Insights into the morphological changes undergone by the anode …765276/FULLTEXT02.pdf · 2014-11-21 · I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my parents, Madhavi and

ET14003

Examensarbete 30 hpNovember 2014

Insights into the morphological changes undergone by the anode in the lithium sulphur battery system

Anurag Yalamanchili

Masterprogrammet i energiteknikMaster Programme in Energy Technology

To my beloved grandparents:

Yalamanchili Satya Lakshmi Devi Yalamanchili Umamaheshwara Rao, R.I.P.

Karnati Jhansi Lakshmi, R.I.P. Karnati Venkateshwarlu, R.I.P.

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Besöksadress: Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 Hus 4, Plan 0 Postadress: Box 536 751 21 Uppsala Telefon: 018 – 471 30 03 Telefax: 018 – 471 30 00 Hemsida: http://www.teknat.uu.se/student

Abstract

Insights into the morphological changes undergone bythe anode in the lithium sulphur battery system

Anurag Yalamanchili

In this thesis, the morphological changes of the anode surface in lithium sulphur cell,during early cycling, were simulated using symmetrical lithium electrode cells withdissolved polysulphides (PS) in the electrolyte. Electron microscopy (SEM) was usedas the principal investigation technique to study and record the morphologicalchanges. The resulting images from the SEM were analysed and discussed. The initialsurface structure of the lithium anode largely influenced the ensuing morphologicalchanges taking place through lithium dissolution (pits) and lithium deposition(dendrites) during discharge and charge respectively. The rate of lithium dissolutionand deposition was found to be linearly proportional to the current density applied tothe cell and the effect of cycling on the anode was proportional to the total charge ofthe cell in general in agreement with the expected reaction. The effect ofself-discharge on the anode was also studied using photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)in tandem with SEM. The results indicated that self-discharge, occurring in the form ofcorrosion of the anode SEI by PS reduction, was influenced by the alteredmorphology of the cell after cycling.The findings presented in this project can be understood as a preliminary descriptionfor the morphological changes in the anode and their influence in the performance oflithium sulphur battery, which can be further investigated by more advanced methods.

Tryckt av: Ångström Laboratoriet, Uppsala UniversitetET14 003Examinator: Roland MathieuÄmnesgranskare: Daniel BrandellHandledare: Carl Tengstedt och Matthew Lacey

Populärvetenskaplig Sammanfattning

i


Petroleumbaserade bränslen används flitigt globalt sett idag och transportsektorns oljekonsumtion står

för 19 % av världens totala energikonsumtion, framför allt på grund av vägtransporter. De två

karaktäristiska storheterna som avgör en energikällas användbarhet i transporter är energin per

massenhet (specifik energi) och energin per volymsenhet (energidensiteten). Bensin (12.2 kWh/kg; 8.9

kWh/L) och diesel (11.9 kWh/kg; 10.1 kWh/L) utgör idag de dominerande oljebaserade flytande

bränslena beroende på möjligheterna till transport och lagring. Emellertid bidrar fossila bränslen till

växthuseffekten genom emissioner som uppstår under förbränning, framför allt av koldioxid (CO2),

vilket bidrar till global uppvärmning. Detta har lett till utvecklingen av alternativa energikällor för

transportsektorn. Användningen av biobränslen och nya energilagringsenheter utgör strategier för att

ersätta petroleumbaserade bränslen. Kemisk energilagring, där batterier används för att lagra elektrisk

energi från förnybara källor och för att driva elektriska fordon, är en löftesrik teknik för att förändra

transportsektorn.

Litiumbaserade sekundära batterier är idag mycket utnyttjade inom portabel elektronik och undersöks

därför för tillämpningar i elfordon. Litiummetallbatterier bestående av metalliskt litium som anod har

studerats i ca 40 år. Metalliskt litium har en mycket hög teoretisk kapacitet (3860 mAh/g) och låg

densitet (590 kg/m3), vilket gör materialet idealt för mobila och portabla tillämpningar. En rad

utmaningar hindrar dock kommersialiseringen av tekniken. De två huvudsakliga problemen har varit

säkerhetsproblem som grundas i potentiella inre kortslutningar och den stora ytarean hos den reaktiva

litiummetallen, samt litiummetallens oförmåga att behålla sin kapacitet över ett stort antal upp‐ och

urladdningscykler (låg cyklingseffektivitet). Båda dessa problem har att göra med ytförändringar hos

litiumelektroden.

Den tidigare forskningen på litiumbatterier genererade en alternativ teknik, litium‐jonbatteriet (LIB),

vilket så småningom attraherade ett större intresse än litiummetallbatteriet. LIB består i allmänhet av

litiumjoner som sätts in i en värdstruktur (som t ex grafit). Den reversibla insättningen av litiumjoner (s k

interkalation) i anoden under upp‐ och urladdning skapade en stabil elektrokemi över en längre

cyklingsperiod, och gav därmed en hög cyklingseffektivitet. Dock är kapaciteten begränsad i ett LIB; den

teoretiska specifika energidensiteten i ett typiskt LIB är 387 Wh/kg. Trots den rätt låga energidensiteten

har LIB‐tekniken introducerats brett bland elfordon under det senaste decenniet, som i halvkombin


ii

Nissan Leaf. LIB har dock begränsats av sin teoretiska kapacitet och dess nuvarande praktiska specifika

energi (160 Wh/kg) möter inte de långsiktiga målen för kommersiella elfordon så att transportindustrin

kan ersätta fossila bränslen.

Nyliga upptäckter inom kemisk energilagring för elfordon har dock förnyat intresset för

litiummetallbatterier, vilka har högre kapacitet än LIB. En nästa generations batteriteknologi, litium‐

svavelbatterier (LiSB) med en teoretisk specifik energi på 2500 Wh/kg, betraktas som nära praktisk

användning i elfordon. Dock kvarstår problemen associerade med cyklingseffektivitet och säkerhet som

identifierats för litiummetallbatterier de senaste 40 åren. Sion Power kunde uppvisa ett prototypsystem

för LiSB som gav mellan 350 Wh/kg och 600 Wh/kg, men LiSB‐batterierna klarade inte av att vidhålla

kapaciteten som sjönk med 20 % efter 30‐60 cykler till skillnad från målet på 1000 cykler. Dessutom är

LiSB behäftat med allvarliga säkerhetsproblem associerade till litiummetallbatterier. Ett unikt problem

för LiSB är den komplicerade kemiska process som uppträder i cellen under cykling, och vilken resulterar

i reducerad kapacitet och kort livslängd, vilket också delvis har associerats med anoden. Medan många

studier har utförts på LiSB under det senaste decenniet har endast en mindre del studerat anoden och

dess degradering.

Det här projektet syftar till att undersöka olika felmekanismer som uppstår via litiummetallanoden i ett

LiSB, och att hitta faktorerna som initierar dem genom att studera morfologin på anodens yta under

varierande grad av cykling. Elektronmikroskopi, en enkel men precis teknik, används för att skapa en bild

av anodens ytor i ett LiSB.

Acknowledgements

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank Kristina Edström, head of the Ångström Advanced Battery

Group at Uppsala University and Jarmo Tamminen, head of the Division of Materials Technology for

Hybrid Electronics as Scania CV AB for providing me with the opportunity to work with in this

collaborative project.

I sincerely express my gratitude to my supervisors Matthew Lacey and Carl Tengstedt for their

unwavering support and patience for my work throughout this project. Matt, it has been a pleasure to

work with you the past few months and without your guidance and clarity, this project would not have

been completed. I thank you very much for your confidence in my ability to successfully complete my

thesis. Carl, I cannot thank you sufficiently for everything you did for me, from introducing me material

studies, to dedicating your time over and above the requirement to help me write up a good report and

more importantly make a good presentation. Both of you never gave up on me and your motivations

have inspired me greatly. Working with the both of you has been immensely beneficial and a lot fun at

the same time. I wish you all the best and hope to stay in touch.

I am also indebted to my thesis reviewer, Daniel Brandell for his feedback and direction in this thesis.

Your feedback was very useful in refining report and also, thank you very much for translating my

popular summary to Swedish.

I thank Julia Maibach for introducing me to photoelectron spectroscopy and her help in using the XPS

system and studying the self‐discharge experiment. Your help and feedback has really helped me

improve my thesis and report. I extend my gratitude to Fabian Jeschull for his general support and

guidance with my project and his technical support in the lab as well. Thank you both for your support

during my defence as well. A special appreciation for Dan Persson from Swerea KIMAB for his visit to

Uppsala and his expertise in corrosion science. I am grateful to Tomas Nyberg, my examiner for his

assurance to let me complete my project despite my logistical challenges. I appreciate Karl Bengtsson

Bernander, my student opponent for your feedback on my report. I thank Henrik Eriksson for technical

support in the lab. Also I acknowledge the help provided by Chao Xu, Pontus Svens, Ali Rafieefar and

Paulius Malinovskis.

I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my parents, Madhavi and Prasad and my sister, Chetana.

Lastly, a shout‐out to my friends, Mujtaba, Mirish, Frank, Sashank, Goverdhan, Rizwan and Anand for

making what would have been a very difficult time in Germany very enjoyable. You’re all awesome!

