## 2 Results and Discussion
### Morphology and Structure of Materials
Additionally, the interlayer spacing of the (002) plane in MoS2-NG is measured at 0.69 nm, larger than that of pure MoS2. This indicates that the PANI-modified GO not only ensures the uniform growth of MoS2 nanoflowers but also increases the interlayer spacing, enriching the in-plane active sites, which is beneficial for the adsorption and catalytic conversion of polysulfides [32], thereby enhancing the electrochemical performance of lithium-sulfur batteries. The catalyst material was loaded onto the commercial PP membrane surface using a simple vacuum filtration method. To further observe the surface morphology and the thickness of the modified membrane, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to capture images of the top surface and cross-section of the PP, MoS2/PP, MoS2-G/PP, and MoS2-NG/PP membranes. Figure S3a,b shows the SEM images of the commercial PP membrane at different magnifications, where numerous pores are visible on the surface. These pores facilitate electrolyte infiltration and lithium-ion transport. However, these same  
Figure 2: SEM images (**a**) and element distribution diagrams (**b–f**) of MoS2-NG (C, O, N, Mo, S elements); TEM images of MoS2 (**g,h**) and MoS2-NG (**i–k**) at different magnifications. pores also allow the migration of soluble polysulfide intermediates to the anode during the charge/discharge cycles of the lithium-sulfur battery, contributing to the shuttle effect. Figure S3c shows the cross-sectional SEM image of the PP membrane, with a thickness of approximately 25 \(\upmu\)m. Since no catalyst material is loaded, the surface appears smooth at low magnifications. Figure S3d,e displays the SEM images of the MoS\({}_{2}\)/PP membrane surface, where the MoS\({}_{2}\) nanoflowers are well-structured and almost fully cover the membrane surface. However, due to significant stacking and aggregation of the MoS\({}_{2}\) nanoflowers, the modified membrane surface is not entirely smooth. This unevenness is also evident in the cross-sectional SEM image of the MoS\({}_{2}\)/PP membrane (Figure S3f), where the modification layer thickness is approximately 3.40 \(\upmu\)m, showing uneven loading across different areas of the membrane, leading to variations in the catalyst loading. In comparison, the surface of the MoS\({}_{2}\)-G/PP membrane is relatively smoother, as shown in Figure S3g,h. The MoS\({}_{2}\)-G also fully covers the PP membrane surface, obscuring the original pore structure of the membrane. However, due to the absence of PANI modification on the GO surface, the MoS\({}_{2}\) nanoflowers do not grow uniformly on the GO, leading to localized aggregation. Figure S3i shows the cross-sectional SEM image of the MoS\({}_{2}\)-G/PP membrane, where the structure is more porous compared to pure MoS\({}_{2}\), with a modification layer thickness of approximately 4.68 \(\upmu\)m.  
A comparative analysis of the SEM images of the MoS\({}_{2}\)/PP and MoS\({}_{2}\)-G/PP membranes reveals a common issue: although the catalyst material can completely cover the PP membrane pores, physically blocking polysulfides, the aggregation of MoS\({}_{2}\) nanoflowers obscures numerous catalytic active sites and results in uneven distribution of these sites across the membrane surface. This uneven distribution leads to variations in catalytic efficiency across different areas of the membrane, thereby affecting the overall stability of the redox kinetics in the battery system. Figure S3j,k shows the SEM images of the MoS\({}_{2}\)-NG/PP membrane surface at different magnifications. Unlike the previous cases, it is evident that the PANI modification altered the surface charge of the GO, allowing the MoS\({}_{2}\) nanoflowers to grow uniformly on the GO surface. When MoS\({}_{2}\)-NG is loaded onto the PP membrane, no significant aggregation is observed, and the overall surface morphology is very smooth.