Interfaces in Solid-State Lithium Batteries
Interfaces in Solid-State Lithium Batteries
Interfaces in Solid-State Lithium Batteries
009
Review
Interfaces in Solid-State
Lithium Batteries
Lin Xu,1,6 Shun Tang,2,6 Yu Cheng,1,6 Kangyan Wang,3,6 Jiyuan Liang,2 Cui Liu,2 Yuan-Cheng Cao,4,*
Feng Wei,5 and Liqiang Mai1,*
The influence of interfaces represents a critical factor affecting the use of solid- Context & Scale
state batteries (SSBs) in a wide range of practical industrial applications. How- Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are the
ever, our current understanding of this key issue remains somewhat limited. promising power sources for
Therefore, this review presents the mechanisms and advanced characterization portable electronics, electric
techniques associated with interfaces in SSBs. First, we compare liquid- and vehicles, and smart grids. The
solid-state batteries and emphasize the challenges in solid-solid interfaces. Sec- recent LIBs with organic liquid
ond, we discuss different aspects of interfaces including interphase formation, electrolytes still suffer from safety
cathode-electrolyte interface, anode-electrolyte interface, and interparticle issues and insufficient lifetime.
interface, which contain a detailed description of the formation mechanisms Solid-state batteries (SSBs) are
and current research. Third, the characterization strategies for effective interfa- expected to address these issues.
cial observation and analysis are summarized and discussed. In particular, two In principle, the nonflammable
unique characterization techniques, vibrational sum-frequency generation solid electrolytes could prevent
spectroscopy and on-chip single-nanowire battery characterization, are high- battery combustion and
lighted. Lastly, we summarize the scientific issues associated with solid-solid explosion, and only Li ions are
interfaces and provide our perspectives to better understand the fundamental mobile in solid electrolytes, which
issues and improve the performance of SSBs. could suppress side reactions.
Some solid electrolytes, such as
Introduction sulfides, have sufficiently high
As a key element in today’s information-rich world and the devices that power it, ionic conductivity, which is
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are considered to be essential devices for comparable to that of with organic
a cleaner and more sustainable distributed energy supply.1 However, safety issues liquid electrolytes. Thus, solid-
and limited energy density are two of the major problems of current LIBs that feature solid interfaces appear to be the
organic liquid electrolytes. In contrast, the development of Li-air/Li anodes,2–6 Li-S key to push SSBs toward practical
anodes,2,4,7,8 and Si anodes2,9,10 show promise for increasing energy density, applications. In this review, we
providing that certain challenges can be overcome. For example, sharp, sticky Li start by introducing the
dendrites that grow on the Li-metal anode during cycling, which can then penetrate challenges in solid-solid interfaces
through the separator between two electrodes, will induce sudden failure of the bat- versus liquid-solid interfaces. We
tery and the unwanted release of heat, the result of which is an increased fire hazard then discuss different interfaces in
due to short-circuiting.6,11 For an Li-S battery, in addition to safety concerns associ- SSBs, including cathode-
ated with dendrites, the polysulfides that form during cycling can dissolve into the electrolyte interface, anode-
liquid electrolytes, thus rendering the cell life too short for most applications without electrolyte interface, and
specified electrode modifications.12–14 In addition, the insoluble Li2S and/or Li2S2 interparticle interface. Lastly, we
products that cover the anode add extra internal resistance to the battery. With present the advanced
respect to an Si anode, the highest theoretical charge capacity of 4,200 mAh g 1, characterization techniques to
which is due to multistep solid alloy reactions, is very impressive and has attracted help deepen understanding of the
a great deal of interest.15 However, the huge volumetric change (400%) upon lith- composition and structure
iation and delithiation limits its application due to structural pulverization and a evolution at the interfaces during
limited cycle life.9 Considering both safety and performance, and the urgent chal- battery cycling. The on-chip
lenges of meeting 21st-century power demands, the most promising direction for single-nanowire electrochemical
battery development is to use solid electrolytes, and preferably all solid-state batte- devices developed by our group
ries (SSBs).3
Figure 1. Schematic of
Different Interfaces in Solid-
State Batteries
For the purpose of highlighting
the interfaces, the size of
particles and grain boundaries
in this schematic are not
proportional. The schematic
only presents the general
structures of inorganic solid-
electrolyte batteries, and some
specific components—notably
conductive additives and
polymer electrolytes in other
batteries—are not shown.
Interphase Formation
Understanding the interfacial reaction is important, as it provides critical information
on the interfacial products (interphase) and their various effects on the stability and
electronic performance of a SSB. The chemical stability of an electrolyte can be pre-
dicted using the energy diagram shown in Figure 2. The ‘‘window’’ for both liquid
and solid electrolytes can be determined by the energy separation Eg between
the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) or conducting band (CB) and the
highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) or valence band (VB)1,26 of the electro-
lyte material, which is thermodynamically stable when the chemical potential (ma for
anode and mc for cathode) of the electrode materials is within the LUMO-HOMO
range. In other words, the interface is not stable if ma > LUMO (or CB) or mc <
HOMO (or VB), unless an SEI forms at the interface as the passivation layer. The for-
mation of SEI has been widely studied in liquid-electrolyte batteries, and the
concept can potentially be extended to SSBs upon careful comparison of these
two very different battery systems.27–29
The interfacial reaction and the interphase products play important roles in reaching
the full potential of SSBs, as Li+ ions diffuse from the bulk electrolyte mostly via
Schottky vacancy and grain boundaries.30,31 The structure, contact condition,32
and even the electronegativity33 of the interphase all affect the resulting energy
delivery of SSBs. Zhu et al. carried out theoretical predictions of the reduction/oxida-
tion potential and the phase equilibria of many conventional solid electrolytes.34,35
Importantly, their theoretical results agree with a series of recent experiments. For
example, X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to characterize Li2S at the Li/LGPS inter-
face (LGPS stands for Li10GeP2S12) and unknown products at the acetylene black/
LGPS interface.36 Additional studies have characterized Li3P, Li2S, and Li15Ge4 at
the Li/LGPS interface, as well as the reduction product of Li3xLa2/3 xTiO3 (LLTO)
and Li1+xAlxTi2 x(PO4)3 (LATP).37,38 Furthermore, in situ X-ray photoelectron spec-
troscopy (XPS) has been utilized to characterize Li3N, Li2O, and Li3P at the Li/LiPON
(lithium phosphorous oxynitride) interface.39 Quite recently, XPS was also used to
confirm that the once-believed extremely stable Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) was reactive
with Li at 300 C–350 C.40 Additional studies conducted by Wenzel et al. using
in situ XPS determined that (1) the decomposed Li10GeP2S12 interphase consists
of Li3P, Li2S, and Li-Ge alloy,37 and (2) decomposed LLTO interphase consists
of Ti3+, Ti2+, and Ti metal.41 A detailed discussion of several characterization
techniques is included in the section ‘‘Advanced Characterization Techniques’’.