Abbreviations and Definitions

iv


Definitions

Anion The negative charge carrier in the cell

Anode The electrode from which positive charges are extracted in a cell

during discharge

Cation The positive charge carrier in the cell

Cathode The electrode from which negative charges are extracted in a cell

during discharge

Current density (J) (A/m2) Amount of current applied per unit area of the electrode surface

Cycling Repeated process of charge and discharge of a cell

Cycling efficiency Ability to retain initial charge capacity over multiple cycles

Dendrites Ramified deposits of lithium found on the lithium metal surface from

deposition during charge

Disproportionation Simultaneous oxidation and reduction of a species to form two

separate products

Glyme a group of solvents based on alkyl ethers of ethylene glycol or

propylene glycol that are capped by methyl groups

Gravimetric energy density or

Specific energy (kWh/kg)

Amount of energy per unit mass

Groove line The imprint of stresses caused by rollers involved in the

manufacturing of lithium

Half‐cell reaction Part of the overall cell reaction taking place at a particular electrode

Oxidation Loss of an electron by an atom, ion or a molecule leading to an

increase in the oxidation state

Pits Cavities formed on the lithium metal surface from dissolution during

discharge

Polysulphides A group of sulphur compounds containing multiple chains of sulphur

atoms that stay dissolved in the electrolyte at the end of a charge or

discharge process


v

Redox A chemical reaction in which the reactant atoms undergo a change in

their oxidation state

Reduction Gain of an electron by an atom, ion or a molecule leading to a

decrease in the oxidation state

Self‐discharge A phenomenon where a cell loses its charge in open circuit conditions

Shuttle A phenomenon in lithium sulphur batteries where dissolved

polysulphide ions are repetitively reduced at the anode during

discharge and oxidised at the cathode during the subsequent charge

over multiple cycles

Volumetric energy density

(kWh/m3)

Amount of energy per unit volume

Abbreviations

General

LIB Lithium ion battery

LiSB Lithium sulphur battery

SEI Solid Electrolyte Interface

PS Polysulphide

Li‐S Lithium‐sulphur cell

Li‐Li Symmetrical lithium electrode cell

Eavg Average cell voltage

µa/c Ionic mobilities of the anions or cations

D Ambipolar diffusion constant

tion Ion transport number or transference number of the ion

τ Sand’s time (The time by which dendrite growth is delayed

Vm Molar volume

vtip Velocity of dendrite tip growth propagation

F Faraday constant

h Planck’s constant


vi

Frequency of light

SoC State of charge

DoD Depth of discharge

FIB Focussed ion beam

SHES Self‐healing electrostatic shield

Chemical

PEO Poly(ethylene oxide)

PVdF Polyvinylidendifluoride

PVP Solid Electrolyte Interface

SBR Styrene‐butadiene rubber

DME 1‐2 dimethoxyethane

DOL 1‐3 Dioxalane

TEGDME Tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether

THF Tetrahydrofuran

Li2S Lithium sulphide

LiClO4 Lithium perchlorate

LiNO3 Lithium nitrate

LiBF4 Lithium tetrafluoroborate

LiPF6 Lithium hexafluorophosphate

LiBOB Lithium bis(oxalato)borate

LiTFSI Lithium bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide

LixNOy Oxidised lithium nitrogen species

LixSyOz Oxidised lithium sulphur species

Li2Sx Lithium sulphide species

Analytical and characterization techniques

SEM Scanning electron microscopy

EDX Energy dispersive X‐ray spectrometry

XPS X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy

AFM Atomic force microscopy

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Populärvetenskaplig Sammanfattning ................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations and Definitions ............................................................................................................ iv

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Background .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Lithium Sulphur (Li‐S) battery ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Electrochemical reactions within the Li‐S cell ....................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Undesirable PS redox reactions ............................................................................................ 5

2.1.3 The sulphur cathode ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1.4 Electrolyte ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 The lithium metal anode ............................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Dendrite growth models ..................................................................................................... 11

2.2.2 Solid Electrolyte Interface ................................................................................................... 13

3 Experimental procedures ........................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Surface characterization ............................................................................................................. 17

3.1.1 Electron microscopy ............................................................................................................ 17

3.1.2 X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) ............................................................................ 18

3.2 Anode sample preparation ......................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2 Cathode preparation ........................................................................................................... 20

3.2.3 Electrolyte preparation ....................................................................................................... 20

3.2.4 Cell assembly and cycling .................................................................................................... 21

3.2.5 Sample extraction and transfer .......................................................................................... 22

3.3 SEM Image Analysis.................................................................................................................... 22

Table of Contents

4 Experimentation ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Comparison of Li‐S cells with Li‐Li symmetrical cells .................................................................. 25

4.1.1 Results and observations .................................................................................................... 26

4.1.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 30

4.2 Effect of varying sulphur loading on lithium morphology .......................................................... 31

4.2.1 Results, observations and analysis ...................................................................................... 32

4.2.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 35

4.3 Effect of self‐discharge of Li‐S cells on the lithium anode .......................................................... 37

4.3.1 Results ................................................................................................................................. 37

4.3.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 41

4.4 Effect of cycling on the Li anode ................................................................................................. 42

4.4.1 Results ................................................................................................................................. 43

4.4.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 45

5 Conclusions and outlook............................................................................................................. 46

6 References ................................................................................................................................. 48

List of Figures

Figure 1: Typical structure of a Li‐S cell and its working during discharge ................................................... 4

Figure 2: Charge‐discharge profiles of a Li–S cell .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: The chemical structures of the linear and cyclic ether components used in this project ............. 8

Figure 4: SEM images of anode morphologies of Li‐S cell at 100% depth of discharge (DoD) after

increasing number of cycles.......................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: SEM image of the cross section of the anode after 250 cycles ................................................... 10

Figure 6: The formation of dead lithium on the lithium anode) ................................................................. 11

Figure 7: The breakdown and repair of the SEI layer during deposition and dissolution .......................... 14

Table of Contents

Figure 8: The role of various surface species and the SEI species in morphological changes .................... 15

Figure 9: Schematic of the components inside the XPS chamber .............................................................. 19

Figure 10: Assembly structures for (a) Li‐S cell; (b) Li‐Li cell ....................................................................... 21

Figure 11: Pit identification using Image‐J .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 12: The frequency of approximate intervals of pit sizes in the image calculated. .......................... 24

Figure 13: Area occupied by dendrite formations in the presence of unfilled pits .................................... 24

Figure 14: State of Charge: 0% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge from Li‐S and Li‐Li cells.... 26

Figure 15: State of Charge: 6.25% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and 6.25% charge from

Li‐S and Li‐Li cells......................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 16: State of Charge: 50% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and half charge from Li‐S

and Li‐Li cells ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 17: State of Charge: 100 % Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and full charge from Li‐S

and Li‐Li cells ............................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 18: Representative macroscopic morphologies of all samples ....................................................... 33

Figure 19: The frequency of approximate intervals of pit sizes for the samples studies. .......................... 34

Figure 20: Current density versus approximate pit sizes ............................................................................ 35

Figure 21: Current density versus dendrite area fraction ........................................................................... 35

Figure 22: Fluorine spectrum F1s ............................................................................................................... 38

Figure 23: Sulphur spectrum S2p ............................................................................................................... 38

Figure 24:Macroscopic image of the morphology of the soaked Li sample ............................................... 38

Figure 25: Macroscopic image of the morphology of the charged Li sample ............................................ 38

Figure 26: Microscopic image of the morphology of the charged Li sample ............................................. 39

Figure 27: Image of the surface of the self‐discharged Li sample. ............................................................. 39

Figure 28: Macroscopic image of the morphology of the self‐discharged Li sample ................................ 39

Figure 29: Microscopic image of the morphology of the self‐discharged Li sample ................................. 39

Table of Contents

Figure 30: Representative macroscopic morphologies of all samples after full cycles and after

subsequent discharge ................................................................................................................................. 44

List of Tables

Table 1: List of cells cycled/simulated to their respective SOCs ................................................................. 25

Table 2: Dimensional statistics of the anode samples from Li‐Li cells and Li‐S cells .................................. 30

Table 3: Li‐Li cells at their respective simulated SOC cycled at varying current densities ......................... 32

Table 4: Dimensional statistics associated with the morphologies of the samples ................................... 34

Table 5: List of samples studied in the experiment .................................................................................... 37

Table 6: List of anode samples and cycling conditions ............................................................................... 42

Introduction

1

1 Introduction

The increased energy consumption and increased role of the automotive and transportation industries

have led to an increasing reliance on fossil fuels such as petroleum on a global scale. Oil consumption for

the transportation sector accounted for over 19 % of the global primary energy demand in 2013,

predominantly due to road transportation [1–4]. The two characteristics of energy sources which

determine their usage in transportation are the amount of energy per unit mass (gravimetric energy

density) and the amount of energy per unit volume (volumetric energy density). Gasoline (12.2 kWh/kg;

8.9 kWh/L) and diesel (11.9 kWh/kg; 10.1 kWh/L) are the principal petroleum‐based liquid fuels used at

present due to their ease of transport and storage [5]. However, emissions from fossil fuels contribute

to a large extent to the greenhouse effect through their usage, primarily emission of carbon dioxide

(CO2), resulting in global warming [6]. These issues arising from the usage of fossil fuels, has led to the

development of alternative energy sources to power the transportation sector. Use of biofuels and

energy storage devices are considered as sustainable strategies to replace petroleum based fuels [7,8].

Electrical energy storage devices, due to their ability to transfer energy with low consumption of

materials and no emission of CO2, are preferred over other strategies in the long term.

Lithium ion batteries (LIBs) seem to be among the better technologies for use in electric energy storage

in electric vehicles with a theoretical gravimetric energy density of 387 Wh/kg (calculated using solely

the energy obtained per unit mass of the active electrode components) [9]. LIBs, in general, consist of

lithium ions inserted into a host structure (such as graphite) for the electrode materials. However their

practical capacities including the mass of other cell and battery components are limited to 150 – 230

Wh/kg [10]. The use of lithium metal instead of lithiated graphite as anode material raises the possible

theoretical energy capacity from 372 mAh/g [11]to 3860 mAh/g in lithium metal batteries, making them

ideal for use in mobile applications [12]. The use of metallic lithium as anode is however not trivial,

suffering from severe safety challenges and a major capacity loss during cycling [13,14].

Recent advances in chemical energy storage for electric vehicles has renewed the interest in lithium

metal batteries. Lithium sulphur batteries (LiSBs) can be considered as a good candidate technology.

Sulphur was first introduced to lithium metal batteries in 1962 [15]. Sulphur had an advantage over

conventional cathode compounds used in the lithium metal batteries such as vanadium pentoxide (V2O5)

or bismuth trioxide (Bi2O3) due to its abundance, low cost and low toxicity [16–19]. In 2010, Sion Power

have shown that prototype LiSB systems can provide higher practical energy densities at 350 Wh/kg at

Introduction

2

present and 600 Wh/kg in the near future. However, LiSBs were unable to retain their capacities,

showing a 20 % capacity fade over 30 – 60 cycles as compared to the long term goal of 1000 cycles

[20,21]. In addition, LiSBs present serious safety concerns associated with the lithium metal batteries of

the previous generation.

