Sustainable
Energy & Fuels
COMMUNICATION
Integration of adsorption and catalytic active sites
Published on 17 July 2021. Downloaded by National University of Singapore on 8/28/2022 8:49:16 AM.
Cite this: Sustainable Energy Fuels,
in cobalt iron oxide nanorods for an excellent
2021, 5, 4284 performance Li–S battery with a wide temperature
Received 21st June 2021 range†
Accepted 16th July 2021
Ding-Rong Deng, *a Xue-Yang Cui,b Xiao-Xiang Fan,b Jie-Qing Zheng,a
DOI: 10.1039/d1se00925g
Xiao-Hong Fan,a Qi-Hui Wu,*a Ming-Sen Zheng *b and Quan-Feng Dongb
rsc.li/sustainable-energy
Whether Li–S batteries can be worked in a wider temperature range is
particularly important. Here, we report micro/nanostructure CoFe2O4
rods combining both catalytic sites (Co) and adsorption sites (Fe).
Under the synergistic enhancement of these two different sites, the
conversion rate of polysulfides in Li–S batteries is greatly accelerated,
and the “shuttle effect” is effectively suppressed. When used as the
host material for Li–S batteries, the capacity, rate performance and
cycling stability are promoted greatly. Most importantly, the cell
achieves an excellent electrochemical performance at high tempera-
tures. After 1000 cycles, the Li–S battery using CoFe2O4 nanorods as
the cathode exhibits a high reversible capacity of about 700 mA h g
1
at a high temperature of 70  C with a capacity attenuation of less than
0.02% per cycle. Meanwhile, the battery also shows excellent
performance at
20  C owing to the high catalytic activity.
With the development of the economy, society, and technology,
there is an ever-growing demand for energy. Human beings are
urgently developing new green energy sources such as wind
energy, solar energy, tidal energy, and geothermal energy to
replace the current energy supply system.1–3 However, the direct
use of these natural energy sources is conditioned by the
season, weather, and location, and thus development of effi-
cient energy storage systems with high energy and power
densities has become very urgent.4–8
Lithium–sulfur (Li–S) batteries are regarded as one of the
most promising green energy storage devices based on the
complex multi-electron reactions, which result in a theoretical
capacity (1675 mA h g
1) much higher than those of traditional
a
Department College of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Key Laboratory of Energy
Cleaning Utilization, Development, Cleaning Combustion and Energy Utilization
Research Center of Fujian Province, Jimei University, Xiamen, Fujian, 361005,
China. E-mail: ddr6021023@163.com; qihui.wu@jmu.edu.cn
b
State Key Laboratory for Physical Chemistry of Solid Surfaces, Department of
Chemistry, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, iChem (Collaborative
Innovation Center of Chemistry for Energy Materials), Xiamen University, Xiamen,
Fujian, 361005, China. E-mail: mszheng@xmu.edu.cn
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI:
10.1039/d1se00925g
4284 | Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2021, 5, 4284–4288
View Article Online
View Journal | View Issue
lithium-ion batteries.9–11 Due to high energy density, rich
reserves, low price, and environmental friendliness, Li–S
batteries have attracted wide attention for application in electric
vehicles (EVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and portable
electronics. Currently, the poor conductivity of sulfur and its
discharge products, the “shuttle effect” of the lithium poly-
suldes which are produced in the charging and discharging
processes, and electrode volume expansion restrict the appli-
cations of Li–S batteries.12–17 Fortunately, there has been a lot of
research on solving these problems, which has achieved
extremely good results recently.18–31
Most of these researches were focused on room temperature
Li–S batteries; actually, the great majority of electronic equip-
ment including EVs or HEVs need to work at a wider range of
temperatures, especially at higher temperatures. For Li–S
batteries, higher temperature means that the solubility of
lithium polysuldes in the electrolyte increases, which will
seriously aggravate the “shuttle effect” of polysulde, leading to
worse cycle life.32–34 One possible solution is to use host mate-
rials or membranes which have a greater ability to adsorb or
separate the polysuldes. Lan et al. used TiO2@NiCo-LDH as
the interlayers for Li–S batteries. The cell could retain a revers-
ible capacity of 798.6 mA h g
1 at 1 C aer 100 cycles at 60  C.35
However, only increasing the adsorption ability for polysuldes
in Li–S batteries is not enough to inhibit the polysulde shuttle
at high temperatures. It is also necessary to accelerate the speed
of the lithium polysulde conversion reaction so as to reduce
the existence time of lithium polysuldes. Under the synergistic
effect of these two functions, the “shuttle effect” at high
temperature of polysuldes could be reduced to the maximum
extent, thus improving the capacity and cycle life of Li–S
batteries.