It is worth noting that some sulfide materials have been found to exhibit both excel-
lent Li+ ion conductivity and electrochemical stability—principally Li9.54
Si1.74P1.44S11.77Cl0.332,42 and Li9.6P3S12.42 A further understanding of the nature
and behavior of interphase materials, including their formation mechanisms, con-
ductivity for electrons/ions, mechanical strength, and crystal structure is absolutely
essential for advancing the science of battery chemistry.
Several kinds of interfacial resistance can coexist at the same time. One type of resis-
tance is contact resistance, which results from poor interfacial contact or contact loss
during cycling44,45; thus, secure contact will reduce interfacial resistance. For
instance, Ohta et al.44 assembled a LCO/Li6.75La3Zr1.75Nb0.25O12/Li SSB with ultra-
fine LCO/LLZO interfacial contact (Figures 3E–3G). This battery exhibits excellent
cycling reversibility. Han et al.46 modified the interface between LCO and LLZO by
thermally soldering them together with Li2.3 xC0.7+xB0.3 xO3 SEI, which effectively
decreased the interfacial resistance and achieved high cycling stability. Additionally,
Nam et al.45 assembled flexible SSBs by utilizing polymer scaffolding (Figures 3H–
3J), whereby an interfacial contact was maintained. There is another type of resis-
tance that results from the nanoionic effect, which is a space-charge layer generated
at the interface between two ionic conductors with different chemical potentials of
the ions. In brief, a sulfide solid electrolyte has lower chemical potential of Li+ and
weaker attraction to Li+ compared with a high-voltage cathode, such as LiCoO2.
When a sulfide solid electrolyte comes into contact with LiCoO2, Li+ will diffuse
from the electrolyte side to the cathode side, generating a high-resistance Li deple-
tion layer at the interface on the electrolyte side (Figures 4A and 4C).33,47 Such a
space-charge zone is detrimental and severely affects the high-rate charge/
discharge ability of SSBs, while also serving as the rate-determining step.48–50 Sup-
pression of this effect is essential for producing high-power density SSBs. One
possible way to inhibit the nanoionic effect is to shield the sulfide with a thin oxide
buffer layer that prevents direct contact with the cathode (Figures 4B and 4D). For
example, coating LiNbO3 on LCO50 and LMO51 could successfully suppress the
It has been widely observed that intercalation reaction electrodes exhibit better
cycling reversibility than alloy and conversion reactions in LIBs. The structure stability
is even more important in solid-state systems. Thus, a complex framework such as
carbon coating is required, especially for alloy or conversion reactions involving a
sulfur cathode. However, at the interface between the cathode and sulfide electro-
lyte, the carbon additives that provide electronic percolation paths accelerate the
interfacial oxidation reaction. The formed polysulfide by-products block Li+ conduc-
tion paths, leading to significant interfacial resistance and irreversible capacity
loss.53 Hence, the compatibility between electrolytes and electrodes should be
carefully considered when designing the composition and structure of electrode
materials.
The Cui group studied the effects of overpotential on Li nucleation and growth at the
nanoscale level, which include several key results.58 First, the Li nucleation energy
barrier increases with overpotential (Figure 5A). Second, during galvanostatic Li
deposition, the potential initially drops to hn (hn refers to nucleation overpotential)
to initiate the nucleation, then rises to hp (hp refers to plateau overpotential) for
steady-state Li growth (Figure 5B). Third, an inverse relationship exists between
the size of Li nuclei and overpotential; additionally, there is a cubic relationship be-
tween the density of Li nuclei and overpotential (Figure 5C). Fourth, experimental
data indicate that the nucleation barrier and growth plateau increase with galvano-
static current density (Figure 5D). Overall, these results suggest that small, dense,
and uniform Li nuclei can grow when the overpotential is increased via high current
density. This fundamental study on Li nucleation and growth can rationally guide the
design of micro-/nanostructures for Li-metal anodes and the optimization of charge/
discharge conditions.
Compared with liquid electrolytes, different issues must be considered in the case of
solid electrolytes. Recently, Porz et al. reported the process of Li dendrite growth
and infiltration in inorganic solid electrolytes.31 For their study, they selected
different inorganic solid electrolytes including sulfide and garnet electrolytes. Their
results confirmed that Li penetration depends on defect size and density rather than
on the impact of electrolyte shear modulus and surface roughness. Moreover, the re-
searchers showed that the flaws/cracks, grain boundaries, and/or micro-/nanoscale
pores usually lead to faster Li dendrite growth and crack propagation. Accordingly,
they developed a model and studied the dependence of Li deposition overpotential
and the stress-crack propagation relationship on defect size for Li6La3ZrTaO12 and
glassy Li2S-P2S5 (Figure 5E). Both the minimum overpotential and crack-extension
stress decreased with defect size with inverse square-root dependence. Thus, stra-
tegies for minimizing interfacial defects represent a critical design principle for inhib-
iting Li dendrite penetration in inorganic solid electrolytes.
For years, one of the primary challenges in utilizing polymer electrolytes had been
increasing mechanical properties without sacrificing ionic conductivity. Mechanical
strength can be enhanced through a variety of approaches, including increasing
Interface of Interparticles
In general, ionically and/or electrically conductive particles must be added and
mixed with the active material particles during the fabrication process of a cathode
or anode of a SSB if the active materials are not highly ionically and/or electrically
conductive. Thus, the interparticle interface in a composite cathode or anode is
also important. The definition of this interface includes both the interface between
active materials and the contact between active material particles and ionically/elec-
trically conductive particles. Lithium ions transport through the electrodes via grain
boundaries. The volume change of the cathode particles during charge/discharge
would lead to contact failure in composite electrodes.65
Strauss et al. studied the effect of the size of cathode composite materials, reporting
that cathode materials of a smaller particle size (much less than 10 mm) will deliver
near-full capacity in the first cycle, which is due to both increased electrical contact
as well as the fact that there are more consecutive grain boundaries—meaning that
ions will transport with less resistance.66 They pointed out that the ratio of solid-elec-
trolyte particles to cathode particles in a given composite cathode should be deter-
mined according to the desired purpose.66 For example, a high-energy-density bat-
tery requires fewer solid-electrolyte particles; in contrast, a high-power-density
battery requires more solid-electrolyte particles in the composite cathode. It is worth
Figure 6. Schematics of Typical Interfacial Contact in a Liquid Electrolyte Battery and a Solid Electrolyte battery
Illustration of the difficulty of investigating a liquid-electrolyte battery (A) and a solid-electrolyte battery (B).
noting that there should be a balance of ionic and electronic paths within a compos-
ite electrode. On the one hand, the presence of too many electrolyte particles blocks
the electronic path. On the other hand, too many active cathode particles will limit
ionic transport. Rational micro-/nanostructure designs—for example, adopting hier-
archically mixed ion- and electron-conducting networks—could facilitate ionic trans-
port while reducing electronic resistance.
characterization methods are organized into three categories. In addition, two ad-
vantageous characterization methods developed by our collaborative group are
highlighted.