The LiSB system, as with other lithium metal batteries, faces significant challenges associated with the

lithium metal electrode, i.e., low cycling efficiency of the battery and the safety issues caused by growth

of “dendrites” or “mossy” lithium on charge, especially at higher rates [12,14,22,23]. The dendrites can

cause internal short circuits in the battery [12,24,25]. Repeated cycling causes permanent deformations

of the electrode surface by anodic corrosion and dendrite growth. In addition, lithium metal, due to its

electro‐positivity, reacts with the electrolyte instantly resulting in the formation of a thermodynamically

stable passivation layer over the electrode known as the solid‐electrolyte interface (SEI). The continuous

deterioration of the lithium anode over multiple cycles causes the depletion of the electrolyte, resulting

in increasing interfacial resistance and capacity fade [9,22,26,27].

The Li‐metal surface can also be affected by side reactions involving intermediate polysulphides (PS) that

have been dissolved in the electrolyte from the cathode during discharge. These PS species typically also

contribute to the formation of the SEI, and participate in the electrochemical charge reactions by

diffusing back to the cathode to be re‐oxidised to form higher order PS leading to an internal redox

“shuttle” mechanism [9,20,28,29]. This redox of the PS species is suggested as a reason for reduced use

of active sulphur and lithium masses leading to low cycling efficiency and self‐discharge mechanism (low

shelf life) in the lithium sulphur system [20,30].

A comprehensive study to understand the morphological changes undergone by the lithium metal

electrode in the initial cycles, and the factors influencing them, under the similar experimental

conditions would be a good start to understanding their contribution to failure mechanisms in the LiSB

system.

Scope:

In this thesis, the morphological changes occurring at the surface of lithium anodes in liquid electrolyte

Li‐S cells during the initial cycles were studied extensively using electron microscopy as the chief

investigation method. Photoelectron spectroscopy was also used to chemically characterize the

passivation layer formed on the surface on the anode.

Background

3

2 Background

It is crucial to understand the context of this project in view of the recent advances in study of the LiSB

system as well as follow the electrochemical processes taking place inside a Li‐S cell to understand the

experiments conducted in this project. This chapter presents a detailed description of the various

components and the electrochemistry of the Li‐S cell.

2.1 Lithium Sulphur (Li‐S) battery

LiSB systems consist of a sulphur based cathode, a chemically inert separator, a lithium metal anode and

an electrolyte to facilitate the electrochemical reactions. As a cathode, sulphur has an electrochemical

potential of 2.24 V vs Li/Li+, which is small compared to LIB systems (2.4 – 4.7 V). This is somewhat

compensated by the high specific capacity of the Li‐S cell at 1675 mAh/g [14,16].

The most common electrolyte in Li‐S cells is liquid electrolyte consisting of organic solvents and lithium

salts held within a porous polymer separator. Solid or polymer based electrolytes can also be used, but

are presently considered to have too low ionic conductivity [31–33].

A very simplified explanation of the charge/discharge mechanism: When a Li‐S cell in a charged state is

connected to an external load, an oxidation reaction takes place at the lithium anode, from which

electrons are transferred to the cathode via the external circuit with dissolution of lithium into the

electrolyte as lithium ions. The half‐cell reaction taking place at the anode is given by:

→

Simultaneously, reduction takes place at the cathode with the ultimate reduction of elemental sulphur

to sulphide. The half‐cell reaction at the cathode is given by:

16 → 8

Li2S is ultimately formed as a solid precipitate as the final state of the discharge process. The overall

discharge reaction of the Li‐S is therefore:

16 → 8 Eavg = 2.2 V

The typical structure of a Li‐S cell during discharge is shown in Figure 1.

Background

4

Figure 1: Typical structure of a Li‐S cell and its working during discharge (Reprinted from [9] Copyright 2012, with permission from Nature Materials)

The reaction is reversible when the cell is charged by an external circuit by electrical energy. However,

the charge/discharge mechanism is more complicated than as explained and involve many different

steps.

2.1.1 Electrochemical reactions within the Li‐S cell

The charge/discharge mechanisms within the Li‐S cell consist of numerous chemical reactions taking

place at the electrodes and in the electrolyte. The reduction of elemental sulphur at the cathode to

lithium sulphide (Li2S) involves a number of intermediary reactions. The actual reduction mechanisms of

the sulphur cathode are still under discussion. Lacey et. al. suggested a typical model of the fundamental

reduction process of the sulphur cathode in a liquid electrolyte system.

Figure 2: Charge‐discharge profiles of a Li–S cell (Reprinted from [34] Copyright 2014, with permission from Elsevier)

1 2

3

Background

5

During discharge, three stages of electrochemical reactions take place at the cathode as shown in Figure

2 [34]. During the first stage (~2.3 V), elemental sulphur in solid phase (S8 (S)) is dissolved into the

electrolyte (S8 (L) ) and is then reduced to long chain (S82‐) ions. During the second stage, these sulphur

ions are reduced further to shorter chain ions by disproportionation reactions, where a particular

species is simultaneously oxidised and reduced to form two separate products, as shown below:

→14

This stage typically involves fast reaction kinetics due to the liquid phase reactions witnessing a potential

drop from 2.3 – 2.1 V. Further disproportionation of the S62‐ to shorter chain ions like S42‐ takes place

during the third stage at an almost stable potential (~2.1 V). During this stage the viscosity of the

electrolyte increases due to the generation of anion species.

It was suggested that short chain anions like S42‐ typically formed polysulphides (PS) through

disproportionation rather than electrochemical reduction given by:

4 → 3

This disproportionation and redox of S42‐ and S62‐ takes place throughout most of this stage eventually

resulting in the formation Li2S. In addition, the reduction of various short chain sulphur ions formed

from disproportionation results in the precipitation of solid phase Li2S at the electrodes. Towards the

end of discharge, precipitates of lower order PS, Li2S deposit on the cathode. The solid PS precipitates

tend to agglomerate at the cathode over prolonged cycling of the Li‐S cell. These agglomerates remain

electrochemically inaccessible during the most subsequent charge‐discharge processes.

During charge, almost all PS are transformed to Sm2‐ ions through facile oxidation kinetics over a stable

voltage rise and are further oxidized to form elemental sulphur towards the end of charge. The typical

overall reactions taking place in the vicinity of the cathode are given by [16,35]:

→ 2

8 → 16

2.1.2 Undesirable PS redox reactions

The higher order and intermediary PS ions which remain dissolved in the electrolyte, tend to diffuse

towards the lithium anode and react corrosively with the lithium metal to form lower order PS. These

Background

6

reactions take place both electrochemically as well as chemically. Zhang [36] provides general equations

for these reactions as given below:

→ 1 2 2 (Electrochemical oxidation)

1 2 → (Chemical reduction)

These reduced PS diffuse back from the anode to the cathode on the next subsequent charge cycle to be

re‐oxidised and a subsequent diffusion to the anode causing a polysulphide “shuttle” between the

electrodes. A significant capacity of the Li‐S cell is lost in driving the shuttle mechanism, resulting in

underutilization of capacity. Under idle conditions, this mechanism carries on until the PS are reduced to

form solid Li2S which can deposit at the anode or elsewhere [9,20,37].

In addition to the shuttle, the PS reduction reactions also cause three main parasitic mechanisms which

challenge the use of LiSBs in practical applications:

Active consumption of active sulphur and lithium materials to form solid PS through

electrochemical reduction, resulting in capacity fade over subsequent cycles (low cycling

efficiency) [20,38].

Passive consumption of active lithium material by dissolved PS to from reduced PS species

through chemical reduction, resulting in capacity fade when idle (self‐discharge)[20,39].

Corrosion of the passivation layer (SEI) on the anode thereby aiding in the degradation of the

anode [40]. The composition of the SEI in presence of sulphur containing electrolytes is

discussed further in the forthcoming sections of this chapter.

2.1.3 The sulphur cathode

Elemental sulphur, due to its low conductivity (5 x 10‐30 S/cm at 25 oC), cannot be used as the standalone

cathode [17,41]. Materials with high electric conductivity such as carbon are used to form composite

cathodes, electrically enhancing their conductivity while simultaneously remaining inert to the chemical

reactions. In order to retain the advantages of high specific energy of the LiSB, elemental sulphur must

contribute to at least 70 % wt. of a sulphur‐carbon composite cathode in a conventional Li‐S cell [9,42].

Towards the end of a discharge, solid precipitate PS (Li2S) deposit on the cathode. Li2S (1.66 g/cm2)

which is less dense than elemental sulphur (2.07 g/cm2), occupies more volume than elemental sulphur.

Hence, a high surface area and porosity is required by the carbon composite to accommodate these

Background

7

volume changes. Typically one or more binders are added in minor proportions to the sulphur cathode

to maintain mechanical stability of the composite electrode. Polymers such as polyethylene oxide (PEO)

[43–46], polyvinylidendifluoride (PVdF) [47,48], or styrene‐butadiene rubber (SBR) [46,49] have been

preferred as binder material.

One of the main strategies to limit or control the effect of the dissolved PS has been to trap the

dissolved PS species through sorption on the walls the porous carbon cathode structure, thereby

preventing them from diffusing towards the anode and initiate the shuttle, in effect creating PS

“reservoirs”. Over the past decade several approaches have been considered in the design of the

cathode structure through the use of various kinds of functional carbon materials and metal oxides such

as alumina and silica [9,16,50]. The general approach in all these materials has been to expose the

maximum possible surface area of the functional material structure to elemental sulphur and PS in order

to use their absorption and adsorption properties. While results using varied approaches have yielded

positive results, it is important to note that the effectiveness of sorption properties in trapping PS is

limited. Considering that in most of the cathode structures the loaded sulphur content was below 70%

of the total volume, these approaches are not likely suited for practical applications. For the purpose of

studying the anode in the Li‐S cell, the formulation of the cathode structure in this project can be

achieved by simpler methods based on amorphous carbon black and water soluble binder materials.

2.1.4 Electrolyte

Goodenough and Kim [51] have listed the requirements of an optimal electrolyte in a lithium metal

battery. In general, a good electrolyte should have high ionic conductivity, low electronic conductivity,

low viscosity, intrinsic chemical and thermal stability with the electrodes, preferably low flammability, a

large operating temperature range, low cost and low toxicity.