Herein, we report nanorod-like CoFe2O4 prepared based on
an efficient and simple solvothermal approach, which is used as
the host material with two different types of active sites for Li–S
batteries. The Co active site with +2 valence state can accelerate
the kinetic speed of the lithium polysulde conversion reaction;
meanwhile, the Fe active site with +3 valence state provides
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Communication
a strong adsorption capacity for lithium polysuldes. Compared
to an ordinary host material, the synergistic effect of the two
different types of active sites in CoFe2O4 greatly facilitates the
reaction and inhibits the shuttle effect of lithium polysuldes in
Li–S batteries. Also, the special nanostructure of the CoFe2O4
nanorods can effectively alleviate the volume expansion during
charge and discharge processes. As a result, a Li–S battery with
CoFe2O4 nanorods as the host exhibits enhanced reversible
Published on 17 July 2021. Downloaded by National University of Singapore on 8/28/2022 8:49:16 AM.
capacity and cycling performance, especially at high tempera-
tures. At a temperature of 70  C, the capacity can be stabilized at
about 700 mA h g
1 at 2 C aer 1000 cycles with a capacity
attenuation lower than 20% (0.02% per cycle). And at a low
temperature of 0  C, the cell also shows a reversible capacity of
705 mA h g
1 aer 100 cycles at 1 C.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) were used to characterize the
nanostructure of as-prepared samples. Fig. 1a shows a typical
overall view of the CoFe2O4 sample before heat treatment. It
shows that the sample has a uniform rod-like morphology and
constitutes a ower-like structure. The higher-magnication
image (Fig. 1b) shows that the nanorods are about 100–
200 nm in diameter and have smooth surfaces. Aer a heat
treatment at 700  C, the basic morphology and size of the
nanorods are preserved, except that the smooth surface
becomes a smaller pile of secondary particles with a size of
about 10–20 nm as shown in Fig. S1† and 1c. This is mainly due
to the reaction of the organic part in the precursor aer the
calcination process to form CO2 and then volatilization,
resulting in holes on the surface of the sample. The N2
adsorption–desorption isotherms also support this point of
view. Fig. S2† shows that the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller specic
surface area of CoFe2O4 is about 63.45 m2 g
1 and the pore
volume is 0.289 cm3 g
1, which is relatively high for metal
oxides not compounded with other carbon materials. The large
pore volume and high specic surface area are benecial to
restrain electrode volume expansion. At the same time, they can
provide more catalytic and adsorption sites for lithium
Fig. 1 (a and b) SEM images of CoFe2O4 precursor, and (c) TEM image
of CoFe2O4 nanorod. HRTEM image of the CoFe2O4 nanorod is pre-
sented in the inset of (c). (d) XRD patterns of CoFe2O4 nanorods.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021
View Article Online
Sustainable Energy & Fuels
polysuldes, thus improving the capacity and cycle life of Li–S
batteries. X-ray diffraction (XRD) was also used to investigate
the crystal structure of the CoFe2O4 sample aer calcination.
Signicant diffraction peaks in Fig. 1d are observed at 18.23 ,
30.01 , 35.44 , 37.05 , 43.05 , 53.44 , 56.97 , and 62.58 which
are perfectly indexed to the (111), (220), (311), (222), (400), (422),
(511) and (440) planes of CoFe2O4 according to JCPDS no. 22-
1086 with a face-centered cubic structure, indicating a high
purity of the CoFe2O4 crystalline phase. The inset of Fig. 1c
showing a high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) image also demon-
strates the high crystallinity of CoFe2O4. The plane spacing of
0.251 nm corresponds to the (311) spacing of CoFe2O4. The
energy dispersive spectrum in Fig. S3† shows the atomic ratio of
Co and Fe in the sample is about 1 : 2, which matches the
elemental ratio in CoFe2O4. And the electrical conductivity of
CoFe2O4 nanorods is 8.7  10
2 S cm
1 measured with
a powder resistivity tester (FT-02A).