Microscopy Observation
Unlike conventional microscopic investigations of liquid-electrolyte batteries, the
intact interfaces in SSBs are difficult to isolate for microscopy characterization. A
cross-section image of the anode-electrolyte interface or cathode-electrolyte inter-
face provides more convincing results, but specific techniques for sample prepara-
tion are required. If a more effective way, such as focus ion beam, could be devel-
oped to cut the cross-section of the sample with precision, many conventional
methods such as cross-section scanning electron microscopy (EM) (Figures 7I and
7P show the clear cross-section scanning EM images of the interface between elec-
trode and electrolyte,72 transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy-dispersed
X-ray analysis (EDX), and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) could be utilized
to elucidate the nature of the interface. Moreover, by switching different modes of
TEM (image, diffraction, and spectroscopy) and combining results with those ob-
tained using EDX73 and EELS, more detailed information about morphology, struc-
ture, and composition of the Li2SiO3-coated LiCoO2/Li2S-P2S5 interface could also
be accurately obtained (Figure 7E).
interfacial stability between the electrode and the solid electrolyte. In particular,
they studied the thermodynamics of interfacial phases and found that generally,
electrolytes that are stable at the cathode voltage show low reaction energies.
They calculated that thiophosphate electrolytes have especially high reactivity
with high-voltage cathodes (such as LCO) and a narrow electrochemical stability win-
dow. They also proposed a number of intriguing battery combinations with high en-
ergy that had not been employed, such as Li3PS4 or Li7P3S11 combined with LiVS2,
LiTiS2 cathode with Li2S-P2S5, and LiBH4-LiTiS2 cells.84 Most recently, they reported
that Li demonstrates the highest stability at the tetrahedral site and that the body-
centered cubic-like anion framework is the most desirable for achieving high ionic
conductivity.16 These novel and significant design advances serve as a good guide
for the development of fast ion-conducting materials.
Chemical composition investigations are mainly utilized to verify the chemical stabil-
ity of the electrolyte-electrode interface, which can share the same purpose as cyclic
voltammetry (CV) but with higher accuracy since it can be measured quantitatively.
XPS and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy are the most widely used tech-
niques for SEI investigations.27 For organic liquid-electrolyte batteries, coin cells
are dissembled in a glovebox and samples are washed with an organic solvent
before undergoing examination. While these techniques can be employed if SSBs
have similar circumstances, for most cases a cross-section cut is needed. XRD has
long been utilized as a standard method to assess composition analysis,36 and sin-
gle-crystal XRD remains the most effective and convincing way to determine the
anisotropic displacement parameter of a new material.85 Crystals can be regarded
as diffraction gratings for X-rays, and the coherent scattering produced by a large
number of these particles will interfere with the light, thereby increasing or
decreasing the intensity of scattered X-rays. Therefore, the crystal phase composi-
tion and unit cell parameters can be detected by XRD, and different peak positions
are caused by different crystal structures. In contrast, amorphous materials do not
have a complete crystal structure and are difficult to detect by XRD. Unlike XRD,
XPS works on the chemical bond, and X-rays can interact with atoms in the material’s
surface layer to produce photon energy. When the photon energy generated ex-
ceeds the binding energy in the electronic nucleus, it will stimulate the inner layer
of electrons in the atom, thereby producing photoelectrons. Detecting the quantity
and kinetic energy of photoelectrons through the corresponding testing instruments
enables XPS technology to accurately analyze the content and chemical state of the
elements in the sample surface. Zhang et al. coated LLTO with Li2O-B2O3, and result-
ing XRD characterization results showed no added peaks compared with the pure
LLTO. The researchers then speculated that Li2O-B2O3 was present in the grain
boundary of LLTO, which was later confirmed by XPS.86 Although Demir-Cakan
et al. detected the deposition of Li2S on a Li anode via XRD, they also conducted
XPS characterization to clearly verify the surface decomposition.87 Hence, XPS is a
vital tool in interface detection.
Dedryvère and colleagues studied SEI formation87,88 and the Li-ion transfer mecha-
nism89 between the electrode and liquid-electrolyte interface by ex situ XPS. They
observed that in the silicon anode SEI initially forms on the anode, after which Li
and silicon formed an alloy to achieve the lithiation process, with the generation
of Li2O and LixSiO4. After full charging, the thickness of the SEI decreased only
slightly and the Li2O disappeared.89 In the case of electrolytes they reported that
EC0.45:PC0.45:DMC0.1 (EC, PC, and DMC refer to polycarbonate, ethylene carbon-
ate, and dimethyl carbonate, respectively) with 1 M of Na salt was an optimal elec-
trolyte formulation that could effectively suppress the degradation of the electrolyte
Figure 7. Continued
(F–H) STEM (F) and STEM-EELS (G and H) images of the nano battery stack along with Li k-edge concentration mapping. Reprinted from Wang et al., 75
with permission. Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society.
(I) Scanning EM cross-section image of an LATGP sample after approximately 12 hr contact with Li metal. LATGP stands for Li-Al-Ti-Ge-P-O electrolyte.
Reprinted from Hartmann et al., 38 with permission. Copyright 2013, American Chemical Society.
(J–L) High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) (J) and EELS (K and L) images of HP-LLZ:Ta (hot-pressed Ta-substituted Li 7 La 3 Zr 2 O 12 ),
where Li 3 N, Li 2 CO 3 , and LiO x were found along the grain boundaries. Reprinted from Tsai et al., 76 with permission. Copyright 2016, American Chemical
Society.
(M–O) HAADF-SEM (M), EDX (N), and SAED pattern (O) images of the Co element near the LiCoO2 electrode/Li 2 S-P2 S 5 solid-electrolyte interface.
Reprinted from Sakuda et al., 73 with permission. Copyright 2010, American Chemical Society.
(P) Scanning EM image of the interface between composite cathode containing 15 wt% polymer and the composite electrolyte. Reprinted from Chen
et al., 72 with permission. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society.
in sodium-ion batteries.88 XPS also performs well in SSB interfacial detection. For
example, ex situ XPS verified the decomposition of LGPS.37,90 Furthermore, Janek
and coworkers have conducted several investigations using in situ XPS to study
metal/solid-electrolyte stability; moreover, several in situ XPS experiments have
been reported to verify the electrolyte decomposition of various solid electrolytes
such as LLTO,41 NASICON structure electrolyte like LATP,38 and Li7P3S11.91 The
schematic diagram for the device is shown in Figures 8A and 8B, where Li is vapor-
ized by an argon beam and deposited on the electrolyte surface. The Li can either be
adjacent to the electrolyte sample or have a certain space relationship with the sam-
ple. This simple device allows the stability of the interfaces between a metal elec-
trode and a solid electrolyte to be detected, and the decomposition will show the
stability of the interface. It must be noted, however, that this work would be more
useful if cycling full cells were used in the device.
