PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 26, 2026Small0 citations

Rational Designs of Single‐Atom Catalysts Loaded Hollow Microstructures for Advanced Lithium–Sulfur Batteries

View Full Paper
XLXingyu LiaoYTYin TanQWQiong Wu

Key Points

  • The aim is to explore the role of single-atom catalysts in improving lithium–sulfur batteries' performance against lithium polysulfides shuttle effect.
  • Discuss mechanistic roles and challenges of single-atom catalysts in lithium polysulfides management.
  • Compare three hollow microstructure configurations: single, double, and yolk-shell.
  • Evaluate four synthesis methods for crafting single-atom catalyst loaded hollow microstructures.
  • Highlight synergistic effects of hollow structures combined with single-atom catalysts.
  • Identify distinct impacts of different hollow configurations on battery performance.
  • Outline advantages and limitations of synthesis methods for optimal single-atom catalyst performance in lithium–sulfur batteries.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Lithium–sulfur batteries (LSBs) are promising next‐generation energy storage candidates with high theoretical specific capacity and low material cost. Despite these advantages, the practical application of LSBs is significantly hampered by the lithium polysulfides (LiPSs) shuttle effect, poor sulfur conductivity, and sluggish LiPSs conversion kinetics. Numerous studies have confirmed that introducing catalysts to LSBs effectively addresses the sluggish conversion of LiPSs. Single‐atom catalysts (SACs) have demonstrated great potential in LSBs due to their high catalytic activity and nearly complete atom utilization. The synergistic effect of the hollow structure and the SACs addresses key limitations of SACs in LSBs, including agglomeration, insufficient LiPSs confinement, and poor volume buffering capability. Thus, SACsloaded hollow microstructures (SACs‐HMs) are a superior strategy to address the LiPSs shuttle in LSBs. In this review, we first discuss the mechanistic roles and inherent challenges of SACs in suppressing the LiPSs shuttle. Subsequently, the structure‐activity relationships of three hollow configurations (single, double, and yolk‐shell) are comprehensively compared, highlighting their distinct impacts on battery performance. And we evaluate four synthesis methods (hard‐template, soft‐template, template‐free, and self‐template), outlining their respective advantages and limitations for crafting SACs‐HMs. Lastly, a perspective on the future developments of SACs‐HMs in LSBs applications is offered.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liao et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a153a88b5d9c58d83e8d1e6https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.73893
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Progresses and Prospects of Asymmetrically Coordinated Single Atom Catalysts for Lithium−Sulfur Batteries2024 · 23 citations
  2. 2Unlocking Performance: The Transformative Influence of Single Atom Catalysts on Advanced Lithium‐Sulfur Battery Design2024 · 57 citations
  3. 3Single Atom Catalyst Anchored on Nitrogen-Doped Porous Carbon As an Effective Sulfur Host for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Single‐ and Dual‐Atom Configurations in Atomically Dispersed Catalysts for Lithium–Sulfur Batteries2026 · 5 citations
  5. 5Heterogeneous Single/Dual‐Atom Electrocatalysts in Lithium–Sulfur Batteries2026