Fig 1

Development summary of coating materials and coating methods for graphite anodes [22,33–35,37,38,40,56,57,70,85,104,113,114,123]. Adapted with permission from Ref. [22], Copyright 2001, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [33], Copyright 1995, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [34], Copyright 1998, IOP Publishing. Adapted with permission from Ref. [35], Copyright 2000, IOP Publishing. Adapted with permission from Ref. [40], Copyright 2001, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [37], Copyright 2003, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [38], Copyright 2006, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [56], Copyright 2010, John Wiley and Sons. Adapted with permission from Ref. [70], Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society. Adapted with permission from Ref. [114], Copyright 2017, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [123], Copyright 2018, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [113], Copyright 2019, Elsevier. Adapted with permission from Ref. [85], Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons. Adapted with permission from Ref. [57], Copyright 2021, John Wiley and Sons. Adapted with permission from Ref. [104], Copyright 2023, John Wiley and Sons."

Table 1

Characteristics and applications of different coating methods."

Fig 2

Schematic of the coating layer influence on the lithium storage behaviors of graphite anodes. (a) Without coating on graphite, the co–intercalation of solvated Li+ ions will lead to the reductive decomposition of electrolyte and the detachment of the layered structure. (b) The coating layer on graphite prevents the co-intercalation of solvated Li+ ions and ensures proper lithium storage."

Fig 3

The surface of the graphite anode is coated with carbon materials. TEM images of (a) the pristine graphite and (b) nanoscale turbulent carbon–coated graphite [85]. (c) Rate capability of the pristine graphite and carbon-coated graphite and (d) AC impedance spectra at 0.7 V discharge [94]. (e) Diagram of Li+ flux distribution in raw graphite (PGr) and coated graphite particles (CDGr) [95]. (f) Temperature dependence of C′ obtained at 1 Hz for the graphite symmetric cells before and after charging/discharging [95]. (g) O 1s XPS spectrum of PCG [98], (h) schematic of the fabrication of PCG [98], and (i) cycling performance of PCG at 0.1C and (j) 2C [98]. (a, b) Adapted with permission from Ref. [85], Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons. (c, d) Adapted with permission from Ref. [94], Copyright 2015, Elsevier. (e, f) Adapted with permission from Ref. [95], Copyright 2022, Elsevier. (g–j) Adapted with permission from Ref. [98], Copyright 2023, Springer Nature."

Fig 4

The surface of the graphite anode is coated with lithium–ion conductors. (a, b) Schematic of the effect of LiI coating on a graphite surface [102]. (c) Schematic of the desolvation process and Li+ transport on LEMC-based SEI and (d) Li3P-based SEI [103]. (e) Cycling performance of the NCM622 || graphite pouch cells at a charging current density of 6C [103]. (f) Illustration of the mechanism of Li3P-engineered graphite anode in low-temperature electrolyte [104]. (g) Schematic delineating the SEI structure on graphite and (h) Li3PO4–coated graphite electrodes [105]. (a, b) Adapted with permission from Ref. [102], Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (c–e) Adapted with permission from Ref. [103], Copyright 2023, Springer Nature. (f) Adapted with permission from Ref. [104], Copyright 2023, John Wiley and Sons. (g, h) Adapted with permission from Ref. [105], Copyright 2024, John Wiley and Sons."

Fig 5

The surface of the graphite anode is coated with metal compound materials. (a, b) Proposed improvement mechanism illustration of AlPO4 coating of graphite in the cycled LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4| graphite full cell [44]. (c) Schematic of the energy levels in a typical lithium–ion battery. The LUMO of the electrolyte is lower than the Fermi energy of Li (ELi), the difference between which is noted as ΔEred. EIE stands for ionization energies of various organic solvent molecules [112]. (d) Schematic of the graphite surface coated with Al2O3 [113]. (e) Rate capability at different current densities of TiO2−x@graphite electrode with different amounts of TiO2−x [114]. Comparison of calculated total DOS profiles from the partial DOS of Ti (blue) and O (orange) for (f) stoichiometric TiO2 and (g) off–stoichiometric TiO2−x structures [115]. (h) Cycling performance of graphite and MoOx-MoPx-coated graphite anodes in full cells [116]. (a, b) Adapted with permission from Ref. [44], Copyright 2019, John Wiley and Sons. (c) Adapted with permission from Ref. [112], Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society. (d) Adapted with permission from Ref. [113], Copyright 2019, Elsevier. (e) Adapted with permission from Ref. [114], Copyright 2017, Elsevier. (f, g) Adapted with permission from Ref. [115], Copyright 2020, Elsevier. (h) Adapted with permission from Ref. [116], Copyright 2021, Springer Nature."

Fig 6

The surface of the graphite anode is coated with polymer materials. (a) Schematic of the effect of SM polymerization coating on the graphite surface [119]. (b) Schematic of the bonding and fixation coating of PEGPE and PAAm [125]. (c) Rate capability of graphite and P & P-coated graphite at different current densities [125]. (d) Cycling performance of graphite and PDA–coated graphite [126]. (e) Schematic of lithium plating on a pristine graphite electrode and a PVDF–coated electrode [123]. (f) Schematic of the bilayer SEI structure formed on the surface of PMMA–coated graphite and (g) its cycling performance [127]. (a) Adapted with permission from Ref. [119], Copyright 2017, Elsevier. (b, c) Adapted with permission from Ref. [125], Copyright 2014, John Wiley and Sons. (d) Adapted with permission from Ref. [126], Copyright 2022, John Wiley and Sons. (e) Adapted with permission from Ref. [123], Copyright 2018, Elsevier. (f, g) Adapted with permission from Ref. [127], Copyright 2023, Elsevier."

Table 2

Representative materials and their advantages in graphite coating."