Various modifications to XPS such as hard XPS and soft XPS have resulted in a much
wider probing depth range that is also more sensitive than traditional XPS.93
Another fascinating method that is being applied to the problem is nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR)69,76 and in situ NMR.92 As an example, Nakayama et al. first assem-
bled in situ NMR to observe elemental distribution and determine the uneven elec-
trolysis of anion components at the interface between a cathode and solid polymer
electrolyte92 (Figure 8C) due to the high sensitivity of the technique toward Li-ion
transport in bulk battery materials. It should also be noted that Yu et al. tested the
quantity of the Li ions spontaneously transported between the Li6PS5Br solid electro-
lyte and the Li2S cathode by NMR (Figure 8D).69 Yet another approach is provided by
solid-state NMR using multi-phase battery materials—even for multiple electrode
phases or a mixture of electrode and electrolyte phases—to measure the
spontaneous Li-ion transfer between different Li-containing phases. This approach
provides unique selectivity for charge transfer over phase boundaries, and offers
complementary information with respect to interfacial behavior. Remarkably, the
nondestructive, contactless nature of the technique makes NMR friendly to sample
pretreatment.
SSBs featuring glass-ceramic electrolytes. To achieve close contact and good stabil-
ity, the Tatsumisago group developed various interfacial modification methods.
Coating the buffer layer on cathode materials represents a simple and effective
way to soften the contact, and cathode coatings are known to improve the perfor-
mance of high-voltage electrolytes by isolating the electrolyte materials from the
low Li potential. Accordingly, Tatsumisago and colleagues coated a LiCoO2 cathode
with Li4GeS4-Li3PS4; the resulting solid-electrolyte coating formed a favorable and
effective ion-conductive path to LiCoO2 particles.97 In another recent study, 50Li4
SiO4$50Li3PO4 (mol%) film was coated on LiCoO2 active material particles by PLD,
with the coated electrolyte layer effectively decreasing interfacial resistance.98 The
mixing of metal oxides with Li2S-P2S5 by mechanical milling can also enhance the sta-
bility of sulfide electrolyte in air. For example, combining a favorable metal oxide
MxOy (M = Zn, Fe or Bi) with sulfide can decrease the Gibbs energy for H2S formation,
which is an effective way to improve the chemical stability of sulfide electrolytes.99
Tatsumisago’s group also described a heat-treatment method for improving ionic
conductivity. They heated Li2S-P2S5 glass ceramics to transform the particles into
a dense material free from grain boundaries, which would decrease the porosity
and the grain boundary resistance.23
Electrochemical Characterization
CV and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) are two traditional electro-
chemical characterization approaches that focus on the entire battery, with each
test performing a specific function. CV reports the current versus changing voltage
to present a current-voltage graph, which provides information about chemical re-
actions and cycling reversibility. In contrast, EIS indicates the ionic impedance
(high-frequency area) and the diffusion impedance (low-frequency area) of either a
specific material or the overall cell (Figures 9A, 9H, and 9I).22,100 The charge-
discharge curves present the overall energy density and cycling reversibility, in
which the plateaus correspond to the redox peaks in CV (Figures 9B and 9C).22
The stability window of solid electrolytes can be characterized by CV. However,
the stability window is usually overestimated by the traditional Li/solid electrolyte/
inert metal cell test, in which the contact area between solid electrolyte and metal
plate current collector is small, which results in slow kinetics of the electrolyte
decomposition reaction. Han et al.17 designed a novel Li/electrolyte/electrolyte-car-
bon cell composed of a mixture of carbon and solid electrolyte as the electrode to
increase the contact area between electrolyte and current collector. This novel cell
design can improve the electrolyte decomposition kinetics to a level similar to
that of real SSBs. Their results show the intrinsic electrochemical stability window
of LGPS to be only 1.7–2.1 V, which is much narrower than the window (0–5 V) char-
acterized by traditional Li/solid electrolyte/inert metal cells.
The concept of this single-nanowire battery can be further extended with improved
nanowire electrode design. Mai and colleagues can be credited for two improved
design advancements: (1) multicontacts for ion transport (Figure 10J) and (2) porous
graphene-wrapped nanowires to improve electron and ion transport (Fig-
ure 10K).113,114 In brief, fabricating multiple metal microelectrodes on a single
nanowire can enable one to record the conductance change of different sections
of a single nanowire, thereby revealing ion transport characteristics along the nano-
wire (Figure 10J). Porous graphene wrapping on a single nanowire will not only
improve electronic conductance but will also maintain efficient ion transport at the
interface between the nanowire electrode and the electrolyte, while a dense solid
graphene film coating hinders ion transport between the two (Figure 10K). These
two improved single-nanowire battery designs could potentially be combined
with newly developed micro-/nanoscale solid-state electrolyte patterns115 to fabri-
cate more advanced on-chip micro-/nanoscale SSB for comprehensive in situ
characterizations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Y.-C.C. acknowledges funding from the 4th Yellow Crane Talent Program of Wuhan
City (08010004). C.L. acknowledges funding from China NSF (51703081). L.M. ac-
knowledges funding from the National Natural Science Fund for Distinguished
Young Scholars (51425204), National Key Research and Development Program of
China (2016YFA0202603), the National Basic Research Program of China
(2013CB934103), the Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities
(B17034), the Yellow Crane Talent (Science & Technology) Program of Wuhan
City, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51521001), and the Funda-
mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WUT: 2016III001, 2017III009).
L.X. acknowledges support from the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (WUT: 2018IVA091).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Y.-C.C. and L.M. proposed the topic of the manuscript. L.X., S.T., Y.C., and K.W.
wrote the manuscript. Y.-C.C., L.M., L.X., S.T., Y.C., K.W., J.L., C.L., and F.W. dis-
cussed and revised the manuscript. L.X., S.T., Y.C., and K.W. contributed equally
to this work.
REFERENCES
1. Goodenough, J.B., and Park, K.-S. (2013). The 4. Bruce, P.G., Freunberger, S.A., Hardwick, L.J., anode in rechargeable batteries: a review.
Li-ion rechargeable battery: a perspective. and Tarascon, J.-M. (2012). Li-O2 and Li-S Chem. Rev. 117, 10403–10473.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 1167–1176. batteries with high energy storage. Nat.
Mater. 11, 19–29. 7. Peng, H.-J., Huang, J.-Q., and Zhang, Q.
2. Choi, J.W., and Aurbach, D. (2016). Promise (2017). A review of flexible lithium-sulfur and
and reality of post-lithium-ion batteries with 5. Ottakam Thotiyl, M.M., Freunberger, S.A., analogous alkali metal-chalcogen
high energy densities. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, Peng, Z., Chen, Y., Liu, Z., and Bruce, P.G. rechargeable batteries. Chem. Soc. Rev. 46,
16013. (2013). A stable cathode for the aprotic Li-O2 5237–5288.
battery. Nat. Mater. 12, 1050–1056.
