Fig. 4: Performance evaluation and descriptor analysis for various dual-intercalation full cells.
a CV curves, b EIS curves (symbols represent the raw data, solid lines represent the fitted data, and the error is summarized in Table S11), and c the rate performance comparison of the ZVO||VOH cell before and after positive electrode intercalation. d CV curves, e EIS curves (symbols represent the raw data, solid lines represent the fitted data, and the error is summarized in Table S11), and f the rate performance comparison of the ZVO | | VOP cell before and after positive electrode intercalation. (Throughout a–f, blue corresponds to cell before positive electrode intercalation and red corresponds to cell after intercalation). g Comparison of zinc ion diffusion coefficients for each electrode material, and the CSI of the full cells based on 5 different negative electrodes (the error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation of diffusion coefficients calculated at multiple voltage points during cycling for each full cell. The number of voltage points (n) for each material is: ZVO: n = 69, TiS2: n = 58, MXene: n = 47, MoO2: n = 53, PTCDI: n = 18, NVO-1.8 V: n = 64, PA-VOP: n = 72, KVOH: n = 33, NVO-2.0 V: n = 68, VOP: n = 59, VOH: n = 42). And comparison of the redox potential difference (PD), mass-specific capacity (Cm) at 1 mV s−1, capacity retention (CR, specific current increased from 0.1 to 1 A g−1), charge transfer resistance (Rct), and Warburg resistance (Rw) of the 5 negative electrodes in pair with 3 positive electrodes before and after matching. All electrochemical measurements above were performed at ~25 °C. (Green hatched, purple hatched, and yellow hatched filling represent mismatched cells with NVO, VOH, and VOP positive electrodes, respectively; while solid green, purple, and yellow filling denote their matched counterparts.).
