Interfacial Challenge for Solid-State Lithium Batteries- Liquid Addition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All solid-state lithium batteries with garnet electrolytes (Li7La3Zr2O12, LLZO) are promising energy storage devices that have gained increasing attention due to their huge potential towards non-flammability and higher energy density. However, reported solid-state lithium batteries cannot achieve the projected energy density (> 500 Wh/kg at the cell level) mainly due to insufficient contact and poor compatibility between LLZO and electrodes. The use of liquid electrolytes in small quantities has been suggested as a component in the quasi-solid hybrid electrolytes to address these two issues. However, the working principle of liquid electrolytes added as the interface inside the batteries is not clear yet. This study added 10L carbonate-based liquid electrolyte between LLZO and LiNi0.6Mn0.6Co0.2O2 (NMC 622) cathode. The assembled Li|LLZO|NMC 622 cell exhibited an initial discharge capacity of 168 mAh g-1 with a capacity retention ratio of ~82 % after 28 cycles. Scanning Transmission X-ray Microscopy revealed the reaction of LE with garnet and NMC 622. More importantly, the LE decomposed and solidified during the cycling process. Decomposed LE participated in the formation of a newly-identified solid-liquid electrolyte interface (SLEI) just after the 1st cycle. Furthermore, the X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy results indicated that the SLEI consisted predominantly of LiF, LaF3, Li2O, and Li2CO3 species. Overall, this study proved the solidification of liquid electrolytes at the garnet/cathode interface. The formation of SLEI effectively suppressed the degradation of the garnet electrolyte and stabilized the battery cycling performance. More efforts are required to optimize the liquid and establish a more stable SLEI that could expand the cycling life of the batteries.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".