(Invited) Garnet-Type Electrolytes for All-Solid-State Lithium Metal Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All solid-state Li batteries are foreseen as the future state of battery technology due to their safety, high energy density, and high potential window as compared to the present organic liquid electrolyte batteries. Li-ion conducting garnet-type electrolytes have received considerable research interests due to their compatibility with Li metal anode, good ionic conductivity (10-3 S/cm) and wide electrochemical window (~ 6V vs. Li).1 Garnet-type Li6.5La3-xAxZr1.5-xTax+0.5O12 (A = Ca, Sr, Ba; x = 0.1, 0.5) solid electrolytes were prepared by conventional solid-state synthesis and spark plasma synthesis (SPS).2-4 The formation of the cubic garnet-type structure was confirmed by powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD). Microstructure of the solid electrolytes were analysed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and cross-sectional analyses showed that the SPS processed samples are highly dense compared to the same compositions prepared by conventional solid-state route. The AC electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was used to measure the impedance of solid electrolytes and found that all samples exhibit bulk conductivity in the order of 10-4 S/cm at room temperature. SPS processed samples showed an excellent Li-ion charge transfer resistance and the highest critical current density compared to the samples prepared by conventional solid-state synthesis. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analyses were conducted on SPS-processed samples to quantify the impurity layers on garnet surface. Electrochemical performance of a hybrid cell consisting of liquid Li-ion electrolytes and garnet electrolyte will be discussed. References Wang, K. Fu, S. Palakkathodi Kammampata, D. W. McOwen, A. Junio Samson, L. Zhang, G. T. Hitz, A. M. Nolan, E. D. Wachsman, Y. Mo, V. Thangadurai and L. Hu, Chem. Rev., 2020, 120, 4257–4300. Palakkathodi Kammampata, R. H. Basappa, T. Ito, H. Yamada and V. Thangadurai, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 2019, 2, 1765–1773. Palakkathodi Kammampata, H. Yamada, T. Ito, R. Paul and V. Thangadurai, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020, 8, 2581–2590. Yamada, T. Ito, S. P. Kammampata and V. Thangadurai, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 36119–36127.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".