“…So far, S/PAN composites show relatively stable cycle life performance even in LiPF 6 /carbonate-based electrolyte solutions (note that any other composites cannot be used in LiPF 6 /carbonate-based electrolyte solutions because of irreversible polysulfides-carbonate reactions) (Wang et al, 2002(Wang et al, , 2003Yu et al, 2004;Fanous et al, 2011;Doan et al, 2013Doan et al, , 2014Zhang et al, 2013d,e;Konarov et al, 2014;Li et al, 2014;Zhang, 2014): it has been explained that the nanoscopic (or sub-nanoscopic) distribution of sulfur/polysulfides in cyclized PAN contributes to the polysulfide stabilization (Wang et al, 2002(Wang et al, , 2003Yu et al, 2004;Fanous et al, 2011;Doan et al, 2013;Zhang, 2014). S/PAN binary composites (Wang et al, 2002) or S/PAN/conducting carbon ternary composites (Wang et al, 2003) were first suggested by Wang et al Recently, S/PAN composites with nanosized additives, such as S/PAN/nanosized Mg 0.6 Ni 0.4 O (MNO) (Zhang et al, 2013d), S/PAN/graphene (Zhang et al, 2013e), and S/PAN/reduced graphene oxide (RGO) , were intensively investigated by the research groups of University of Waterloo (Canada) and Nazarbayev University (Kazakhstan), and it is likely that the use of nanosized filler (either conducting or non-conducting; conducting ones tend to show better rate performance, of course) can contribute to a better cycle life performance than the composites without nanosized fillers probably owing to the more homogeneous sulfur distribution.…”