4.8 Article

Garnet Electrolytes for Solid State Batteries: Visualization of Moisture-Induced Chemical Degradation and Revealing Its Impact on the Li-Ion Dynamics

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 3704-3713

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b00486

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/N020707/1, EP/P003532/1]
  2. EPSRC
  3. EPSRC [EP/P003532/1, EP/N020707/1, EP/P02520X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we reveal the impact of moisture-induced chemical degradation and proton-lithium exchange on the Li-ion dynamics in the bulk and the grain boundaries and at the interface with lithium metal in highly Li-conducting garnet electrolytes. A direct correlation between chemical changes as measured by depth-resolved secondary ion mass spectrometry and the change in transport properties of the electrolyte is provided. In order to probe the intrinsic effect of the exchange on the lithium kinetics within the garnet structure, isolated from secondary corrosion product contributions, controlled-atmosphere processing was first used to produce proton-free Li6.55Ga0.15La3Zr2O12 (Ga0.15-LLZO), followed by degradation steps in a H2O bath at 100 degrees C, leading to the removal of LiOH secondary phases at the surface. The proton-exchanged region was analyzed by focused ion beam secondary ion mass spectrometry (FIB-SIMS) and found to extend as far as 1.35 mu m into the Ga0.1.5-LLZO garnet pellet after 30 min in H2O. Impedance analysis in symmetrical cells with Li metal electrodes indicated a greater reactivity in grain boundaries than in grains and a significantly detrimental effect on the Li transfer kinetics in the Li metal/garnet interface correlated to a 3-fold decrease in the Li mobility in the protonated garnet. This result indicates that the deterioration of Li charge transfer and diffusion kinetics in proton-containing garnet electrolytes have fundamental implications for the optimization and integration of these systems in commercial battery devices.

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