3. Armand, M., and Tarascon, J.-M. (2008).
8. Xu, R., Lu, J., and Amine, K. (2015). Progress in
Building better batteries. Nature 451, 6. Cheng, X.-B., Zhang, R., Zhao, C.-Z., and
mechanistic understanding and
652–657. Zhang, Q. (2017). Toward safe lithium metal
characterization techniques of Li-S batteries. super ion conductor is superior to liquid ion 38. Hartmann, P., Leichtweiss, T., Busche, M.R.,
Adv. Energy Mater. 5, 1500408. conductors for use in rechargeable batteries. Schneider, M., Reich, M., Sann, J., Adelhelm,
Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 627–631. P., and Janek, J. (2013). Degradation of
9. Chan, C.K., Peng, H., Liu, G., McIlwrath, K., NASICON-type materials in contact with
Zhang, X., Huggins, R.A., and Cui, Y. (2008). 24. Takada, K., Aotani, N., Iwamoto, K., and lithium metal: formation of mixed conducting
High-performance lithium battery anodes Kondo, S. (1996). Solid state lithium battery interphases (MCI) on solid electrolytes.
using silicon nanowires. Nat. Nanotechnol. 3, with oxysulfide glass. Solid State Ionics 86, J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 21064–21074.
31–35. 877–882.
39. Schwobel, A., Hausbrand, R., and
10. Wu, H., Chan, G., Choi, J.W., Ryu, I., Yao, Y., 25. Yan, K., Lu, Z., Lee, H.-W., Xiong, F., Hsu, Jaegermann, W. (2015). Interface reactions
McDowell, M.T., Lee, S.W., Jackson, A., Yang, P.-C., Li, Y., Zhao, J., Chu, S., and Cui, Y. between LiPON and lithium studied by in-situ
Y., Hu, L., et al. (2012). Stable cycling of (2016). Selective deposition and stable X-ray photoemission. Solid State Ionics 273,
double-walled silicon nanotube battery encapsulation of lithium through 51–54.
anodes through solid-electrolyte interphase heterogeneous seeded growth. Nat. Energy
control. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 310–315. 1, 16010. 40. Wolfenstine, J., Allen, J.L., Read, J., and
Sakamoto, J. (2013). Chemical stability of
11. Zheng, G., Lee, S.W., Liang, Z., Lee, H.-W., 26. Goodenough, J.B., and Kim, Y. (2010). cubic Li7La3Zr2O12 with molten lithium at
Yan, K., Yao, H., Wang, H., Li, W., Chu, S., and Challenges for rechargeable Li batteries. elevated temperature. J. Mater. Sci. 48, 5846–
Cui, Y. (2014). Interconnected hollow carbon Chem. Mater. 22, 587–603. 5851.
nanospheres for stable lithium metal anodes.
Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 618–623. 27. Verma, P., Maire, P., and Novak, P. (2010). A 41. Wenzel, S., Leichtweiss, T., Krüger, D., Sann,
review of the features and analyses of the J., and Janek, J. (2015). Interphase formation
12. Li, B., Li, S., Xu, J., and Yang, S. (2016). A new solid electrolyte interphase in Li-ion batteries. on lithium solid electrolytes—an in situ
configured lithiated silicon-sulfur battery built Electrochim. Acta 55, 6332–6341. approach to study interfacial reactions by
on 3D graphene with superior photoelectron spectroscopy. Solid State
electrochemical performances. Energy 28. An, S.J., Li, J., Daniel, C., Mohanty, D., Ionics 278, 98–105.
Environ. Sci. 9, 2025–2030. Nagpure, S., and Wood, D.L. (2016). The state
of understanding of the lithium-ion-battery 42. Kato, Y., Hori, S., Saito, T., Suzuki, K.,
13. Chung, S.-H., Chang, C.-H., and Manthiram, graphite solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) and Hirayama, M., Mitsui, A., Yonemura, M., Iba,
A. (2016). A core-shell electrode for its relationship to formation cycling. Carbon H., and Kanno, R. (2016). High-power all-solid-
dynamically and statically stable Li-S battery 105, 52–76. state batteries using sulfide superionic
chemistry. Energy Environ. Sci. 9, 3188–3200. conductors. Nat. Energy 1, 16030.
29. Wang, A., Kadam, S., Li, H., Shi, S., and Qi, Y.
14. Liu, J., Galpaya, D.G.D., Yan, L., Sun, M., Lin, (2018). Review on modeling of the anode solid 43. Luntz, A.C., Voss, J., and Reuter, K. (2015).
Z., Yan, C., Liang, C., and Zhang, S. (2017). electrolyte interphase (SEI) for lithium-ion Interfacial challenges in solid-state Li ion
Exploiting a robust biopolymer network batteries. npj Comput. Mater. 4, 15. batteries. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6, 4599–4604.
binder for an ultrahigh-areal-capacity Li-S
battery. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 750–755. 30. Cheng, X.-B., Zhang, R., Zhao, C.-Z., Wei, F., 44. Ohta, S., Kobayashi, T., Seki, J., and Asaoka,
Zhang, J.-G., and Zhang, Q. (2016). A review T. (2012). Electrochemical performance of an
15. Huggins, R.A., and Boukamp, B.A. (1981). All- of solid electrolyte interphases on lithium all-solid-state lithium ion battery with garnet-
solid electrodes with mixed conductor matrix. metal anode. Adv. Sci. 3, 1500213. type oxide electrolyte. J. Power Sources 202,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 128, 725–729. 332–335.
31. Porz, L., Swamy, T., Sheldon, B.W.,
16. Wang, Y., Richards, W.D., Ong, S.P., Miara, 45. Nam, Y.J., Cho, S.J., Oh, D.Y., Lim, J.M., Kim,
Rettenwander, D., Frömling, T., Thaman, H.L.,
L.J., Kim, J.C., Mo, Y., and Ceder, G. (2015). S.Y., Song, J.H., Lee, Y.G., Lee, S.Y., and Jung,
Berendts, S., Uecker, R., Carter, W.C., and
Design principles for solid-state lithium Y.S. (2015). Bendable and thin sulfide solid
Chiang, Y.-M. (2017). Mechanism of lithium
superionic conductors. Nat. Mater. 14, 1026– electrolyte film: a new electrolyte opportunity
metal penetration through inorganic solid
1031. for free-standing and stackable high-energy
electrolytes. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1701003.
all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Nano
17. Han, F., Zhu, Y., He, X., Mo, Y., and Wang, C. Lett. 15, 3317–3323.
32. Hu, Y.-S. (2016). Batteries: getting solid. Nat.
(2016). Electrochemical stability of
Energy 1, 16042. 46. Han, F., Yue, J., Chen, C., Zhao, N., Fan, X.,
Li10GeP2S12 and Li7La3Zr2O12 solid
electrolytes. Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501590. 33. Takada, K. (2013). Progress and prospective of Ma, Z., Gao, T., Wang, F., Guo, X., and Wang,
solid-state lithium batteries. Acta Mater. 61, C. (2018). Interphase engineering enabled all-
18. Takeda, Y., Yamamoto, O., and Imanishi, N. ceramic lithium battery. Joule 2, 497–508.
(2016). Lithium dendrite formation on a 759–770.
lithium metal anode from liquid, polymer and 47. Haruyama, J., Sodeyama, K., Han, L., Takada,
34. Zhu, Y., He, X., and Mo, Y. (2015). Origin of
solid electrolytes. Electrochemistry 84, K., and Tateyama, Y. (2014). Space-charge
outstanding stability in the lithium solid
210–218. layer effect at interface between oxide
electrolyte materials: insights from
cathode and sulfide electrolyte in all-solid-
19. Yang, C., Fu, K., Zhang, Y., Hitz, E., and Hu, L. thermodynamic analyses based on first-
state llithium-ion battery. Chem. Mater. 26,
(2017). Protected lithium-metal anodes in principles calculations. ACS Appl. Mater.