Sublimated sulfur and CoFe2O4 sample were mixed and
heated at 155  C in a 3 : 1 ratio by weight. Then the content of
sulfur in the CoFe2O4/S composite was about 74.2% as
measured with TGA under nitrogen atmosphere (Fig. S4†). The
XRD results shown in Fig. S5† prove the presence of sulfur in
the sample. The SEM image of the CoFe2O4/S composite
(Fig. S6†) illustrates the surface of the nanorods is uniformly
coated with sulfur. To evaluate the electrochemical properties of
the CoFe2O4/S composite, it was applied as the cathode host for
Li–S batteries, and was tested from 1.7 to 2.7 V versus Li/Li+ (see
Fig. 2). Fig. 2a and b show the rate properties of CoFe2O4/S
composite at different current densities and the corresponding
Fig. 2 (a and b) Rate capability and corresponding charge and
discharge voltage profiles of CoFe2O4 at different current densities. (c
and e) Charge and discharge capacity and coulombic efficiency versus
cycle number at current densities of 1 C and 2 C. (d) Discharge capacity
of Co3O4, CoFe2O4 and Sup P versus cycle number at a current density
of 1 C.
Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2021, 5, 4284–4288 | 4285

Sustainable Energy & Fuels
charge/discharge curves. It is shown that at a current density of
0.1 C (1 C ¼ 1680 mA h g
1), the discharge capacity of the cell is
up to 1535 mA h g
1, which is equivalent to about 92% of the
theoretical capacity of sulfur. The corresponding charge
capacity is about 1531 mA h g
1, which is almost the same as
the discharge capacity. This indicates that almost all products
are oxidized into sulfur again during the charging process. The
Coulomb efficiency of the rst cycle with the CoFe2O4/S
Published on 17 July 2021. Downloaded by National University of Singapore on 8/28/2022 8:49:16 AM.
composite is as high as 99.7%, which shows that the electrode
has a very high sulfur utilization rate during both charge and
discharge processes. This is attributed to Co ions with an
unsaturated +2 valence, which can effectively catalyze the
conversion reaction of polysulde, thus greatly improving the
utilization rate of sulfur.29 With the current density increased to
0.2 C, 0.5 C, 1 C and 2 C, the discharge capacity of the cell is
1383 mA h g
1, 1279 mA h g
1, 1045 mA h g
1 and 892 mA h g
1,
respectively. Even when the rate is as high as 5 C (8.4 A g
1), the
CoFe2O4/S electrode can still release a large capacity of
587 mA h g
1, which implies that the cell has excellent rate
performance. When the current density returns to 0.1 C, a high
reversible capacity of 1493 mA h g
1 is recovered, which is fairly
close to the initial value.
In addition to capacity and rate performance, cycling
stability is also an important evaluation index for Li–S batteries.
Fig. 2c shows that at 1 C, the cell with CoFe2O4/S electrode
delivers a discharge capacity above 930 mA h g
1 aer 100
cycles. Moreover, Fig. 2e indicates an excellent cycling stability
at high current densities of 2 C, the discharge capacity nally
stabilizing at about 600 mA h g
1 aer 600 cycles with a capacity
attenuation of less than 0.03% per cycle. Co3O4 nanostructured
materials (the characterization is shown in Fig. S7†) under the
same test conditions were used in a comparison experiment.
The cycling stability of Co3O4/S electrode is improved compared
with those of carbon materials which have little chemisorption
capacity for polysulde. However, compared with CoFe2O4
material, the Co3O4/S electrode has a larger capacity attenuation
in the initial few cycles, indicating that the replacement of
cobalt ions with trivalent iron ions can enhance the adsorption
capacity for polysulde.
A visual discrimination experiment was used to intuitively
prove the adsorption capacity of the CoFe2O4 sample for poly-
suldes, in which Li2S6 was used as the representative of
Fig. 3 Visual discrimination experiment of a Li2S6 solution containing
Sup P, Co3O4, CoFe2O4, and blank electrolyte left to stand for 1 and 6 h
at 0  C (a and b) and 70  C (c and d).
4286 | Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2021, 5, 4284–4288
View Article Online
Communication
lithium polysuldes. Equal amounts of Sup P, Co3O4, and
CoFe2O4 nanorods were added to Li2S6 in DOL/DME solution
with a concentration of 10 mM. Fig. 3 shows the excellent
adsorption capacity of the CoFe2O4 nanorods, the orange
solution becoming colorless aer only minutes. The color of the
solution with Co3O4 also gradually faded, but aer 1 h, it still
showed some color of orange, indicating that the adsorption
capacity of Co3O4 for polysuldes is much weaker than that of
CoFe2O4. This indicates that the adsorption of polysulde in the
sample is mainly attributed to the trivalent ions, and the
adsorption capacity of +3 Fe ions is higher than that of +3 Co
ions. Aer 6 h, both the solutions with Co3O4 and CoFe2O4
nanorods became colorless; in contrast, the color of the solu-
tion with sup P was almost unchanged. The same experiment
was performed at a high temperature of 70  C, where the color
of the solution is lighter than at room temperature because the
solubility of the polysulde is increased at high temperatures.
