days. After cooling to room temperature, the supernatant was decanted and the products were washed three times with DMF, three times with methanol. Methanol as solvent was decanted and replaced once per day during the course of three days. Colorless rod crystals were recovered for KMOF in ≥90% yield based on potassium.
1. M. K. Kim, V. Jo, D. W. Lee, I.-W. Shim and K. M. Ok, CrystEngComm, 2010, 12, 1481-1484
Preparation of hybrid MnO2@carbon matrix
The composite material was prepared by the following method. The resultant MOF powder was heat treated in nitrogen flow of 100 ml per minute at 800 oC with a heating rate of 5 oC per minute for 6 h to carbonize the mixture. The resultant composite recovered after repetitive washing with ethanol and drying at 60 oC.
Preparation of Nanoporous carbon sheets (NPS-800) from KMOF:
The nanoporous carbon sheets were prepared by the following method. . In a typical synthesis, 1 g of KMOF-1 prepared at a synthesis temperature of 120 °C. The KMOF-1 heated at 200 °C overnight.
The activated KMOF-1 was heat-treated in a nitrogen flow of 100 ml per minute at 450 °C with a heating rate of 5 °C per minute for 6 h to carbonize the mixture. The resultant composite (denoted as NPS-450) have potassium-based impurities. Further, NPS-450 composite heat treated in a nitrogen flow of 100 mL per minute at various temperature 800 °C with a heating rate of 5 °C per minute for 8h. Finally, nanoporous carbon sheets (NPS-800) was recovered after dissolution of the potassium oxide in 5
Materials characterization
The synthesized materials were characterized by different techniques. X-ray diffraction (XRD) data of all samples were collected by the X’Pert PRO PANanalytical equipment (Bragg-Brentano geometry with automatic divergence slits, position sensitive detector, continuous mode, room temperature, Cu-Kα radiation, Ni filter. The powder samples were dropped onto silicon wafer with grease and measured at the same equipment (5-80°, at a step of 0.0197°, with accumulation time 200 s per step). For Rietveld refinement, FullProf Suite program with VESTA graphical interface was used. The X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS) analyses were obtained by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, SPECS Germany, PHOIBOS 150).The surface morphological analyses of samples were carried out using the different techniques such as field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FEI Quanta 650F Environmental SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (Tecnai G2 F20 S-TWIN HR(S) TEM, FEI). The Raman spectrum of respective sample were collected through instrument, DXR Raman (Thermo, USA); laser wavelength: 633 nm, laser power on sample: 2mW, exposition time: 5s, 32 spectra were averaged at each spot to obtain one data point. Adsorption studies of N2 (77 K) of all samples were carried out using MICROMERITICS analyzer, outgassed at 423 K under high vacuum.
Electrochemical testing
Electrodes were prepared by mixing the active material (MnO2@C-NS or nanoporous carbon nanosehets NPS-800), Super-P conductive carbon black and polyvinylidene fluoride binder (PVDF) in an N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) with 70 %:20 %:10% ratio. The resulting paste was uniformly coated onto Al or Cu foil, dried at 100 C for 12 h, and pressed under hydraulic press.
The mass loading of MnO2@C-NS and NPS-800 was around 1.5 mg/cm2. Initially, both the materials MnO2@C-NS and NPS-800 were tested with half-cell configuration where the Li metal, glass-fiber and a 1 M lithium hexafluorophosphate in a 1:1 mixture of ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (1:1, EC:DMC) were used as counter electrode, separator and electrolyte, respectively. The NPS-800 cathode half-cell was tested within the voltage range from 4.5 to 1.5 V and MnO2@C-NS anode within 3.0 to 0.01 V using a Biologic potentio-galvanostat. Prior to assembling full LIC cell, MnO2@C-NS and NPS-800 were cycled 10 cycles in half-cells at 0.1 A/g, and then the cells were disassembled in the glove box and by collecting electrodes, full cell was fabricated and tested within 0.01 to 4 V. The BiVO4 anode was fully discharged up to 0.01 V (vs.
