Interfaces between Ceramic and Polymer Electrolytes: A Comparison of Oxide and Sulfide Solid Electrolytes for Hybrid Solid-State Batteries
Authors
Jolly, Dominic Spencer
Melvin, Dominic LR
Stephens, Isabella DR
Brugge, Rowena H
Pu, Shengda D
Bu, Junfu
Ning, Ziyang
Hartley, Gareth O
Adamson, Paul
Grant, Patrick S
Aguadero, Ainara
Bruce, Peter G
Publication Date
2022Journal Title
INORGANICS
ISSN
2304-6740
Publisher
MDPI AG
Volume
10
Issue
5
Language
en
Type
Article
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Jolly, D. S., Melvin, D. L., Stephens, I. D., Brugge, R. H., Pu, S. D., Bu, J., Ning, Z., et al. (2022). Interfaces between Ceramic and Polymer Electrolytes: A Comparison of Oxide and Sulfide Solid Electrolytes for Hybrid Solid-State Batteries. INORGANICS, 10 (5) https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10050060
Abstract
<jats:p>Hybrid solid-state batteries using a bilayer of ceramic and solid polymer electrolytes may offer advantages over using a single type of solid electrolyte alone. However, the impedance to Li+ transport across interfaces between different electrolytes can be high. It is important to determine the resistance to Li+ transport across these heteroionic interfaces, as well as to understand the underlying causes of these resistances; in particular, whether chemical interphase formation contributes to giving high resistances, as in the case of ceramic/liquid electrolyte interfaces. In this work, two ceramic electrolytes, Li3PS4 (LPS) and Li6.5La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12 (LLZTO), were interfaced with the solid polymer electrolyte PEO10:LiTFSI and the interfacial resistances were determined by impedance spectroscopy. The LLZTO/polymer interfacial resistance was found to be prohibitively high but, in contrast, a low resistance was observed at the LPS/polymer interface that became negligible at a moderately elevated temperature of 50 °C. Chemical characterization of the two interfaces was carried out, using depth-profiled X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, to determine whether the interfacial resistance was correlated with the formation of an interphase. Interestingly, no interphase was observed at the higher resistance LLZTO/polymer interface, whereas LPS was observed to react with the polymer electrolyte to form an interphase.</jats:p>
Keywords
solid-state battery, hybrid battery, interfaces, polymer electrolyte, solid electrolyte, solid-polymer electrolyte interphase
Sponsorship
Henry Royce Institute (EP/R00661X/1, EP/S019367/1, EP/R010145/1)
The Faraday Institution (FIRG007, FIRG008)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M009521/1, EP/R024006/1, EP/P003532/1)
Horizon 2020 FETPROACT-2018-2020 (”HARVESTORE” 824072)
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10050060
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/336539
Rights
Licence:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.