The complicated electrochemistry of LiSBs adds two additional requirements. In light of the high

reactivity of the PS anions and their radicals, the electrolyte must also be chemically stable against the

PS anions. Since dissolved PS drive most of the charge transfer reactions with the Li‐S cell, the

electrolyte must also be able to dissolve large quantities of elemental sulphur and PS. Usually, the

electrolyte is a complex mixture of one or more solvents containing lithium salts and other additives.

2.1.4.1 Solvent

The selection of a suitable solvent is essential for optimal utilization of the active materials in the Li‐S

cell, particularly to accommodate the numerous cell reactions and the changing solubilities of different

Background

8

PS in the electrolyte. Considering the given requirements for the electrolyte, conventional solvents for

other lithium metal batteries based on carbonates, phosphates and esters have been ruled incompatible

for LiSBs [52] since they tend to interact with PS anions through redox, nucleophilic and radical reactions

[36,51]. Numerous other compatible solvents have been studied for application of to the Li‐S cell.

Linear ether glyme based solvents such as 1‐2 dimethoxyethane (DME) and tetraethylene glycol

dimethyl ether (TEGDME) have been preferred for LiSBs due to their ability to dissolve larger amounts of

PS, low viscosity and faster reaction kinetics to the PS anions [53–55]. In general, a mixture of linear and

cyclic ethers (e.g. 1‐3 Dioxalane (DOL)) with a relatively high solubility for PS are used. Solvents such as

DME‐DOL [53,56,57], TEGDME‐DOL [45,58,59], and TEGDME‐THF [60] have shown acceptable

performance in balancing initial discharge capacity and cycling efficiency. Wang et. al. reported that a

ratio of DME‐DOL in either 1:1 or 2:1 yielded optimum results [54]. The typical chemical structures of

DME (linear ether) and DOL (cyclic ether) are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The chemical structures of the linear and cyclic ether components used in this project

2.1.4.2 Electrolyte salts and additives

Lithium salts are added to the solvents in order to obtain a high transference number for lithium and

ionic conductivity. However it is important the chosen salt(s) is compatible with the PS dissolved in the

electrolyte. Conventional lithium salts used in other lithium metal batteries like LiPF6, LiBF4 and LiBOB

have been ruled out due to this requirement [36]. Lithium salts have also been used as additives to form

a stable passivation layer on the lithium anode. LiClO4 and LiTFSI have been used extensively in the

electrolyte due to their low charge transfer resistance, ability to form a stable passivation layer on the

anode quickly, thus reducing the effect of PS redox reactions [61,62]. One of the most important

discoveries in the recent past has been the suitability of LiNO3 and other nitrate based salts as

electrolyte additives for LiSBs by Mikhaylik et. al. [63]. LiNO3 can react with the anode surface and form

a stable passivating layer which works actively to oxidize PS during redox reactions, thereby reducing the

DOL

Background

9

effect of shuttle mechanism in the cell. However, Zhang reported that when cell potential drops below

1.6 V, LiNO3 is consumed by the cathode as well, forming insoluble reduction products that adversely

affect the reversibility of the cell [64]. Moreover, the use of LiNO3 is not very effective in solving the self‐

discharge problem caused by the chemical redox. Therefore, it is recommended that to retain the

beneficial effects of nitrate salts, they must be used as a co‐salt rather than a sole electrolyte additive,

and ensure that the cut‐off potentials are kept above 1.7 V.

2.2 The lithium metal anode

The primary challenges in LiSBs have been attributed to the lithium anode. Lithium, due to its

nucleophilic nature, reacts immediately with the electrolyte to form the SEI. Over multiple cycles,

lithium dissolution during discharge and lithium deposition during charge have been known to cause

three major effects on the lithium anode:

Porous dissolution of lithium on the anode leading to uneven morphology after first discharge

Deposition of lithium in the form of dendrites during charge

Evolution of mossy, powder‐like rough surface morphology exposing greater surface area

These three phenomena have caused problems for the Li‐S cell as summarized by Mikhaylik [20]:

Electrolyte depletion to repair the SEI over freshly exposed lithium during cycling

Unacceptable cell swelling

Thermal instability due to greater surface reactivity

Possibility of internal cell short circuit due to contact of Li dendrite with the cathode [25]

The typical morphology of a lithium anode in the Li‐S cell is shown in Figure 4 [20].

Figure 4: SEM images of anode morphologies of Li‐S cell at 100% depth of discharge (DoD) after increasing number of cycles. (a) 30 cycles (b) 352 cycles (Reprtinted from [20] Copyright 2010, with permission from The Electrochemical Society)

Background

10

Previous studies of morphological changes in lithium metal batteries

Lithium metal anodes have been extensively studied for rechargeable batteries from primary lithium

batteries. Several studies have been devoted to the study of the morphological changes at a Li anode on

repeated cycling with different cathodes and electrolytes. For example, Lopéz et. al. [65] studied the

evolution of lithium morphology over 250 cycles and found that the anode swelled over cycling and

adopted a structure with several distinct layers as shown in Figure 5 [65]. It was also found that rather

than dendrite growth, the evolution of the mossy porous layers and its reaction with the electrolyte

caused capacity fade and low cycling efficiency. Yoshimatsu et. al. [66] described growth and dissolution

mechanisms of lithium dendrites and proposed a scheme for the isolation and deactivation of pieces of

Li dendrites through dendrite thinning in the form of “dead lithium” (chemically active but

electrochemically inactive) on the top of the anode surface as shown in Figure 6 [67]. Further

investigation by Arakawa et. al. on the same occurrence indicated that isolated Li could have been

formed due to heterogeneous dissolution of the needle‐like Li. It was also argued that sizes and shapes

of the dendrites formed over multiple cycles was greatly dependent on the applied current density [68].

Figure 5: SEM image of the cross section of the anode after 250 cycles. The thicknesses of the three layers are Dendritic: 15 µm; Porous: 300 µm; Substrate: 50 µm (Reprinted from [65] Copyright 2003, with permission from The Electrochemical Society)

Top dendritic layer

Intermediate porous layer

Bottom residual anode substrate

Background

11

Figure 6: The formation of dead lithium on the lithium anode (Reprinted from [67] Copyright 2004, with permission from American Chemical Society)

Effect of initial surface state on lithium morphology

Gireaud and co‐workers have investigated the effect of initial lithium surface state on the ensuing

morphological changes [69]. The use of a “sellotape” method to induce defects on the lithium anode

prior to cycling showed that lithium dissolution takes place preferentially along the grain boundaries

on the lithium surface and the cracked lines/stress lines. This has been attributed to the higher

interfacial energy at these points where the passivation layer breaks down quickly [70]. It was also

found that dendrite growth through lithium deposition in the subsequent charge took place

preferentially along the surface defects such as dissolution pits due locally enhanced current

densities. The study noted that the initial surface state of the anode substrate is also a key parameter

that can influence the ensuing morphological changes.

2.2.1 Dendrite growth models

Electrochemical deposition on metals such as zinc, copper, tin and lithium have all exhibited fractal

deposits on the surface. While most electrochemical deposits involve a one‐time deposition, the

rechargeable nature of lithium batteries requires multiple depositions, which becomes a significant

Background

12

problem during cycling. Xu and co‐workers have presented a comprehensive summary of the dendrite

growth models in rechargeable lithium anodes [71].

Chazalviel first proposed a general model for origins and growth of ramified metallic electrodeposits in

dilute salt solutions attributing the growth of these deposits to the development of a space charge

region due to depletion of anions at the metal electrodes [72]. This model has been adapted by Brissot

et. al. for models based on lithium metal batteries using binary electrolyte with lithium salts and a

polymer electrolyte such as PEO [73]. DC polarisation of the cell creates a concentration gradient in the

cell which is given by the equation:

∂C∂x

μμ μ

Where J is the localized effective current density, e is the elementary charge, D ambipolar diffusion

constant and µa and µLi are the ionic mobilities of the anions and Li+ ions respectively. It was proposed

that when > , where CO is the initial salt concentration and L is the inter‐electrode distance, the

anionic concentration at the anode approaches zero.

The time taken for the anionic concentration to drop to zero is defined as Sand’s time (τ) and it is given

by:

2 1

Where tLi is the ion transport number of lithium ions. It was indicated that at Sand’s time, an excess

build‐up of positive charges from Li+ ions takes place resulting in a space charge region forming a large

electric field and rise in local current density (Ohm’s law), resulting in the nucleation of dendrites

[25,73].

The Sand’s time τ, the time by which onset of dendrite growth is delayed, is inversely proportional to

applied current density squared J2. However a sufficiently low current density leads to a minimal ion

concentration gradient, thereby negating the formation of dendrites [71]. The limiting current density,

beyond which dendrite growth takes place is given as:

∗ 21

Background

13

Experiments conducted to examine the deposition of lithium at various current densities showed that

dendrite nucleation and growth in the shape of elongated dendrites occurred even when current

densities were lower that Chazalviel’s limiting current density. The growth of these dendrites was

attributed inhomogeneities in the local SEI. Also over multiple cycles, it was observed that dendrite

nucleation and growth occurred earlier than Sand’s time due to the breakdown and repair of the SEI

from the previous cycle [73–76]. The SEI plays a significant role in any initial morphological changes on

the lithium anode.

Barton and Brockis [77] proposed an alternate model for dendrite growth applicable in liquid

electrolytes suggesting that growth of nucleated dendrites was controlled by the spherical diffusion of

cations. Monroe and Newman adopted this model with the thermodynamic reference points of the

lithium anode and the conditions associated with ion concentrations proposed by Brissot et. al. [78].

They found that, in liquid electrolytes, dendrite growth rate increases across the surface and is greatly

dependent on applied current density. The velocity at which the tip of the dendrite propagates is given

by:

Where Jn is the effective current density normal to the hemispherical lithium dendrite tip, Vm is the

molar volume of lithium and F is the faraday constant.