But at this time, even aer 6 h, the Co3O4 solution did not turn
colorless. In contrast, aer only a short period of addition of
CoFe2O4 nanorods, the polysulde in the solution was adsorbed
completely. This suggests that CoFe2O4 nanorods can effectively
inhibit the “shuttle effect” in Li–S batteries over a wide
temperature range.
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was used to investi-
gate the chemical interaction between lithium polysulde and
CoFe2O4 at different states of the cell in the discharge/charge
process. Two pairs of distinct peaks are found at 797.0/
803.4 eV and 781.1/787.6 eV for 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 of the Co
element in the sample before discharge, respectively (as shown
in Fig. 4a). Even aer 100 cycles, the positions of the two pairs of
peaks are almost unchanged, indicating that the electron
transfer between Co and polysulde is relatively weak. This
indicates that the main role of Co in the CoFe2O4 sample is an
effective catalytic site to promote the conversion reaction of
lithium polysuldes,36,37 thus speeding up the reaction rate and
improving the utilization rate of sulfur. Unlike for Co 2p, a new
Fig. 4 X-ray photoelectron spectra of (a and b) Co 2p emissions and (c
and d) Fe 2p core level lines of the of the initial CoFe2O4 and after
cycling.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Communication
shoulder peak of Fe 2p is found in the XPS spectrum aer
cycling, which is mainly due to the chemical bonds formed
between Fe and polysuldes. This illustrates that the Fe sites in
CoFe2O4 act as adsorption centers to inhibit the “shuttle effect”
of polysulde, which is also consistent with the previous results
of solution adsorption experiments.
Although Fe site has high adsorption ability for polysuldes,
its weak catalytic activity limits the conversion of polysuldes.
Published on 17 July 2021. Downloaded by National University of Singapore on 8/28/2022 8:49:16 AM.
In contrast, Co site can realize the fast conversion of poly-
suldes, while the chemical binding of polysuldes on this site
is much weaker than that on Fe site, which can be demonstrated
by the XPS results shown in Fig. 4. In the CoFe2O4 nanorods,
these two types of sites simultaneously exist, and, compared to
the simple mixing of the two sites, the integration of the two
sites in the same material has no interface problem and the
distribution is more uniform. As a result, the Li polysuldes
trapped on the Fe site quickly diffuse to the Co site and are then
subjected to a conversion reaction, which achieves a smooth
trapping diffusion–conversion of Li polysuldes.26,38 If there are
solely Co or Fe adsorption sites, the adsorption capacity of Li
polysuldes on these sites is the same, all sites will be occupied
by adsorption at the initial time, and the smooth cycling process
cannot occur. Thus, fast adsorption/conversion of Li poly-
suldes can be realized at the CoFe2O4 nanorods. The smooth
trapping diffusion–conversion process produced by the syner-
gistic effect of Co site and Fe site in CoFe2O4 sample can both
speed up the conversion reaction and enhance the adsorption
ability for polysuldes, which are very important for Li–S
batteries to work properly in a wide temperature range.
Fig. 5 shows the performance of the CoFe2O4 nanorod host
for Li–S battery at high temperatures, while the ordinary carbon
host material Sup P is used for comparison. The charge/
discharge curves in Fig. 5a show that the initial discharge
capacities of both Sup P/S and CoFe2O4/S at 55  C at 1 C have
been increased to a certain extent, and the increase range of Sup
P is higher than that of CoFe2O4. This is due to the higher
Fig. 5 (a) First charge and discharge voltage profiles of CoFe2O4 and
Sup P at 1 C at room temperature and 55  C. (b) Discharge and charge
capacity of CoFe2O4 and Sup P versus cycle number at a current
density of 1 C at 55  C. (c) Charge and discharge capacity versus cycle
number at a current density of 2 C at 70  C.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021
View Article Online
Sustainable Energy & Fuels
Fig. 6 (a) First charge and discharge voltage profiles of CoFe2O4 and
Sup P at 0.1 C at 0  C. (b) Discharge and charge capacity of CoFe2O4
and Sup P versus cycle number at a current density of 1 C at 0  C.