Li) before used in the full LIC cells. In present investigation, the mass ratio of MnO2@C-NS to NPS-800 O was maintained at 1:5 (1.6 mg of MnO2@C-NS and 7.9 mg of NPS-800).
1
Figure S1. Synthesis concept of the step-wise formation of manganese nanoparticles at graphitic porous carbon matrix from manganese-based metal-organic framework
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Figure S2 Powder XRD pattern of 1 (a) simulated pattern; (b) as-synthesized [Mn(1,4-napdc)]n (1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure S3 (a) Full XPS spectrum of MnO2@C-NS nanocomposite suggesting the formation of MnO2 and carbon. (b) Nitrogen adsorption/desorption isotherm of MnNDC and MnO2@C-NS.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Figure S4 (a, b) SEM and (c, d) TEM images of MnO2@C-NS at two different magnification confirming the formation of interleaved composite of graphene-like carbon nanosheets decorated with MnO2 nanoparticles.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure S5 CV curves for MnO2@C-NS at different scan rates with the capacitive contribution to the total current is shown by the shaded region, which suggest increasing trend of capacitive contribution with scan rate.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Figure S6 (a) Plot of log (current) vs log(scan rate) for anodic and cathodic responses. (b) Li-ion diffusion coefficients of MnO2@C-NS electrode at different scan rates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure S7 (a) XRD, (b) Raman and (c) BET analysis with corresponding pore size distribution curve (inset) for MOF-derived nanoporous carbon nanosheets (NPCS), confirming the formation of high surface area with tunable pore size NPCS cathode material.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Figure S8 Galvanostatic charge/discharge curves for NPCS cathode in half cell configuration (vs Li/Li+) at different current densities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Supporting Information Table 1
Table 1 Comparison of electrochemical properties of carbon based anode materials with present report
Anode Material Reversible capacity (mAh/g) Capacity retention (mAh/g) References
MnO2@C-NS 1054 at 0.1 A/g 90 % at 0.5 A/g after 1000 cycles Present work
MnO2/carbon nanotube 820 at 200 mA/g 77 % at 200 mA/g after 50 cycles [S1]
MnO2/ Carbon Nanohorns 565 at 450 mA/g 98 % at 450 mA/g after 60 cycles [S2]
Graphene-Wrapped MnO2 -Graphene Nanoribbons
890 at 0.1 A/g 24% increase after 245 cycles at 0.4 A/g [S3]
MnO2/carbon nanotube 500 at 50 mA/g 45 % at 50 mA/g after 16 cycles [S4]
TiO2-C/MnO2 865 at 33.5 mA/g 90 % at 335 mA/g after 100 cycles [S5]
MnO/C 798 at 200 mA/g 77 % at 200 mA/g after 40 cycles [S6]
Graphene-MnO2 Nanotube 581 at 100 mA/g - [S7]
Fe-MOF derived C-Fe3O4 975 at 100 mA/g 80 % at 100 mA/g after 50 cycles [S8]
MOF derived ZnO quantum dots@hierarchically porous carbon
1200 at 75 mA/g 100 % at 75 mA/g after 50 cycles [S9]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Supporting Information Table 2
Table 2 Comparison of published electrochemical properties of Li-ion capacitors with our present work
