4.6 Article

High electronic conductivity as the origin of lithium dendrite formation within solid electrolytes

期刊

NATURE ENERGY
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 187-196

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41560-018-0312-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF1510187]
  2. National Science Foundation [1805159]
  3. US Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), IONICS Program [DE-AR0000775]
  4. NIST Award [70NANB12H238]
  5. Nanostructures for Electrical Energy Storage (NEES), an Energy Frontier Research Center - US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DESC0001160]
  6. Maryland Nanocenter
  7. AIMLab
  8. FabLab
  9. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) [W911NF1510187] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
  10. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  11. Directorate For Engineering [1805159] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid electrolytes (SEs) are widely considered as an 'enabler' of lithium anodes for high-energy batteries. However, recent reports demonstrate that the Li dendrite formation in Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) and Li2S-P2S5 is actually much easier than that in liquid electrolytes of lithium batteries, by mechanisms that remain elusive. Here we illustrate the origin of the dendrite formation by monitoring the dynamic evolution of Li concentration profiles in three popular but representative SEs (LiPON, LLZO and amorphous Li3PS4) during lithium plating using time-resolved operando neutron depth profiling. Although no apparent changes in the lithium concentration in LiPON can be observed, we visualize the direct deposition of Li inside the bulk LLZO and Li3PS4. Our findings suggest the high electronic conductivity of LLZO and Li3PS4 is mostly responsible for dendrite formation in these SEs. Lowering the electronic conductivity, rather than further increasing the ionic conductivity of SEs, is therefore critical for the success of all-solid-state Li batteries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据