Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Identifying the anionic redox activity in cation-disordered Li1.25Nb0.25Fe0.50O2/C oxide cathodes for Li-ion batteries
Mingzeng
Luo
a,
Shiyao
Zheng
a,
Jue
Wu
ab,
Ke
Zhou
a,
Wenhua
Zuo
a,
Min
Feng
c,
Huajin
He
a,
Rui
Liu
ad,
Jianping
Zhu
a,
Gang
Zhao
e,
Shijian
Chen
a,
Wanli
Yang
b,
Zhangquan
Peng
f,
Qihui
Wu
g and
Yong
Yang
*ae
aState Key Laboratory for Physical Chemistry of Solid Surfaces, Department of Chemistry, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China. E-mail: yyang@xmu.edu.cn
bAdvanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
cDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
dSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China
eSchool of Energy, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China
fState Key Laboratory of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Science, Changchun 130022, China
gCollege of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China
First published on 2nd July 2020
Abstract
Correction for ‘Identifying the anionic redox activity in cation-disordered Li1.25Nb0.25Fe0.50O2/C oxide cathodes for Li-ion batteries’ by Mingzeng Luo et al., J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020, 8, 5115–5127, DOI: 10.1039/C9TA11739C.
The authors regret an error in the ‘Materials characterization’ section of the published article, on page 5117.
The text: “The cells were charged/discharged with a constant current (40 mA g−1) at room temperature” should instead read as follows: “The cells were charged/discharged with a constant current (60 mA g−1) at room temperature”.
Furthermore, the authors regret an error in a sample name in the ‘Results and discussion’ section of the published article, on page 5118.
The text: “In the second charge, the absorption edge of the 2C3.80 sample shifts back to the same position as the 1D1.50 sample, which suggests the reversible oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+” should instead read as follows: “In the second charge, the absorption edge of the 2C3.80 sample shifts back to the same position as the 1D2.60 sample, which suggests the reversible oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+”.
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 |