temperature improving the conversion reaction rate of the Li–S
battery. CoFe2O4 has a catalytic effect on the reaction of poly-
sulde at room temperature, so the effect on it of raising the
temperature is not as obvious as that on Sup P. Cyclic stability is
the most important evaluation index of whether a Li–S battery
can work normally at high temperature. For the Sup P/S elec-
trode, although the initial discharge capacity can be up to
1000 mA h g
1 at 1 C, the capacity remains less than
300 mA h g
1 aer 100 cycles, indicating a signicant capacity
fading rate of more than 70%. In contrast, the initial capacity of
the CoFe2O4 electrode is about 1100 mA h g
1, but aer 100
cycles, the capacity can still be more than 950 mA h g
1 with
a capacity decay rate of only about 13%. Even when the
temperature is raised to 70  C, which can meet the service
temperature requirements of most portable products, EVs or
HEVs, the reversible capacity of the cell can still reach above
680 mA h g
1 at a high current density of 2 C. At this point, the
capacity decay rate is less than 20%, equivalent to 0.02% per
cycle. These results illustrate that aer many cycles at large rate
and high temperature, the CoFe2O4 nanorods used as the host
material have an excellent cycling stability for Li–S batteries.
The reaction kinetics of Li–S batteries is greatly reduced at
low temperature, which will lead to a decrease of sulfur utili-
zation, especially at high current density. The effective catalysis
of CoFe2O4 nanorods enables the cell to exhibit good perfor-
mance even at a low temperature of 0  C (Fig. 6). The CoFe2O4
electrode shows an initial cycle discharge capacity of
1370 mA h g
1 at 0.1 C. At a large rate of 1 C, aer 100 cycles the
reversible capacity of the cell could still reach 705 mA h g
1. By
contrast, the cell with a Sup P electrode has 400 mA h g
1
capacity le, which is only about 60% of that of the CoFe2O4
electrode. At a temperature of
20  C which can meet the low
temperature requirements of most devices, the CoFe2O4/S
cathode still exhibited improved electrochemical properties. It
can liberate a capacity of above 500 mA h g
1 at 0.5 C aer 50
cycles which is more than twice that of the Sup P/S cathode (as
shown in Fig. S8†).
Conclusions
In summary, a simple and effective method of preparing
CoFe2O4 nanorods has been introduced, which were then used
as the host material for a Li–S battery. Due to the synergistic
strengthening of the Co catalytic center and Fe adsorption
Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2021, 5, 4284–4288 | 4287

Sustainable Energy & Fuels
center in the CoFe2O4 nanorods, the conversion reaction of
polysuldes was accelerated on the one hand, and the adsorp-
tion effect of polysuldes was enhanced on the other hand.
Therefore, the utilization rate of sulfur and cycling stability of
the Li–S battery were greatly enhanced. The cell with CoFe2O4
nanorods showed a high initial discharge capacity of
1535 mA h g
1 at 0.1 C. Aer 100 cycles, a discharge capacity was
delivered of above 930 mA h g
1 at 1 C. Even at a high
Published on 17 July 2021. Downloaded by National University of Singapore on 8/28/2022 8:49:16 AM.
temperature of 70  C, the capacity of the cell with CoFe2O4 can
be stabilized at about 700 mA h g
1 at 2 C aer 1000 cycles. It
also shows a reversible capacity of 705 mA h g
1 at 1 C aer 100
cycles under a low temperature of 0  C, which illustrates that the
effective working temperature of the Li–S battery is widened to
a range of
20  C to 70  C. This work provides a new idea for the
selection of host materials in Li–S batteries with a wide
temperature range.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conicts to declare.
Acknowledgements
This work was nancially supported by the Key Project of NSFC
(22005118, U1705255), the Natural Science Foundation of
Fujian Province (2020J01692), the Youth Innovation Foundation
of Xiamen (3502Z20206018), Educational Research Foundation
for Young Teachers of Fujian Provincial Department of Educa-
tion (JAT190310) and Scientic Research Foundation of Jimei
University (no. C619032).
Notes and references
1 F. R. Brushett, M. S. Thorum and N. S. Lioutas, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2010, 132, 12185–12187.
2 J. Greeley, I. E. L. Stephens and A. S. Bondarenko, Nature
Chem, 2009, 1, 552–556.
3 B. B. Morten and L. Henrik, Renewable Energy, 2008, 33,
1499–1507.
4 J. B. Goodenough and K. S. Park, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011, 135,
1167–1176.