Alternatively, the Chazalviel model also predicted velocity of the dendrite tip propagation as a function

of the local electric field E, given by [72]:

μ

2.2.2 Solid Electrolyte Interface

When immersed in an electrolyte, lithium instantly reacts with the solvents and lithium salts forming

irreversible reaction products. The product of this reaction is a thermodynamically stable passivation

layer which prevents any further reactions between the electrolyte and the electrode known as the solid

electrolyte interface (SEI) [79]. This is a layer also formed in LIBs, and it is well known that its thickness

and composition is highly dependent on the salts and solvents of the electrolyte.

During the electrochemical reactions, the SEI remains ionically conductive but electronically insulating.

The SEI also remains chemically impermeable to the molecules of the electrolyte during electrochemical

Background

14

reactions [81]. Aurbach et. al. conducted AFM studies of SEI formed on lithium anodes immersed and

cycled in various carbonate organic solvents [80]. Nanomorphological studies of the SEI revealed that

the SEI structure reflected the uneven heterogeneous nature of the surface film through a mosaic

structure. This led to the suggestion that during discharge, regions with presence of an SEI with an

inhomogeneous structure served as preferential spots for uneven dissolution of lithium and other

electrochemical activity. It was proposed that at low current densities, the SEI is able to withstand the

effect of a relatively low volume changes. However at higher current densities, the SEI breaks down

exposing fresh pristine lithium to the electrolyte and causing the depletion of the electrolyte solution in

a reduction with the lithium (SEI repair). This mechanism is considered as one of primary causes for

electrolyte depletion as shown in Figure 7 [80].

Studies of the chemical composition of the SEI revealed the chemical and physical influences on the

ability of the SEI to accommodate the volume changes of the anode. Of particular interest to this project

are the SEIs formed in DME and DOL. Aurbach et. al. investigated the SEI formed in glyme based solvents

and concluded that the ether linkage in linear ethers such as DME and diglyme is actively attacked by

the lithium metal resulting in the surface film formed being dominated by ionic species such as LiOH,

Figure 7: The breakdown and repair of the SEI layer during deposition and dissolution (Reprinted from [80] Copyright 2000, with permission from American Chemical Society)

Background

15

Li2O and organic lithium salts such as lithium alkoxy species: ROLi, RCOLi, RCO2Li and salt anions and

contaminants [82]. Surface films dominated by ionic species cannot accommodate the volume changes

of the anode due to their inelastic physical properties, eventually breaking down under deposition [83].

A study by Morigaki and Ohta advocated that inorganic lithium compounds such as Li2O tend to form

along the ridge lines and grain boundaries of the lithium anode, suggesting an SEI dominated locally by

ionic species [84]. The study of the surface films formed in DOL showed that similar surface species

dominated the SEI only with the addition of oligomer products of polydioxolane [85–87]. These

oligomers are insoluble and stick to the lithium anode thereby leading to the formation of elastomers,

which provide flexibility to the SEI allowing it to accommodate the volume changes of the anode during

cycling. The effect of DOL and ethers forming alkoxy species such as DME is shown in Figure 8 [83].

Figure 8: The role of various surface species and the SEI species in morphological changes (Reprinted from [83] Copyright 2000, with permission from Elsevier)

A major influence on the SEI composition in a Li‐S cell is the presence of dissolved PS in the electrolyte.

Aurbach et. al. conducted a study examining the chemical composition of the SEI using on the lithium

metal etched in a PS dissolved electrolyte solution with and without LiNO3 additives [26]. The x‐ray

photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) study of the SEI indicated that a lithium strip etched in the electrolyte

without the additive exhibited the formation of a small quantity of Li2S formed after 5 hours of etching

and a large quantity of Li2S formed after 9 days. This was not observed in the lithium strip etched in the

LiNO3 contained solution. Instead, various species of LixSOy compounds were noted in greater quantities

than the insoluble Li2S. This has been attributed to the reaction of LixNOy species in the SEI with PS to

Li in alkoxy species producing solutions

Background

16

form LixSOy. The presence of LixSOy compounds is implicated in the PS redox suppressing properties of

the SEI formed in the presence of LiNO3.

A similar study by Xiong and co‐workers reported that a stable SEI was formed on the lithium anode

over multiple cycles [88]. The structure of the SEI after multiple cycles was described as of 2 sub‐layers

of passivation consisting of oxidised lithium sulphur species at the top and the bottom layer consisting of

reduced nitrate species and insoluble PS precipitates. Underneath these was a layer of ionic lithium

compounds as formed due to atmospheric contaminants.

Experimental procedures

17

3 Experimental procedures

In this project, morphological changes on the lithium anode were studied by surface characterization.

The anode samples were extracted from Li‐S cells and symmetrical Li‐Li cells. This chapter provides a

brief description of the setup under which these cells were assembled and the samples were extracted

and studied in this project. The methods and the working principle of the instruments used to study

these samples are also detailed.

3.1 Surface characterization

Two methods were used for surface characterization of the lithium metal anodes. Electron microscopy

was used as the primary method of investigation and x‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy was used for

supplementary study.

3.1.1 Electron microscopy

Electron microscopy is a method for obtaining high resolution images at microscopic and sub‐

microscopic scales. The instrument used in this project is a scanning electron microscope (SEM), which

uses electrons for imaging sample surfaces. Electrons are generated from a source in a column mounted

directly above the sample chamber of the instrument. These electrons, when incident on the surface,

interact with the electrons at the specimen surface through elastic and inelastic collisions causing the

surface to emit its own electrons that are detected by electron detectors. The electron detectors

synchronize the intensity of the detected electron signals with the incident beam to produce an image

of the sample morphology displayed on a monitor.

The SEM used in this project is a Zeiss ΣIGMA Series Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE‐

SEM). This project uses images formed from the secondary electrons emitted from the lithium anode

specimen placed in the SEM. Secondary electrons are low energy electrons emitted sample surface

under a probe current from the incident beam. Secondary electrons are good indicators of the surface

morphology due to the relatively shallow depth (10 – 100 nm) from which they are emitted. They are

detected using an Everhart‐Thornley detector. An in‐lens detector placed in the SEM column was also

used to obtain highly focussed images at very high magnification (< 2 μm). The samples were studied in

the SEM under high vacuum (typically 10‐13 bar) with an accelerating voltage of the incident beam

varying from 1 kV to 20 kV.


18

3.1.1.1 Energy dispersive X‐ray Spectrometry (EDX)

X‐rays are also emitted from the sample surface in the SEM. When high energy electrons impact the

atoms of the surface, the electrons from the atoms at various states are ejected, creating vacancies.

These vacancies are filled by other electrons e.g. valence electrons. As a result, x‐rays are emitted with

energy equal to the difference in states, characteristic to the element from which the x‐rays were

emitted. The x‐rays are detected by an EDX detector, in this project, an X‐MaxN detector from Oxford

Instruments. It must be noted that the EDX detector is an approximate method of elemental analysis

and cannot be calibrated for lithium samples as the detection of characteristic x‐rays in the EDX detector

is limited to elements with atomic numbers (Z) greater than 4 in principle due to the low energy of the

emitted characteristic x‐ray photons. And in practice, the accuracy of the readings for EDX is low for

elements with Z < 10.

3.1.1.2 Error possibilities on SEM image formation

The atmosphere of the SEM chamber under venting during introduction and removal of the samples was

nitrogen gas which ideally does not react with the highly reactive lithium metal. However, given the

reactive nature of lithium metal and inevitable presence of atmospheric species that could contaminate

the samples during initial transfer of samples, it not possible to get an entirely pristine image of the

lithium surfaces as they are when extracted from cycled cells. However precautions and measures have

been taken to ensure the images used in this project can be the closest approximation to the possible

surface morphologies. Charging can also occur locally in case of insulated samples, which manifests in

the SEM images in the form of very high or very low brightness, making it difficult to identify the surface

topography of the sample. But this phenomenon was identified easily during studies.

3.1.2 X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)

X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) is a method of characterizing the chemical composition XPS is

based on the Photoelectric Effect discovered by Hertz in 1887 [89] and described in its present form by

Einstein in 1905 [90]. Electrons emitted by the photoelectric effect have a kinetic energy (Ekinetic) equal to

the photon energy minus its binding energy (Ebinding) and the work function of the sample ( ). In

XPS, the electron kinetic energy is measured from which the electron binding energy is calculated given

the known photon energy [91,92]. The binding energy of the electron is specific to a particular bonding

state of the element in a compound. High resolution XPS can furthermore be used to quantify the

chemical environments, giving their influences on binding energies.


19

The kinetic energy of the emitted photoelectron is given by equation below:

Where is the energy of the incident x‐ray.

Figure 9: Schematic of the components inside the XPS chamber (Reprinted from [93] Copyright 2014, with permission under Creative Commons)

A simplified scheme of an XPS system is shown in Figure 9 [93]. Inside the XPS system, the main

components are the x‐ray source, the sample, the electron energy analyser and the electron detector.

The XPS system is operated under ultrahigh vacuum conditions, typically around 10‐9 mbar. The XPS

system used for this project is the PHS XPS 5600, supplied by Physical Electronics with a probing depth

of 10 – 100 Å. In this project, the approximate chemical composition of the SEI formed on the lithium

anode samples is studied using the XPS in tandem with the morphological examination of the same

samples using the SEM.

The data obtained from the XPS studies was analysed using Wavemetrics Igor Pro and was presented as

elemental spectral lines in binding energy versus intensity graphs. The binding energy exhibiting a high

intensity for each spectral line was correlated with the possible list of compound species from which the

electrons were emitted. The compounds exhibiting the binding energies were obtained using the NIST

XPS database [94]. The binding energies for all the spectral lines were initially referenced to the Fermi

level of the Li samples and were corrected with an offset calculated by using the binding energy for Li (~

55 eV) as a reference. The approximate spatial spots on the samples where the XPS analysis was used

were marked using photographs of the samples and were investigated using the SEM for morphological

and EDX studies.


20

3.2 Anode sample preparation

In this project, two types of cells, Li‐S cells and symmetrical Li‐Li, were assembled and cycled up to

various states of charge (SoCs). All the cells were assembled in an argon (Ar) filled glove box (O2: < 1

ppm; H2O: < 8 ppm) to avoid contamination of the cells and electrodes by O2 and H2O present in the air.

The constituent cell materials such as electrolytes and the lithium anode strips were prepared and

stored in the glove box under a similar atmosphere.

