Al/Co co-doped α-Ni（OH）2 samples were prepared by either ultrasonic co-precipitation method （Sample B） or co-precipitation method （Sample A）. The crystal structure and particle size distribution of the prepared...Al/Co co-doped α-Ni（OH）2 samples were prepared by either ultrasonic co-precipitation method （Sample B） or co-precipitation method （Sample A）. The crystal structure and particle size distribution of the prepared samples were examined by X-ray diffraction （XRD） and laser particle size analyzer, respectively. The results show that Sample B has more crystalline defects and smaller average diameter than Sample A. The cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements indicate that Sample B has better electrochemical performance than Sample A, such as better reaction reversibility, lower charge-transfer resistance and better cyclic stability. Proton diffusion coefficient of Sample B is 1.96×10-10cm2/s, which is two times as large as that （9.78×10-11cm2/s） of Sample A. The charge-discharge tests show that the discharge capacity （308 mA·h/g） of Sample B is 25 mA·h/g higher than that of Sample A （283 mA·h/g）.展开更多
基金Project (10774030) supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaProject (2008J1-C161) supported by the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou City of China
文摘Al/Co co-doped α-Ni（OH）2 samples were prepared by either ultrasonic co-precipitation method （Sample B） or co-precipitation method （Sample A）. The crystal structure and particle size distribution of the prepared samples were examined by X-ray diffraction （XRD） and laser particle size analyzer, respectively. The results show that Sample B has more crystalline defects and smaller average diameter than Sample A. The cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements indicate that Sample B has better electrochemical performance than Sample A, such as better reaction reversibility, lower charge-transfer resistance and better cyclic stability. Proton diffusion coefficient of Sample B is 1.96×10-10cm2/s, which is two times as large as that （9.78×10-11cm2/s） of Sample A. The charge-discharge tests show that the discharge capacity （308 mA·h/g） of Sample B is 25 mA·h/g higher than that of Sample A （283 mA·h/g）.
