Comparing the Electrochemical Performance of <svg     style="vertical-align:-4.32007pt;width:77.412498px;" id="M1" height="20.4125" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 77.412498 20.4125" width="77.412498"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.975)"><path id="x4C" d="M495 163l30 -6q-19 -99 -36 -157h-453v28q63 5 77.5 20t14.5 78v400q0 63 -13 77t-75 19v28h261v-28q-61 -5 -74.5 -19t-13.5 -77v-395q0 -41 5 -59t18 -25q24 -13 96 -13q85 0 112 31q30 33 51 98z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,12.122,14.975)"><path id="x69" d="M135 536q-20 0 -35 15.5t-15 35.5q0 22 15 37t36 15t35.5 -15t14.5 -37q0 -21 -15 -36t-36 -15zM252 0h-220v26q48 5 59 17t11 63v206q0 47 -9 58t-54 18v24q78 12 142 39v-345q0 -51 11.5 -63t59.5 -17v-26z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,18.13,14.975)"><path id="x46" d="M493 503l-29 -4q-13 56 -28 80q-13 22 -35.5 29.5t-78.5 7.5h-76q-22 0 -27.5 -5t-5.5 -27v-238h103q66 0 82.5 12t25.5 62h29v-193h-29q-9 54 -25.5 67t-82.5 13h-103v-181q0 -64 15 -78.5t84 -19.5v-28h-272v28q61 5 74.5 19.5t13.5 78.5v399q0 64 -13 78t-72 19v28
h440q1 -40 10 -147z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,29.988,14.975)"><path id="x65" d="M380 106l15 -22q-42 -52 -87 -74t-76 -22q-89 0 -142 62t-53 151q0 103 66 175q67 73 146 73h1q61 0 105.5 -46.5t44.5 -105.5q0 -16 -4.5 -22.5t-18.5 -9.5q-54 -10 -262 -17q1 -95 46 -143.5t104 -48.5q61 0 115 50zM225 412q-35 0 -64.5 -32.5t-40.5 -90.5q83 0 170 3
q14 0 19 4.5t5 15.5q1 41 -23.5 70.5t-65.5 29.5z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,39.515,14.975)"><path id="x50" d="M46 650h247q112 0 169 -41q64 -49 64 -141q0 -91 -56.5 -143t-138.5 -62q-23 -3 -45 -1l-74 19v-157q0 -63 15.5 -77t83.5 -19v-28h-271v28q60 5 74 20t14 77v400q0 65 -12.5 79t-69.5 18v28zM212 559v-245q31 -12 73 -12q59 0 102 38t43 124q0 77 -42.5 115.5
t-108.5 38.5q-44 0 -56 -12q-11 -8 -11 -47z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,52.135,14.975)"><path id="x4F" d="M381 665q131 0 226.5 -93t95.5 -239q0 -158 -96 -253t-238 -95q-137 0 -231 95t-94 238q0 142 92.5 244.5t244.5 102.5zM359 629q-89 0 -151 -74.5t-62 -208.5q0 -141 69 -233t175 -92q90 0 150.5 74t60.5 211q0 152 -69 237.5t-173 85.5z" /></g>

			<g transform="matrix(.016,-0,0,-.016,68.875,20.35)"><path id="x1D7D2" d="M476 255v-111h-64v-144h-145v144h-248v113l313 431h80v-433h64zM60 255h208v294z" /></g>

		
	
</svg>/C Modified by Mg Doping and MgO Coating

<table>SEM images of LFP/C (a), LFP/C-M<sub>2.5 </sub>(b), LFP/C-M<sub>5 </sub>(c), L<sub>0.985 </sub>M<sub>0.015</sub>FP/C (d), and L<sub>0.97 </sub>M<sub>0.03</sub>FP/C (e).</table>

Journal of Nanomaterials

fig2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Comparing the Electrochemical Performance of <svg     style="vertical-align:-4.32007pt;width:77.412498px;" id="M1" height="20.4125" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 77.412498 20.4125" width="77.412498"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.975)"><path id="x4C" d="M495 163l30 -6q-19 -99 -36 -157h-453v28q63 5 77.5 20t14.5 78v400q0 63 -13 77t-75 19v28h261v-28q-61 -5 -74.5 -19t-13.5 -77v-395q0 -41 5 -59t18 -25q24 -13 96 -13q85 0 112 31q30 33 51 98z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,12.122,14.975)"><path id="x69" d="M135 536q-20 0 -35 15.5t-15 35.5q0 22 15 37t36 15t35.5 -15t14.5 -37q0 -21 -15 -36t-36 -15zM252 0h-220v26q48 5 59 17t11 63v206q0 47 -9 58t-54 18v24q78 12 142 39v-345q0 -51 11.5 -63t59.5 -17v-26z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,18.13,14.975)"><path id="x46" d="M493 503l-29 -4q-13 56 -28 80q-13 22 -35.5 29.5t-78.5 7.5h-76q-22 0 -27.5 -5t-5.5 -27v-238h103q66 0 82.5 12t25.5 62h29v-193h-29q-9 54 -25.5 67t-82.5 13h-103v-181q0 -64 15 -78.5t84 -19.5v-28h-272v28q61 5 74.5 19.5t13.5 78.5v399q0 64 -13 78t-72 19v28
h440q1 -40 10 -147z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,29.988,14.975)"><path id="x65" d="M380 106l15 -22q-42 -52 -87 -74t-76 -22q-89 0 -142 62t-53 151q0 103 66 175q67 73 146 73h1q61 0 105.5 -46.5t44.5 -105.5q0 -16 -4.5 -22.5t-18.5 -9.5q-54 -10 -262 -17q1 -95 46 -143.5t104 -48.5q61 0 115 50zM225 412q-35 0 -64.5 -32.5t-40.5 -90.5q83 0 170 3
q14 0 19 4.5t5 15.5q1 41 -23.5 70.5t-65.5 29.5z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,39.515,14.975)"><path id="x50" d="M46 650h247q112 0 169 -41q64 -49 64 -141q0 -91 -56.5 -143t-138.5 -62q-23 -3 -45 -1l-74 19v-157q0 -63 15.5 -77t83.5 -19v-28h-271v28q60 5 74 20t14 77v400q0 65 -12.5 79t-69.5 18v28zM212 559v-245q31 -12 73 -12q59 0 102 38t43 124q0 77 -42.5 115.5
t-108.5 38.5q-44 0 -56 -12q-11 -8 -11 -47z" /></g><g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,52.135,14.975)"><path id="x4F" d="M381 665q131 0 226.5 -93t95.5 -239q0 -158 -96 -253t-238 -95q-137 0 -231 95t-94 238q0 142 92.5 244.5t244.5 102.5zM359 629q-89 0 -151 -74.5t-62 -208.5q0 -141 69 -233t175 -92q90 0 150.5 74t60.5 211q0 152 -69 237.5t-173 85.5z" /></g>

			<g transform="matrix(.016,-0,0,-.016,68.875,20.35)"><path id="x1D7D2" d="M476 255v-111h-64v-144h-145v144h-248v113l313 431h80v-433h64zM60 255h208v294z" /></g>

		
	
</svg>/C Modified by Mg Doping and MgO Coating 

Journal of Nanomaterials

Comparing the Electrochemical Performance of /C Modified by Mg Doping and MgO Coating

Figure 2