3.2.1 Materials

Sulphur powder, Carbon black Super P Li (Timcal Graphite), poly (ethylene oxide) (PEO, MW = 4,000,000;

Aldrich), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP, MW = 360,000; Aldrich), 1,2‐dimethoxyethane (DME; Novolyte), 1,3‐

dioxolane (DOL; anhydrous; Aldrich) were used as received. Lithium nitrate (LiNO3; Aldrich), lithium

perchlorate (LiClO4) and lithium sulphide (Li2S; Aldrich) were dried under vacuum at 120 °C prior to use.

3.2.2 Cathode preparation

For the Li‐S cells a carbon‐sulphur composite cathode was prepared by coating cathode ink to an

aluminium substrate. 0.5 g of sulphur, 0.4 g of Super P carbon black, 0.08 g of PEO and 0.02 g of PVP

were dispersed in 8 ml of water and mixed by ball milling for 2 hours to prepare the cathode ink. The ink

was bar‐coated on to an Al foil and left to dry at room temperature for 48 hours. Circular cathodes of a

diameter of 20 mm were punched out and dried under vacuum in the glove box at 298 K for a period of

16 hours.

3.2.3 Electrolyte preparation

For both, the Li‐S cells and Li‐Li cells, the electrolytes were prepared in the glove box. In case of Li‐S cells,

5 ml of electrolyte consisted of 1 M (0.532 g) of LiClO4, 0.25 M (0.086 g) of LiNO3, and 2.5 ml of DOL and

2.5 ml of DME.

In case of Li‐Li cells, 5 ml of electrolyte consisted of 1 M (0.1064 g) of LiClO4, 0.25 M (0.172 g) of LiNO3,

and 2.5 ml of DOL and 2.5 ml of DME, 0.1 M (0.046 g) of Li2S and 0.1 M (0.257 g) of S8, to give a

polysulphide‐saturated electrolyte with an average PS stoichiometry of Li2S9 (Since the cell did not

contain a cathode, the sulphur anions were used in the experiment in a dissolved state). The electrolyte

was placed on a magnetic stirrer to dissolve the sulphur compounds over a period of 72 hours. After 72

hours the solution obtained had a deep reddish brown colour due to the dissolved PS in the solution.


21

3.2.4 Cell assembly and cycling

Vacuum‐sealed pouch cells were assembled under Ar atmosphere in the glove box. A schematic diagram

of the cell assembly is given in Figure 10. Multi‐layered PP/Al/PP (aluminium laminate) encapsulation

was used as the cell container. Copper (for anode) and aluminium (for cathode in case of Li‐S cells) strips

were used as current collectors. Lithium metal, supplied by Cyprus Foote Materials Limited, of thickness

125 µm was cut into approximate dimensions of 40 mm X 40 mm strips for use as anode in the cells. For

symmetrical Li‐Li cells, a 20 mm diameter circular piece of Li foil was used as the working electrode.

Polyethylene membranes (SOLUPOR, Lydall Performance Materials), of a diameter of 22 mm were used

as separators for the cell. The volume of electrolyte was fixed at 35 µL per mg of sulphur in the case of

Li‐S cells (determined empirically), and 80 µL in total for Li‐Li cells. The electrolyte was applied onto the

cathode before application of the separator in the case of Li‐S cells; for Li‐Li cells, the separator was first

added and followed by the electrolyte.

Electrolyte with sulphur

Current collector (Working electrode)

Lithium metal strip (Working electrode)

Separator

Lithium metal strip (counter electrode)

Current collector (counter electrode)

Pouch cell

Current collector (Working electrode)

Sulphur based Cathode (Working electrode)

Separator

Lithium metal strip (counter electrode)

Current collector (counter electrode)

Pouch cell

Electrolyte

Figure 10: Assembly structures for (a) Li‐S cell; (b) Li‐Li cell

(b) Li‐Li Cell(a) Li‐S cell


22

An open circuit voltage of 3 V vs Li/Li+ was considered typical for the cathode in Li‐S cells and Li‐Li cells

had a potential of 0 V. All cells were cycled via galvanostatic cycling equipment under compressive

pressure to various states of charge (SoCs) at different current densities depending on the experiment.

3.2.5 Sample extraction and transfer

Lithium metal samples from cycled cells were also extracted in the glove box and washed using the neat

electrolyte solvents (1:1 DME: DOL). For study using the SEM, the samples were placed in sample vials,

vacuum sealed in pouch encapsulation inside the glove box and transferred to the SEM chamber

through a glove bag (AtmosBag; Sigma Aldrich). The atmosphere of the glove bag was purged of air by

evacuation and refilling of the bag with nitrogen gas at least three times prior to opening the samples.

For chemical characterization using XPS, the washed samples were placed in a sample holder inside a

portable load‐lock transfer system in the battery assembly glove box.

3.3 SEM Image Analysis

SEM images were analysed using Image‐J microscopic image analysis software in order to identify the

distributions of pits, their dimensions and the distribution of dendrite formations at various states of

charge in some experiments. The method for Image J analysis is as follows:

Evenly illuminated images similar to the image shown in Figure 9 (image of a lithium anode at a fully

discharged state within the first cycle) were used for this analysis to get an approximate idea of the pit

dimensions on the lithium surface. Image‐J allows the user to set a pixel to chosen unit of length ratio by

using a “Straight” line function and the “Set scale” function under the “Analyse” dropdown menu. In this

case, after measuring the scale, already in the image, it was identified as 2.89 µm per pixel on the image.

The image was cropped to obtain a simple legend free image. Unevenly illuminated areas in the same

image could also be cropped out using the same function. The image was then smoothened to obtain

round up irregular shapes on the image and obtain a slightly noise free image using the “Smooth”

function in the “Process” menu. Further smoothening can be achieved by applying the “Bandpass Filter”

in the “FFT” option in the “Process” menu.

A black and white contrast binary filter then applied to the image, after which the lithium substrate was

rendered white and the pit formations were rendered black. To do this a “Threshold” function from the

“Adjust” option in the “Image” menu was used. These black regions in the image were identified as

circular shapes with irregular circumferences. Using the “Measure particles” function in the image


23

“Analyse” menu, which also considers the circularity of the identified shapes, the areas of the pits (dark

regions in the image) and the total area covered by pits are measured and generated. This image

transformation process from image smoothing to pit identification on the image is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Pit identification using Image‐J

The areas of pits from other compatible images of the same sample were also obtained in the same

method. The areas of the pits found in all the images obtained from the same sample were extracted

and pasted on an excel spreadsheet. The pit diameters were calculated from the areas on the excel

sheet. A histogram of all the diameters was generated in order to identify an approximate interval for

the most prominent pit sized found in each sample. These values displayed as a graph in Figure 12 as

intervals of diameters against the frequency.

Using this information, the mean pit width and standard deviation were calculated. For example, for the

sample under consideration it was calculated as 27 µm with a standard deviation of 11 µm. The

approximate area fraction, of the pits as compared to the substrate for this sample was calculated as 10

%. Using similar analysis for area covered by dendrites, the area fraction of the regions covered by

dendrites within a cycled region were calculated. These values were used to identify the growth of the


24

dendrites during re‐deposition. The transformation of the SEM image to quantify the area fraction by

Image‐J is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 12: The frequency of approximate intervals of pit sizes in the image calculated.

Figure 13: Area occupied by dendrite formations in the presence of unfilled pits

Dendrite widths were measure simply by using the “Line” function and recording the line lengths drawn

across the dendrites at various points and noting the line lengths using the “Measure” function. The

values were extracted and analysed statistically using Excel spreadsheets.

It must be noted that the use of Image‐J for morphology analysis is only an approximate method of

obtaining the preliminary statistics of the features on the anode samples as the method is dependent on

even illumination of the SEM images.

Experimentation

25

4 Experimentation

This chapter presents and discusses the results from various experiments conducted in the project and is

divided in four experiments investigating the lithium metal anode morphology under various conditions

of cycling.

4.1 Comparison of Li‐S cells with Li‐Li symmetrical cells

In this experiment, 4 Li‐S cells and 4 Li‐Li cells were assembled and cycled at various states of charge

(SoCs) within 1 cycle. The anode samples were then examined by the SEM. The resulting images were

then observed and analysed. The morphologies of Li‐S cells and Li‐Li cells are compared and contrasted.

The aim of the experiment was to examine the effects of operating the cells on the lithium metal anodes

at a constant current density. The cells were cycled at 200 µA/cm2. The list of Li‐S cells that were cycled

and the Li‐Li cells that were used for electrochemical dissolution and deposition of lithium are listed in

Table 1.

Table 1: List of cells cycled/simulated to their respective SOCs

Li‐S cells

SoC (after cycling) Active Sulphur mass (mg) Cycling Procedure

0 % 3.545 Discharge

6.25 % 3.515 Discharge + Charge

50 % 3.315 Discharge + Charge

100 % 2.645 Discharge + Charge

Li‐Li cells

SoC (after cycling) Duration of charge Cycling procedure

0 % 6 hours Discharge

6.25 % 6 hours + 23 mins Discharge + Charge

50 % 6 hours + 3 hours Discharge + Charge

100 % 6 hours + 6 hours Discharge + Charge

Experimentation

26

4.1.1 Results and observations

SEM images were captured at high magnification to examine the surface morphology of the lithium

metal. Images representative of different anode morphologies (on macroscopic and microscopic scales)

are presented below in Figure 14 for SoC 0%; Figure 15 for SoC 6.25 %; Figure 16 for SoC 50 %; and

Figure 17 for SoC 100 %. From the examination of the lithium metal samples from the images and under

the SEM, a number of observations could be made. These observations are listed below and are

referenced to the representative images presented below.