4248–4255.
batteries: from liquid to solid. Adv. Mater. 29, Interfaces 7, 23685–236893.
1701169. 48. Takada, K., Ohta, N., Zhang, L.Q., Fukuda, K.,
35. Zhu, Y., He, X., and Mo, Y. (2016). First Sakaguchi, I., Ma, R., Osada, M., and Sasaki, T.
20. Monroe, C., and Newman, J. (2005). The principles study on electrochemical and (2008). Interfacial modification for high-power
impact of elastic deformation on deposition chemical stability of solid electrolyte- solid-state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics
kinetics at lithium/polymer interfaces. electrode interfaces in all-solid-state Li-ion 179, 1333–1337.
J. Polym. Sci. 152, A396–A404. batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 4, 3253–3266.
49. Ohta, N., Takada, K., Zhang, L., Ma, R., Osada,
21. Janek, J., and Zeier, W.G. (2016). A solid 36. Oh, G., Hirayama, M., Kwon, O., Suzuki, K., M., and Sasaki, T. (2006). Enhancement of the
future for battery development. Nat. Energy and Kanno, R. (2016). Bulk-type all solid-state high-rate capability of solid-state lithium
1, 16141. batteries with 5 V class LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 batteries by nanoscale interfacial
cathode and Li10GeP2S12 solid electrolyte. modification. Adv. Mater. 18, 2226–2229.
22. Kamaya, N., Homma, K., Yamakawa, Y., Chem. Mater. 28, 2634–2640.
Hirayama, M., Kanno, R., Yonemura, M., 50. Ohta, N. (2007). LiNbO3-coated LiCoO2 as
Kamiyama, T., Kato, Y., Hama, S., Kawamoto, 37. Wenzel, S., Randau, S., Leichtweiss, T., cathode material for all solid-state lithium
K., et al. (2011). A lithium superionic Weber, D.A., Sann, J., Zeier, W.G., and Janek, secondary batteries. Electrochem. Commun.
conductor. Nat. Mater. 10, 682–686. J. (2016). Direct observation of the interfacial 9, 1486–1490.
instability of the fast ionic conductor
23. Seino, Y., Ota, T., Takada, K., Hayashi, A., and Li10GeP2S12 at the lithium metal anode. 51. Takada, K., Ohta, N., Zhang, L., Xu, X., Hang,
Tatsumisago, M. (2014). A sulphide lithium Chem. Mater. 28, 2400–2407. B.T., Ohnishi, T., Osada, M., and Sasaki, T.
(2012). Interfacial phenomena in solid-state and Balsara, N.P. (2012). Resolution of the Guillon, O. (2016). Li7La3Zr2O12 interface
lithium battery with sulfide solid electrolyte. modulus versus adhesion dilemma in solid modification for Li dendrite prevention. ACS
Solid State Ionics 225, 594–597. polymer electrolytes for rechargeable lithium Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 10617–10626.
metal batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 159,
52. Koerver, R., Aygün, I., Leichtweiß, T., Dietrich, A222–A227. 77. Brazier, A., Dupont, L., Dantras-Laffont, L.,
C., Zhang, W., Binder, J.O., Hartmann, P., Kuwata, N., Kawamura, J., and Tarascon, J.M.
Zeier, W.G., and Janek, J. (2017). Capacity 65. Gao, H., Xue, L., Xin, S., Park, K., and (2008). First cross-section observation of an all
fade in solid-state batteries: interphase Goodenough, J.B. (2017). A plastic-crystal solid-state lithium-Ion ‘‘nanobattery’’ by
formation and chemomechanical processes in electrolyte interphase for all-solid-state transmission electron microscopy. Chem.
nickel-rich layered oxide cathodes and lithium sodium batteries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56, Mater. 20, 2352–2359.
thiophosphate solid electrolytes. Chem. 5541–5545.
Mater. 29, 5574–5582. 78. He, K., Bi, X., Yuan, Y., Foroozan, T., Song, B.,
66. Strauss, F., Bartsch, T., de Biasi, L., Kim, A.Y., Amine, K., Lu, J., and Shahbazian-Yassar, R.
53. Zhang, W., Leichtweiss, T., Culver, S.P., Janek, J., Hartmann, P., and Brezesinski, T. (2018). Operando liquid cell electron
Koerver, R., Das, D., Weber, D.A., Zeier, W.G., (2018). Impact of cathode material particle microscopy of discharge and charge kinetics
and Janek, J. (2017). The detrimental effects size on the capacity of bulk-type all-solid- in lithium-oxygen batteries. Nano Energy 49,
of carbon additives in Li10GeP2S12-based state batteries. ACS Energy Lett. 3, 992–996. 338–345.
solid-state batteries. ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces 9, 35888–35896. 67. Sakuma, M., Suzuki, K., Hirayama, M., and 79. Santhanagopalan, D., Qian, D., McGilvray, T.,
Kanno, R. (2016). Reactions at the electrode/ Wang, Z., Wang, F., Camino, F., Graetz, J.,
54. Monroe, C., and Newman, J. (2004). The electrolyte interface of all-solid-state lithium Dudney, N., and Meng, Y.S. (2014). Interface
effect of interfacial deformation on batteries incorporating Li-M (M = Sn, Si) alloy limited lithium transport in solid-state
electrodeposition kinetics. J. Electrochem. electrodes and sulfide-based solid batteries. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 5, 298–303.
Soc. 151, A880–A886. electrolytes. Solid State Ionics 285, 101–105.
80. Wang, F., Yu, H.-C., Chen, M.-H., Wu, L.,
55. Xu, K., Von, C.A., and Lee, U. (2010). 68. Yang, L., Wang, Z., Feng, Y., Tan, R., Zuo, Y., Pereira, N., Thornton, K., Van der Ven, A., Zhu,
Differentiating contributions to ‘‘ion transfer’’ Gao, R., Zhao, Y., Han, L., Wang, Z., and Pan, Y., Amatucci, G.G., and Graetz, J. (2012).
barrier from interphasial resistance and Li+ F. (2017). Flexible composite solid electrolyte Tracking lithium transport and
desolvation at electrolyte/graphite interface. facilitating highly stable ‘‘soft contacting’’ Li- electrochemical reactions in nanoparticles.
Langmuir 26, 11538–11543. electrolyte interface for solid state lithium-ion Nat. Commun. 3, 1201.
batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1701437.
56. Liu, X., Deng, X., Liu, R., Yan, H., Guo, Y., 81. Shen, C., Hu, G., Cheong, L.-Z., Huang, S.,
Wang, D., and Wan, L. (2014). Single nanowire 69. Yu, C., Ganapathy, S., Eck, E., Wang, H., Zhang, J.-G., and Wang, D. (2018). Direct
electrode electrochemistry of silicon anode Basak, S., Li, Z., and Wagemaker, M. (2017). observation of the growth of lithium dendrites
by in situ atomic force microscopy: solid Accessing the bottleneck in all-solid state on graphite anodes by operando EC-AFM.
electrolyte interphase growth and mechanical batteries, lithium-ion transport over the solid- Small Methods 2, 1700298.
properties. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, electrolyte-electrode interface. Nat.
