4.8 Article

Size-Dependent Chemomechanical Failure of Sulfide Solid Electrolyte Particles during Electrochemical Reaction with Lithium

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 411-418

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c04076

关键词

Solid-state batteries; Chemomechanical failure; Size effect; Sulfide solid electrolyte

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51971245, 52022088, 51772262, 21406191, U20A20336, 21935009]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [2202046]
  3. Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation of China [171064]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [F2021203097, B2020203037, B2018203297]
  5. Hunan Innovation Team [2018RS3091]
  6. Institute for Basic Science of South Korea [IBS-R019-D1]
  7. Vehicles Technology Office, of the U.S. Department of Energy [DEAC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates a strong size effect in the chemomechanical failure of Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) solid electrolyte particles, with no failure observed when the particle size is less than 1 μm.
The very high ionic conductivity of Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) solid electrolyte (SE) makes it a promising candidate SE for solid-state batteries in electrical vehicles. However, chemomechanical failure, whose mechanism remains unclear, has plagued its widespread applications. Here, we report in situ imaging lithiation-induced failure of LGPS SE. We revealed a strong size effect in the chemomechanical failure of LGPS particles: namely, when the particle size is greater than 3 mu m, fracture/pulverization occurred; when the particle size is between 1 and 3 mu m, microcracks emerged; when the particle size is less than 1 mu m, no chemomechanical failure was observed. This strong size effect is interpreted by the interplay between elastic energy storage and dissipation. Our finding has important implications for the design of high-performance LGPS SE, for example, by reducing the particle size to less than 1 mu m the chemomechanical failure of LGPS SE can be mitigated.

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

4.8
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