Figure 14: State of Charge: 0% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge from Li‐S and Li‐Li cells (Macroscopic: (A) and (B); Microscopic: (C) and (D)) (Li‐S cells: (A) and (C); Li‐Li cells (C) and (D))

Li‐S cell Li‐Li cell

Macroscopic

Microscopic

(A)

(C)

(B)

(D)

Experimentation

27

As seen from Figure 14 (A) and (B) and Figure 15 (A) and (B), pits are formed during discharge as lithium

is electrochemically dissolved in both cases, Li‐S cells and Li‐Li cells. Linear patterns of pitting were

observed along marks from production (groove lines) on the lithium substrate (result of manufacturing)

in both types of cells. On microscopic scale, the shapes of the pits were roughly circular (Figure 14 and

Figure 15 (B), (D)), with the exception of the Li‐S sample cycled to SoC 6.25 % (Figure 15 (A), (C)). This

sample had a mix of regular and irregular shaped pits. Images of the initial stages of lithium deposition

(Figure 15 (C), (D)) showed that lithium deposition in the form of threads (commonly known as

dendrites) nucleated at the edges of the lithium pits. Images of the SoC 0 % Li‐Li sample showed

presence of impurities on the sample at some regions as seen in Figure 14 (D)


Macroscopic

Microscopic

Figure 15: State of Charge: 6.25% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and 6.25% charge from Li‐S and Li‐Li cells (Macroscopic: (A) and (B); Microscopic: (C) and (D)) (Li‐S cells: (A) and (C); Li‐Li cells (C) and (D))

(A)

(C) (D)

(B)

Experimentation

28

Li deposition was not uniformly distributed across all the regions where lithium dissolution occurred in

Li‐S cells (Figure 16 (A), Figure 17 (A)). In all samples, dendritic growth was observed in the vicinity of the

pits usually covering the pits or filling them, making it difficult to identify if Li deposition filled out of the

pits or grew over them.

As seen from Figure 17 (C), Li growth filled out the pits formed during Li dissolution in some regions of

Li‐S cells. No such phenomenon was observed in a “fully charged” sample of the Li‐Li cell. Otherwise, Li

growth in both cells at full charge was found to be similar. Another observation made during sample

extraction was that distribution of the electrolyte on the electrode/separator while sealing the cell

during assembly influenced the area of the lithium electrode that participated in the electrochemical

reactions


Macroscopic

Microscopic

Figure 16: State of Charge: 50% Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and half charge from Li‐S and Li‐Li cells (Macroscopic: (A) and (B); Microscopic: (C) and (D)) (Li‐S cells: (A) and (C); Li‐Li cells (C) and (D))

(C)

(B)

(D)

(A)

Experimentation

29

The approximate estimated values of pit sizes for each of the 4 Li‐S samples and the 4 Li‐Li samples were

calculated using Image‐J. These values are listed in Table 2. Given that the data has been calculated from

the analysis of the images alone, the results can only be considered as an approximate measure of the

surface feature statistics. In some spots pits of much higher diameters (70 µm) were found, but only in

very low frequency, possibly due to irregular Li dissolution. The pit diameters in Table 2 are an

approximate range of the diameters/widths of the pits calculated with a confidence level of about 90 %.


Macroscopic

Microscopic

Figure 17: State of Charge: 100 % Lithium metal morphologies after 1 discharge and full charge from Li‐S and Li‐Li cells (Macroscopic: (A) and (B); Microscopic: (C) and (D)) (Li‐S cells: (A) and (C); Li‐Li cells (C) and (D))

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

Experimentation

30

Table 2: Dimensional statistics of the anode samples from Li‐Li cells and Li‐S cells

SOC (after cycling)

Range of pit diameters (µm)

Dendrite widths (µm)

Mean dendrite area % within cycled area with pits

Li‐S cells Li‐Li cells Li‐S cells Li‐Li cells Li‐S cells Li‐Li cells

0 % 12 – 45 14 – 35 ‐ ‐ 0 0

6.25 % 16 – 39 17 – 39 1 – 5 2 – 4 1.5 1.5

50 % 25 – 55 18 – 42 3 – 7 4 – 7 40 42

100 % 20 – 50 12 – 32 4 – 8 5 – 10 56 65

4.1.2 Discussion

During initial studies, that Li‐S cells used in the project were unable to maintain stable cycling beyond 5

cycles with LiClO4. Also during experimentation, the mass of sulphur varied per sample and was

inconsistent due to erosion of the sulphur coating during assembly. Use of symmetrical Li‐Li cells using

lithium metal strips for both electrodes was considered as an alternative method for more repeatable

and consistent experiments. However, the symmetrical cell approach necessitated prior addition of

polysulphides in the electrolyte to maintain the same surface chemistry as in the Li‐S cell. The

experiment examined the possibility of using Li‐Li cells in the subsequent experiments without the

presence of a composite cathode which might have possible effects on the anode morphologies.

As seen from the observations and results of the image analysis, the effect of the electrochemistry of

the lithium metal anode is independent of the presence of a composite cathode. The surface feature

dimensions in both cells are approximately equal. The distribution of dendrites with respect to the pits

was approximately equal in both the cells Li‐S and Li‐Li as seen in Table 2. The irregular shapes of pits in

one sample (Li‐S: SOC 6.25 %) (Figure 15 (A), (C)) are considered an exception to the otherwise uniform

Li‐dissolution mechanism. A possible explanation for these shapes could due to unintentional

deformation of the Li substrate caused while handling the Li electrode during cell assembly.

Lithium dissolution occurred mainly along the groove lines on the lithium metal substrate, where the SEI

was most likely to be inhomogeneous, a result from the manufacturing process of lithium, consistent

with literature observations by Gireaud et. al. [69] and Aurbach et. al. [82,85,95]. A strong localized

electric field, due to higher interfacial energy at the grooves, could also facilitate Li dissolution. Similarly,

Li deposition in the form of dendrites also occurred in the vicinity of the pits consistent with the

Experimentation

31

observations in previous literature [69,74–76], indicating that the growth of dendrites is preferential to

regions with inconsistent SEI and surface defects (in this case, edges of pits formed on dissolution).

The only occurrence of dendrites filling out the pits was seen in a few regions of the SoC 100 % Li‐S

sample (Figure 17 (C)). It is difficult to justify this occurrence and since this did not occur elsewhere, it

was not studied further. Apart from these observations, the morphologies of the anode surfaces in the

Li‐S and Li‐Li cells at various stages of cycling were very similar, thereby facilitating the use of Li‐Li cells

for further experiments in this project.

4.2 Effect of varying sulphur loading on lithium morphology

In LiSBs made for practical applications, the total capacity of the battery can increased by increasing the

active sulphur mass in the cathode (sulphur loading), while simultaneously maintaining the gravimetric

energy density of LiSBs. This project aims to understand the influence of the varying sulphur loading on

the lithium metal morphology.

The condition of varying sulphur loading in the cell is simulated in Li‐Li cells by varying the current

density applied to the cell, without varying the duration of charge or discharge (i.e., rate of charge (C‐

rate)); i.e. cells were discharged at three different current densities within the same amount of time,

indicating that the hypothetical Li‐S cell equivalents had different total charge capacities through

different amounts of sulphur content. 12 samples were studied for this experiment at various states of

charge within 1 cycle. 8 samples were prepared in addition to the Li‐Li samples from the previous

experiment. The list of samples and their cycling conditions are listed in Table 3.

Experimentation

32

Table 3: Li‐Li cells at their respective simulated SOC cycled at varying current densities

Current Density (J) (μA/cm2)

Cycling Procedure Duration

200

1 Discharge 6 hours

1 Discharge + 6.25 % Charge 6 hours + 23 mins

1 Discharge + 50 % Charge 6 hours + 3 hours


400

1 Discharge 6 hours

1 Discharge + 6.25 % Charge 6 hours + 23 mins



800

1 Discharge 6 hours

1 Discharge + 6.25 % Charge 6 hours +23 mins



4.2.1 Results, observations and analysis

Representative macroscopic images of the samples studied are presented in Figure 18. Images of the

samples were analysed using Image‐J as in the previous experiment. Most of the images were

successfully analysed. However, in the case of fully charged samples at 800 µA/cm2, estimated

calculations were used for pit dimensions, since the images were not able to provide sufficient pit

formations due to the thick dendritic layer on top of the lithium substrate. The dimensional statistics of

the Li‐Li cells are listed in Table 4 and presented as histogram in Figure 19. The relationships between

current density and morphological measurements are shown in Figures 20 and 21.

Experimentation

33

200 µA/cm2 400 µA/cm2 800 µA/cm2

State of charge: 0 %

State of charge: 6.25 %



Figure 18: Representative macroscopic morphologies of all samples (Current density increasing across; State of charge increasing downwards) (Red circles indicate the presence of dendrites on groove lines, as discussed in this section)

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

(G) (H) (I)

(J) (K) (L)

Experimentation

34

Table 4: Dimensional statistics associated with the morphologies of the samples

SOC % Current

Density (J) (μA/cm2)

Pit diameters/widths (µm)

Dendrite thickness (µm) Dendrite area

fraction

0

200

14 – 35 N/A 0 %

6.25 17 – 39 2 – 4 1.5 %

50 18 – 42 4 – 7 42 %

100 12 – 32 5 – 10 65 %

0

400

35 – 84 N/A 0 %

6.25 29 – 78 5 – 10 < 1 %

50 30 – 70 4 – 12 46 %

100 33 – 74 5 – 13 74 %

0

800

49 – 160 N/A 0 %

6.25 46 – 139 4 – 10 11 %

50 55 – 155 4 – 10 65 %

100 49 – 160 (approximated) 7 ‐ 12 90 %

Figure 19: The frequency of approximate intervals of pit sizes for the samples studies.

Experimentation

35

Figure 20: Current density versus approximate pit sizes Figure 21: Current density versus dendrite area fraction

From the examination analysis of the samples, a number of observations were drawn. The observations

are listed below, referenced to their images.

Sizes of the lithium pits, formed during discharge, were directly proportional to the applied current

density. The results of Image‐J analysis from Table 4 and Figure 20 also support this observation.

The shapes and continuities of the pits, with increasing current density were increasing in

irregularity (Figures 18 (A) – (F)). The area of some of the pits in the sample at SOC 100% charged at

800 µA/cm2 had to be assumed of rectangular shapes instead of the circular shapes used in other

samples, thereby approximating the diagonal measurements as pit widths.

The dissolution of lithium still occurred along the groove lines for samples of all current densities.

(Figure 18 (A) – (C)).

The growth of the dendrites during charging, seems to have started at the impurities and defects

often at the edges of pits evident as noted in the SOC 6.25% and 50% samples (Figures 18 (D) – (G)).