LIC cell Energy density (Wh/kg) Power density (W/kg) Voltage (V) Cycling stability References MnO2@C-NS//NPCS 166 at 550 W/kg 3000 at 49 Wh/kg 4.0 91 % after 5000 cycles Present work
N-CNPipes//PRGO 262 at 450 W/kg 9000 at 78 Wh/kg 4.0 89 % after 1000 cycles [S10]
Li4Ti5O12//AC 67.5 at 490 W/kg 4995 at 33.6 Wh/kg 3.0 85 % after 2000 cycles [S11]
Li3VO4//AC 49.1 at 72.5 W/kg 24.5 at 129.7 Wh/kg 3.5 - [S12]
Fe3O4-Graphene// 3D Graphene
147 at 150 W/kg 2587 at 86 Wh/kg 3.0 70 % after 1000 cycles [S13]
Graphene-VN //carbon nanorods
162 at 200 W/kg 10000 at 64 Wh/kg 4.0 86% after 1000 cycles [S14]
CNT/V2O5//AC 25.5 at 40 W/kg 6300 at 6.9 Wh/kg 2.7 80% after 10000 cycles [S15]
TiO2-B nanowire//CNT
12.5 at 300 W/kg 1300 at 8 Wh/kg 2.8 1000 cycles [S16]
TiP2O7//AC 13 at 46 W/kg 370 at 0.2 Wh/kg 3.0 78% after 500 cycles [S17]
BiVO4//PRGO 152 at 384 W/kg 3861 at 42 Wh/kg 4.0 81% after 6000 cycles [S18]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
MnO-C//carbon nanosheets 100 at 83 W/kg 33650 at 21 Wh/kg 3.0 70 % after 5000 cycles [S19]
3D-MnO/CNS//3D-CNS 184 at 83 W/kg 18000 at 83 Wh/kg 3.0 76 % after 5000 cycles [S20]
HC//AC 82 at 100 W/kg 5500 at 45 Wh/kg 2.1 - [S21]
TiC//PHPNC 101.5 at 450 W/kg 675000 at 23.4 Wh/kg 4.5 82 % after 5000 cycles [S22]
Li-Hard carbon//AC 82 at 100 W/kg 50000 at 1 Wh/kg 2.8 100 % after 40 cycles [S23]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 7394-7397.
[S10] D. P. Dubal, P. Gomez-Romero, Mater. Today Energy 2018, 8, 109.
[S11] A. Jain, V. Aravindan, S. Jayaraman, P. S. Kumar, R. Balasubramanian, S.
Ramakrishna, M. Srinivasan, M. P. Srinivasan, Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 3002 [S12] H. Y. Wei, D. S. Tsai, C. L. Hsieh, RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 69176
[S13] F. Zhang, T. Zhang, X. Yang, L. Zhang, K. Leng, Y. Huang, Y. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1623.
[S14] R. Wang, J. Lang, P. Zhang, Z. Lin, X. Yan, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2015, 25, 2270 [S15] Z. Chen, V. Augustyn, J. Wen, Y. Zhang, M. Shen, B. Dunn, Y. Lu, Adv. Mater.
2011, 23, 791.
[S16] Q. Wang, Z. Wen, J. Li, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2006, 16, 2141
[S17] V. Aravindan, M. V. Reddy, S. Madhavi, S. G. Mhaisalkar, G. V. Subba Rao, B. V. R.
Chowdari, J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 8850
[S18] D. P. Dubal, K. Jayaramulu, R. Zboril, R. A. Fischer, P. Gomez-Romero, J. Mater.
Chem. A, 2018, 6, 6096
[S19] Y. Zhao, Y. Cui, J. Shi, W. Liu, Z. Shi, S. Chen, X. Wang, H. Wang, J. Mater. Chem.
A, 2017, 5, 15243
[S20] H. Wang, Z. Xu, Z. Li, K. Cui, J. Ding, A. Kohandehghan, X. Tan, B. Zahiri, B. C.
Olsen, C. M. Holt and D. Mitlin, Nano Lett., 2014, 14, 1987-1994.
1
[S21] W. J. Cao and J. P. Zheng, J. Power Sources, 2012, 213, 180
[S22] H. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Ang, Y. Zhang, H. T. Tan, Y. Zhang, Y. Guo, J. B. Franklin, X. L. Wu, M. Srinivasan, H. J. Fan and Q. Yan, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2016, 26, 3082 [S23] W. J. Cao, J. P. Zheng, J. Power Sources 2012, 213, 180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62