20317–20323. Commun. 8, 1086. 82. Tian, Y., Shi, T., Richards, W.D., Li, J., Kim,
J.C., Bo, S.-H., and Ceder, G. (2017).
57. Zhang, J., Wang, R., Yang, X., Lu, W., Wu, X., 70. Kato, T., Yoshida, R., Yamamoto, K., Compatibility issues between electrodes and
Wang, X., Li, H., and Chen, L. (2012). Direct Hirayama, T., Motoyama, M., West, W.C., and electrolytes in solid-state batteries. Energy
observation of inhomogeneous solid Iriyama, Y. (2016). Effects of sintering Environ. Sci. 10, 1150–1166.
electrolyte interphase on MnO anode with temperature on interfacial structure and
atomic force microscopy and spectroscopy. interfacial resistance for all-solid-state 83. Mo, Y., Ong, S.P., and Ceder, G. (2011). First
Nano Lett. 12, 2153–2157. rechargeable lithium batteries. J. Power principles study of the Li10GeP2S12 lithium
Sources 325, 584–590. super ionic conductor material. Chem. Mater.
58. Pei, A., Zheng, G., Shi, F., Li, Y., and Cui, Y. 24, 15–17.
(2017). Nanoscale nucleation and growth of 71. Mai, L., Yan, M., and Zhao, Y. (2017). Track
electrodeposited lithium metal. Nano Lett. batteries degrading in real time. Nature 84. Richards, W.D., Miara, L.J., Wang, Y., Kim,
17, 1132–1139. 546, 469. J.C., and Ceder, G. (2015). Interface stability in
solid-state batteries. Chem. Mater. 28,
59. Yang, Y., Jeong, S., Hu, L., Wu, H., Lee, S.W., 72. Chen, R.-J., Zhang, Y.-B., Liu, T., Xu, B.-Q., Lin, 266–273.
and Cui, Y. (2011). Transparent lithium-ion Y.-H., Nan, C.-W., and Shen, Y. (2017).
batteries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, Addressing the interface issues in all-solid- 85. Kuhn, A., Kohler, J., and Lotsch, B.V. (2013).
13013–13018. state bulk-type lithium ion battery via an all- Single-crystal X-ray structure analysis of the
composite approach. ACS Appl. Mater. superionic conductor Li10GeP2S12. Phys.
60. Wang, S., Xu, J., Wang, W., Wang, G.-J.N., Interfaces 9, 9654–9661. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15, 11620–11622.
Rastak, R., Molina-Lopez, F., Chung, J.W.,
Niu, S., Feig, V.R., and Lopez, J. (2018). Skin 73. Sakuda, A., Hayashi, A., and Tatsumisago, M. 86. Zhang, H., Hao, S., and Lin, J. (2017). Influence
electronics from scalable fabrication of an (2010). Interfacial observation between of Li2O-B2O3 glass on ionic migration and
intrinsically stretchable transistor array. LiCoO2 electrode and Li2S-P2S5 solid interfacial properties of La2/3-x Li3xTiO3 solid
Nature 555, 83–88. electrolytes of all-solid-state lithium electrolyte. J. Alloy. Compd. 704, 109–116.
secondary batteries using transmission
61. Appetecchi, G., Croce, F., Persi, L., Ronci, F., electron microscopy. Chem. Mater. 22, 87. Demir-Cakan, R., Morcrette, M.,
and Scrosati, B. (2000). Transport and 949–956. Gangulibabu, Gueguen, A., Dedryvere, R.,
interfacial properties of composite polymer and Tarascon, J.M. (2013). Li-S batteries:
electrolytes. Electrochim. Acta 45, 1481–1490. 74. Kitaura, H., Hayashi, A., Ohtomo, T., Hama, S., simple approaches for superior performance.
and Tatsumisago, M. (2011). Fabrication of Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 176–182.
62. Schulze, M.W., McIntosh, L.D., Hillmyer, M.A., electrode-electrolyte interfaces in all-solid-
and Lodge, T.P. (2014). High-modulus, high- state rechargeable lithium batteries by using 88. Ponrouch, A., Dedryvère, R., Monti, D.,
conductivity nanostructured polymer a supercooled liquid state of the glassy Demet, A.E., Ateba Mba, J.M., Croguennec,
electrolyte membranes via polymerization- electrolytes. J. Mater. Chem. 21, 118–124. L., Masquelier, C., Johansson, P., and Palacı́n,
induced phase separation. Nano Lett. 14, M.R. (2013). Towards high energy density
122–126. 75. Wang, Z., Santhanagopalan, D., Zhang, W., sodium ion batteries through electrolyte
Wang, F., Xin, H.L., He, K., Li, J., Dudney, N., optimization. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 2361–
63. Amanchukwu, C.V., Harding, J.R., Shao-Horn, and Meng, Y.S. (2016). In situ STEM-EELS 2369.
Y., and Hammond, P.T. (2015). Understanding observation of nanoscale interfacial
the chemical stability of polymers for lithium- phenomena in all-solid-state batteries. Nano 89. Philippe, B., Dedryvere, R., Allouche, J.,
air batteries. Chem. Mater. 27, 550–561. Lett. 16, 3760–3767. Lindgren, F., Gorgoi, M., Rensmo, H.,
Gonbeau, D., and Edstrom, K. (2012).
64. Stone, G.M., Mullin, S.A., Teran, A.A., 76. Tsai, C.L., Roddatis, V., Chandran, C.V., Ma, Nanosilicon electrodes for lithium-ion
Hallinan, J.D.T., Minor, A.M., Hexemer, A., Q., Uhlenbruck, S., Bram, M., Heitjans, P., and batteries: interfacial mechanisms studied by
hard and soft X-ray photoelectron and Bi) nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. A 1, bilayer investigated by polarization-resolved
spectroscopy. Chem. Mater. 24, 1107–1115. 6320–6326. SFG-VS. ACS Omega 2, 9241–9249.
90. Han, F., Gao, T., Zhu, Y., Gaskell, K.J., and 100. Fu, K., Gong, Y., Dai, J., Gong, A., Han, X., 110. Ye, S., Wei, F., Li, H., Tian, K., and Luo, Y.
Wang, C. (2015). A battery made from a single Yao, Y., Wang, C., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Yan, C., (2013). Structure and orientation of interfacial
material. Adv. Mater. 27, 3473–3483. et al. (2016). Flexible, solid-state, ion- proteins determined by sum frequency
conducting membrane with 3D garnet generation vibrational spectroscopy: method
91. Wenzel, S., Weber, D.A., Leichtweiss, T., nanofiber networks for lithium batteries. Proc. and application. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct.
Busche, M.R., Sann, J., and Janek, J. (2016). Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7094–7099. Biol. 93, 213–255.
