Sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) are promising alternatives to replace lithium-ion batteries as future energy storage batteries because of their abundant sodium resources, low cost, and high charging efficiency. In order to match the high energy capacity and density, designing an atomically doped carbonous material as the anode is presently one of the important strategies to commercialize SIBs. In this work, we report the preparation of high-performance dual-atom-doped carbon (C) materials using low-cost corn starch and thiourea (CH4N2S) as the precursors. The electronegativity and radii of the doped atoms and C are different, which can vary the embedding properties of sodium ions (Na+) into/on C. As sulfur (S) can effectively expand the layer spacing, it provides more channels for embedding and de-embedding Na+. The synergistic effect of N and S co-doping can remarkably boost the performance of SIBs. The capacity is preserved at 400 mAh g -1 after 200 cycles at 500 mA g-1; more notably, the initial Coulombic efficiency is 81%. Even at a high rate of high current of 10 A g-1, the cell capacity can still reach 170 mAh g-1. More importantly, after 3000 cycles at 1 A g-1, the capacity decay is less than 0.003% per cycle, which demonstrates its excellent electrochemical performance. These results indicate that high-performance carbon materials can be prepared using low-cost corn starch and thiourea.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.