5 E. C. Evarts, Nature, 2015, 526, s93–s95.
6 J. B. Goodenough, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 1053–1061.
7 S. Chu, Y. Cui and N. Liu, Nat. Mater., 2017, 16, 16–22.
8 D. Larcher and T. M. Tarascon, Nat. Chem., 2015, 7, 19–29.
9 E. Peled, A. Gorenshtein and M. S. Segal, J. Power Sources,
1989, 26, 269–271.
10 Y. Yang, G. Y. Zheng and Y. Cui, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2013, 42,
3018–3032.
11 A. Manthiram, Y. Fu and Y. S. Su, Acc. Chem. Res., 2012, 46,
1125–1134.
12 Y. J. Li, J. M. Fan, M. S. Zheng and Q. F. Dong, Energy Environ.
Sci., 2016, 9, 1998–2004.
4288 | Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2021, 5, 4284–4288
View Article Online
Communication
13 Z. Li, J. T. Zhang, Y. M. Chen and X. W. Lou, Nat. Commum.,
2015, 6, 8850.
14 Y. X. Yin, S. Xin, Y. G. Guo and L. J. Wan, Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed., 2013, 52, 13186–13200.
15 H. J. Peng, G. Zhang, J. Q. Huang and Q. Zhang, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 2016, 55, 13184–13189.
16 X. L. Ji, K. T. Lee and L. F. Nazar, Nat. Mater., 2009, 8, 500–
506.
17 X. D. Hong, J. Liang and S. X. Dou, J. Energy Chem., 2020, 42,
144–168.
18 D. R. Deng, C. D. Bai, M. S. Zheng and Q. F. Dong, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces, 2019, 11, 11474–11480.
19 D. R. Deng, F. Xue, M. S. Zheng and Q. F. Dong, ACS Nano,
2018, 12, 11120–11129.
20 Q. Q. Huang, M. Q. Chen, Z. Su, L. Y. Tian, Y. Y. Zhang and
D. H. Long, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 411, 128504.
21 Q. H. Q. Xiao, R. P. Liu, M. Feng and Z. W. Chen, J. Energy
Chem., 2020, 44, 61–67.
22 M. L. Jana, J. Q. Huang, Q. Zhang and H. S. Park, Energy
Environ. Sci., 2020, 13, 1049–1075.
23 Y. Z. Song, Z. F. Liu, Q. Zhang and J. Y. Sun, Nano Energy,
2020, 70, 104555.
24 C. G. Wang, H. W. Song, Q. Li and L. W. Liu, J. Mater. Chem.
A, 2020, 8, 3421–3430.
25 D. R. Deng, J. Lei, M. S. Zheng and Q. F. Dong, J. Mater.
Chem. A, 2017, 5, 23497–23505.
26 S. Z. Wang, S. P. Feng, H. J. Song and X. L. Sun, Adv. Energy
Mater., 2021, 11, 2003314.
27 M. Zhao, X. Chen, B. Q. Li and J. Q. Huang, Adv. Mater., 2021,
33, 2007298.
28 M. Zhao, B. Q. Li, H. Yuan and J. Q. Huang, Chem, 2020, 6,
3297–3311.
29 R. H. Zhang, M. C. Wu, X. H. Fan and T. S. Zhao, J. Energy
Chem., 2021, 55, 136–144.
30 L. Kong, X. Chen, J. Q. Huang and Q. Zhang, Adv. Mater.,
2018, 30, 1705219.
31 M. Wang, S. Y. Tan, K. Y. Liu and H. T. Liu, J. Energy Chem.,
2020, 49, 316–322.
32 H. Wang, Y. Yang, V. Liang, Y. Cui and H. Dai, Nano Lett.,
2011, 11, 2644–2647.
33 M. L. Gordin, F. Dai, Z. Zhang and D. Wang, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces, 2014, 6, 8006–8010.
34 X. Li, A. Lushington, T. K. Sham and X. L. Sun, Nano Lett.,
2016, 16, 3545–3549.
35 F. Y. Lan, H. Y. Zhang, J. C. Fan, Q. J. Xu, H. X. Li and
Y. L. Min, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 13, 2734–2744.
36 L. L. Zhang, F. Wan, H. M. Cao, L. L. Liu and Z. Q. Niu, Small,
2020, 16, 1907153.
37 S. K. Park, J. K. Lee and Y. C. Kang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2018,
28, 1705264.
38 T. Zhou, W. Lv, J. Li, G. Zhou, Y. Zhao, S. Fan, B. Liu, B. Li,
F. Kang and Q. H. Yang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2017, 10,
1694–1703.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021