返回文章

Figure 1.  (a) Analysis of electrochemical performance degradation in LMO batteries with typical charge–discharge profiles of fresh cell. (b) Characteristic degradation patterns of the pouch cell at 1 C discharge rate under RT. Comparative charge–discharge profiles at (c) 1 C rate and (d) 0.05 C rate for fresh cell versus RT cycle-aged cell. (e) 0.05 C charge–discharge profiles illustrating the effect of 7 days aging at HT (55 °C). (f) Cell capacity across different conditions. (g)–(i) dQ/dV curves of fresh, RT cycle-aged, and HT storage cells.

Figure 2.  XRD patterns of (a) cathodes and (b) anodes. (c) Raman spectrums of three anodes from fresh, RT cycle-aged, and HT storage cells. (d) I_D/I_G of three anodes from fresh, RT cycle-aged, and HT storage cells.

Figure 3.  SEM images of cathodes from (a) and (b) fresh cell, (c) and (d) RT cycle-aged cell, and (e) and (f) HT storage cell.

Figure 4.  SEM images and EDS mapping of anodes from (a)–(c) fresh cell, (d)–(f) RT cycle-aged cell, and (g)–(i) HT storage cell.

Figure 5.  TEM images of anodes from (a) fresh cell, (b) RT cycle-aged cell, and (c) HT storage cell.

Figure 6.  Normalized EIS spectrums of (a) fresh cell, (b) RT cycle-aged cell, and (c) HT storage cell.

Figure 7.  Charge–discharge profiles of coin cells employing (a) cathodes and (b) anodes sourced from disassembled fresh, RT cycle-aged, and HT storage cells. An enlarged view of the initial charge profiles is provided as an inset in (b) for detailed examination.

Figure 8.  XPS spectra of (a) Mn 2p and (b) Mn 3s for anodes sourced from fresh, RT cycle-aged, and HT storage cells.