Interphase formation and degradation of
charge transfer kinetics between a lithium 101. Wang, S., Yan, M., Li, Y., Vinado, C., and Yang, 111. Tan, J., Zhang, B., Luo, Y., and Ye, S. (2017).
metal anode and highly crystalline Li7P3S11 J. (2018). Separating electronic and ionic Ultrafast vibrational dynamics of membrane-
solid electrolyte. Solid State Ionics 286, 24–33. conductivity in mix-conducting layered bound peptides at the lipid bilayer/water
lithium transition-metal oxides. J. Power interface. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56, 12977–
92. Nakayama, M., Wada, S., Kuroki, S., and Sources 393, 75–82.
Nogami, M. (2010). Factors affecting cyclic 12981.
durability of all-solid-state lithium polymer 102. Li, Y., Xu, B., Xu, H., Duan, H., Lu, X., Xin, S.,
batteries using poly(ethylene oxide)-based Zhou, W., Xue, L., Fu, G., Manthiram, A., et al. 112. Mai, L., Dong, Y., Xu, L., and Han, C. (2010).
solid polymer electrolytes. Energy Environ. (2017). Hybrid polymer/garnet electrolyte with Single nanowire electrochemical devices.
Sci. 3, 1995–2002. a small interfacial resistance for lithium-ion Nano Lett. 10, 4273–4278.
batteries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56, 753–756.
93. Malmgren, S., Ciosek, K., Hahlin, M., 113. Xu, X., Yan, M., Tian, X., Yang, C., Shi, M., Wei,
Gustafsson, T., Gorgoi, M., Rensmo, H., and 103. Wang, H., Gan, W., Lu, R., Rao, Y., and Wu, B. Q., Xu, L., and Mai, L. (2015). In Situ
Edström, K. (2013). Comparing anode and (2005). Quantitative spectral and orientational investigation of Li and Na ion transport with
cathode electrode/electrolyte interface analysis in surface sum frequency generation single nanowire electrochemical devices.
composition and morphology using soft and vibrational spectroscopy (SFG-VS). Int. Rev. Nano Lett. 15, 3879–3884.
hard X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. 24, 191–256.
Electrochim. Acta 97, 23–32. 114. Hu, P., Yan, M., Wang, X., Han, C., He, L., Wei,
104. Chen, Z., Shen, Y.R., and Somorjai, G.A. X., Niu, C., Zhao, K., Tian, X., Wei, Q., et al.
94. Kobayashi, T., Yamada, A., and Kanno, R. (2002). Studies of polymer surfaces by sum (2016). Single-nanowire electrochemical
(2008). Interfacial reactions at electrode/ frequency generation vibrational probe detection for internally optimized
electrolyte boundary in all solid-state lithium spectroscopy. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 53, mechanism of porous graphene in
battery using inorganic solid electrolyte, thio- 437–465. electrochemical devices. Nano Lett. 16, 1523–
LISICON. Electrochim. Acta 53, 5045–5050. 1529.
105. Nicolau, B.G., Garcı́a-Rey, N., Dryzhakov, B.,
95. Otoyama, M., Ito, Y., Hayashi, A., and and Dlott, D.D. (2015). Interfacial processes of 115. Choi, C.S., Lau, J., Hur, J., Smith, L., Wang, C.,
Tatsumisago, M. (2016). Raman imaging for a model lithium ion battery anode observed, and Dunn, B. (2018). Synthesis and properties
LiCoO2 composite positive electrodes in all- in situ, with vibrational sum-frequency of a photopatternable lithium-ion conducting
solid-state lithium batteries using Li2S-P2S5 generation spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C solid electrolyte. Adv. Mater. 30, 1703772.
solid electrolytes. J. Power Sources 302, 119, 10227–10233.
419–425. 116. Zhang, W., Weber, D.A., Weigand, H., Arlt, T.,
106. Mukherjee, P., Lagutchev, A., and Dlott, D.D. Manke, I., Schroder, D., Koerver, R.,
96. Kanno, R., Murayama, M., Inada, T., (2012). In situ probing of solid-electrolyte Leichtweiss, T., Hartmann, P., Zeier, W.G.,
Kobayashi, T., Sakamoto, K., Sonoyama, N., interfaces with nonlinear coherent vibrational et al. (2017). Interfacial processes and
Yamada, A., and Kondo, S. (2004). A self- spectroscopy. J. Electrochem. Soc. 159, influence of composite cathode
assembled breathing interface for all-solid- A244–A252. microstructure controlling the performance of
state ceramic lithium batteries. Electrochem. all-solid-state lithium batteries. ACS Appl.
Solid State Lett. 7, A455–A458. 107. Wei, F., Xiong, W., Li, W., Lu, W., Allen, H.C.,
and Zheng, W. (2015). Assembly and Mater. Interfaces 9, 17835–17845.
97. Ito, Y., Otoyama, M., Hayashi, A., Ohtomo, T., relaxation behaviours of
and Tatsumisago, M. (2017). Electrochemical phosphatidylethanolamine monolayers 117. Khajehbashi, S.M.B., Xu, L., Zhang, G., Tan, S.,
and structural evaluation for bulk-type all- investigated by polarization and frequency Zhao, Y., Wang, L.S., Li, J., Luo, W., Peng, D.L.,
solid-state batteries using Li4GeS4-Li3PS4 resolved SFG-VS. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. and Mai, L. (2018). High-performance Na-O2
electrolyte coating on LiCoO2 particles. 17, 25114–25122. batteries enabled by oriented NaO2
J. Power Sources 360, 328–335. nanowires as discharge products. Nano Lett.
108. Wei, F., Tian, K., and Zheng, W. (2015). 18, 3934–3942.
98. Sakurai, Y., Sakuda, A., Hayashi, A., and Interfacial structure and transformation of
Tatsumisago, M. (2011). Preparation of guanine-rich oligonucleotides on solid 118. Yue, J., Yan, M., Yin, Y.-X., and Guo, Y.-G.
amorphous Li4SiO4-Li3PO4 thin films by supported lipid bilayer investigated by sum (2018). Progress of the interface design in all-
pulsed laser deposition for all-solid-state frequency generation vibrational solid-state Li–S batteries. Adv. Funct. Mater.
lithium secondary batteries. Solid State Ionics spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 119, 27038– https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201707533.
182, 59–63. 27044.
119. Xu, L., Zhao, Y., Owusu, K.A., Zhuang, Z., Liu,
99. Hayashi, A., Muramatsu, H., Ohtomo, T., 109. Wang, L., Shen, Y., Yang, Y., Lu, W., Li, W., Q., Wang, Z., Li, Z., and Mai, L. (2018). Recent
Hama, S., and Tatsumisago, M. (2013). Wei, F., Zheng, G., Zhou, Y., Zheng, W., and advances in nanowire-biosystem interfaces:
Improvement of chemical stability of Li3PS4 Cao, Y. (2017). Stern-layer adsorption of from chemical conversion, energy production
glass electrolytes by adding MxOy (M = Fe, Zn, oligonucleotides on lamellar cationic lipid to electrophysiology. Chem 4, 1538–1559.