Evaluation of Oxide|Sulfide Heteroionic Interface Stability for Developing Solid-State Batteries with a Lithium–Metal Electrode: The Case of LLZO|Li<sub>6</sub>PS<sub>5</sub>Cl and LLZO|Li<sub>7</sub>P<sub>3</sub>S<sub>11</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing solid-state batteries (SSB) with a lithium metal electrode (LME) using only one type of solid electrolyte (SE) is a significant challenge since no SE fits all the requirements imposed by both electrodes. A possible solution is using multilayer SSBs with an LME where the drawbacks of each SE are overcome by using layers of different SEs. However, research on inorganic SE 1 |SE 2 heteroionic interfaces is still quite preliminary, especially regarding oxide|sulfide heteroionic interfaces. This work reports the electrochemical investigation of the heteroionic interface between Li 6.25 Al 0.25 La 3 Zr 2 O 12 (Al-LLZO) and two representative materials for sulfide-based SEs: argyrodite-based Li 6 PS 5 Cl (LPSCl) and glass-like Li 7 P 3 S 11 (LPS711). Through in-depth temperature- and pressure-dependent impedance analyses of multilayer symmetric cells at equilibrium (i.e., no current load), the electrical properties of the heteroionic interfaces are assessed. The pressure-dependent kinetic of the Al-LLZO|LPSCl pair is interpreted with the concept of geometric constriction resistance and show that its resistance is lower than for the Al-LLZO|LPS711 pair. Furthermore, the effect of Al-LLZO surface treatment on the electrical properties of the Al-LLZO|LPSCl heteroionic interface is evaluated. Such investigation shows that the value of the interface activation energy decreases when the Al-LLZO surface is heat treated, revealing a significant influence of the carbonate/hydroxide passivation layer on the heteroionic interface. Additionally, by cycling the symmetric cell for 900 h at 1.0 mAh·cm –2, it is revealed that the Al-LLZO|LPSCl interface has a lower impedance increase than the Al-LLZO|LPS711 interface, especially if the Al-LLZO is heat treated. With this work, we highlight that the oxide|argyrodite combination can be a promising candidate for multilayer SSBs with an LME. However, we show that an optimized LLZO surface treatment and chemical analysis of the interface are recommended for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".