Dendrite growth at higher current densities was more expansive and covered a larger area on the

surface. This was evident in SOC 50% samples cycled at 400 and 800 µA/cm2 (Figure 18 (H), (I), (k)

and (L)) and in Figure 21.

The approximate thickness of the dendrites varied only marginally (Table 4), showing that it is

independent of the applied current density.

4.2.2 Discussion

As observed, even at higher current densities, the lithium dissolution still occurred along the groove

lines, and grew along to form irregular shapes of pitting, as seen in the previous experiment. The almost

Experimentation

36

linear proportionality of pit sizes with increased current density is perhaps understandable as the

applied current density is directly proportional to the amount of Li dissolved from the surface. While the

size of the pits has increased, it is difficult however to observe whether the depth of the pits has

increased. A possible method to study the depths of the pits formed would be to examine the cross‐

section of the anode with the SEM. However this was not examined because the cross‐sectional surface

of the lithium sample was altered during sample preparation through physical and possibly chemical

distortion with a blade used for cutting the sample. Use of advanced methods such as focussed ion

beam (FIB) to cut the Li sample was beyond the scope of this project.

Nucleation of dendrites, occurred only along groove lines and surface defects due to a higher interfacial

energy even in samples cycled at progressively higher current densities. However dendrite growth

occurred across the surface of the anode more expansively when the cells were charged at 800 µA/cm2.

It can be suggested that dendrite growth followed Monroe and Newman’s model for liquid electrolytes,

where the growth of the dendrites was directly proportional to the applied current density (refer

chapter 2.2.1). In a deviation to the previous study by Arakawa et. al. [68], the shapes and sizes of the

dendrites were independent of the applied current density, at least within the first cycle.

Since the electric field, resulting from the applied current density, is strongest at the surface and

weakens with increasing distance from the anode, the dendrites begin to grow perpendicular to the

surface of the anode. Considering that the abundance of Li+ ions decreases with increasing distance from

the anode, the growth direction shifts gradually to grow parallel to the anode after some distance [73].

Depending on the type of the separator membrane used, the dendrites can possibly grow beyond

through the pores of the separator and can contact the positive electrode, resulting in a short circuit

This experiment can be understood as an indication of the effect of increasing the sulphur loading (i.e.,

the areal capacity) in the application, thereby increasing the effective current density at the anode. This

would result in a growing inhomogeneity in the lithium surface caused by increasing strength in the

applied current, which could effectively deteriorate the sample over a number of cycles, also sometimes

causing other effects such as short circuits (only happens when the lithium penetrates the separator and

comes in contact with the cathode) and electrolyte depletion by passivation over a higher area of the

exposed of the lithium surface.

Given that practical conditions for batteries involve an applied current density of 2 – 10 mA/cm2,

extensive dendrite growth is inevitable. However, at higher current densities, dendrite growth can

Experimentation

37

probably be slowed down by increasing tLi, the transference number of lithium ions in the electrolyte, as

proposed by the Chazalviel model. This can be increased by increasing the concentration of lithium salts

in the electrolyte, thereby mitigating dendrite growth to an extent, if not totally prevent it. The typical

values for tLi in dilute electrolytes is approximately 0.3 and studies have shown that this can be increased

to 0.6‐0.7 in concentrated electrolytes [96].

4.3 Effect of self‐discharge of Li‐S cells on the lithium anode

This experiment aims to chemically characterize the surface films formed on the lithium anode from

three distinct conditions of cycling in order to understand the self‐discharge, caused by chemical PS

reduction, on the anode. This experiment used XPS for chemical characterization combined with SEM for

study of Li anode morphologies at various cases. The XPS studies were conducted by Julia Maibach at

the Ångström Advanced Battery Centre at Uppsala University.

A current density of 400 µA/cm2 was applied to Li‐Li cells which were cycled. A pristine Li was studied in

the XPS by Dr. Maibach as a reference for XPS studies of other samples which were soaked in PS

containing electrolyte. The samples studied in this experiment and their experimental conditions are

listed in Table 5. The samples which are underlined were studied by the SEM for morphologies. The self‐

discharge condition in the Li‐Li cell was simulated by storing the cell in idle open circuit conditions for a

period of 10 days after the 1st cycle.

Table 5: List of samples studied in the experiment

Sample Idle duration after assembly Idle duration after 1st cycle

Pristine Li ‐ ‐

Soaked Li 12 hours ‐

Charged Li 0 hours 0 hours

Self‐discharged Li 0 hours 10 days

4.3.1 Results

Both XPS and SEM were used to study mechanisms of self‐discharge of Li‐S cells. The SEM analysis was

done on the specific areas of the samples that had been studied by XPS, making it possible to correlate

surface texture with element analysis. EDX was used as a complement to the SEM studies, to verify

origin the sulphur on a microscopic level and hence correlating SEM and XPS. The XPS spectrum of

Experimentation

38

fluorine (F1s) for the pristine, soaked, charged and self‐discharges Li samples is presented in Figure 22

and the spectrum of sulphur (S2p) for the soaked, charged and self‐discharged Li samples is presented in

Figure 23. The SEM images for soaked Li (Figure 24), charged Li (Figures 25 and 26) and self‐discharged Li

(Figures 27‐29) samples are also presented in the following pages with sample‐wise observations.

Figure 22: Fluorine spectrum F1s: the obtained intensity versus binding energy results for lithium samples

Figure 23: Sulphur spectrum S2p: the obtained intensity versus binding energy results for lithium samples

Figure 24:Macroscopic image of the morphology of the soaked Li sample

Figure 25: Macroscopic image of the morphology of the charged Li sample

LiF

LixSyOz Li2Sx

Experimentation

39

Figure 26: Microscopic image of the morphology of the charged Li sample

Figure 27: Image of the surface of the self‐discharged Li sample. Note: The red circles highlight the rough mossy features found in the vicinity of the pits on the surface

Figure 28: Macroscopic image of the morphology of the self‐discharged Li sample. Note: The red circles highlight the rough mossy features found on the surface of the dendrites

Figure 29: Microscopic image of the morphology of the self‐discharged Li sample. Note: The red circles highlight the rough mossy features found on the surface of the dendrites

Pristine Li

As seen from the F1s spectrum in Figure 22, the peak centred on 685 eV, attributed to LiF, was noted as

a higher emission for the pristine Li sample as compared to the other samples. Since no fluorine based

compounds were used in the sample preparation, the presence of fluorine could be attributed to a

number of external sources such as adsorption of F‐containing species in the glove box atmosphere on

the sample surface or fluorine contamination of the lithium metal during the manufacturing process.

Soaked Li

XPS studies of the soaked Li sample also showed a peak for LiF of lower intensity as compared to the

pristine Li sample. The sulphur spectral line (S2p) (Figure 23) showed a peak at 166 eV – 170 eV, which

was attributed to a range of oxidised sulphur species (LixSyOz), where the oxidation state of S is positive.

Experimentation

40

A low intensity peak was noted as at 161 – 162 eV, which was indicative of sulphide species such as Li2Sx,

where the oxidation state of S is negative. This indicated that LixSyOz compounds are present in higher

concentration than Li2Sx at the surface. The sample also exhibited a peak for sulphur compounds of

intermediate oxidation states (163 – 165 eV) as well the presence of other forms of sulphur on the SEI.

SEM studies of the soaked Li sample showed no presence of pits or dendrites (Figure 24) indicating that

no electrochemical reactions took place in the Li‐Li cell without cycling. While the XPS results indicated

that some chemical reactions occurred at the anode surface, these were not visible by the SEM due to

the spatial resolution of the technique.

Charged Li

XPS studies of the charged Li sample showed no peaks for F1s. Sulphur spectrum, S2p showed 2 peaks of

similar intensities for Li2Sx (161 – 162 eV) and LixSyOz (166 – 170 eV), suggesting that both kinds of

sulphur species were formed during cycling. SEM studies of the sample revealed a dendrite and pit

formations in the surface. A mossy rough texture, indicating a form of corrosive reaction, was observed

on the surface of the dendrites as observed in Figures 25 and 26. Such morphology was not seen in a

similar sample studied in the previous experiment. It could be possible that due to storage in the glove

box for an extended period of 10 days after the XPS studies has resulted in contamination of the sample.

Self‐Discharged Li

The sample had been cycled and kept idle in assembled state for 10 days. XPS studies of the sample

revealed that for sulphur S2p, the peak for Li2Sx compounds (161 – 162 eV) was significantly higher than

the peak for LixSyOz compounds (166 – 170 eV), as compared to other samples. This indicated that a

greater quantity of sulphide based species were found on the surface than oxidised sulphur compounds.

SEM studies of the sample revealed interesting features in the vicinity of pits and dendrites on the

sample substrate. Mossy textures were found at the edges of the pits (as highlighted by the red circles in

Figure 27 on the lithium surface. Similarly, distinct rough surface features were encountered frequently

on the surface of Li outgrowths (dendrites) from cycling as highlighted in Figures 28 and 29.

The EDX study of a cycled region on the sample indicated a presence of sulphur along with oxygen and

carbon. However, it must be noted that carbon peaks in the EDX could be exaggerated due to the

presence of residual carbon from the conductive carbon tape stuck to the sample in the presence of the

electron beam in the SEM and is therefore unreliable.

Experimentation

41

4.3.2 Discussion

The XPS study of the samples has provided distinguishing insights about the composition of the SEI on

each sample. The decreasing concentrations of fluorine based compounds with the increasing exposure

to the electrolyte and the electrochemical reactions can be explained by the formation of over‐layers of

other compounds from the electrolyte, resulting in a thicker SEI. Due to the limited probing depth of

XPS, it is possible that the signal for fluorine was suppressed in the deeper regions of the SEI.

When soaked in the electrolyte, the dissolved PS molecules rapidly react with the lithium metal in the

presence of LiNO3 resulting in the formation of oxidised sulphur species on the soaked sample as seen in

Figure 22. LiNO3 in the electrolyte prevents the formation of a high concentration of sulphide

compounds on the lithium metal surface by readily reacting with the lithium surface to form a

passivating layer consisting of stable compounds. When a current is applied to the cell, the constituent

compounds in the electrolyte instantly reduce at the lithium surface to form further passivating

compounds on the surface of the charged Li sample as seen with oxidised sulphur species (SOx) (Figure

20). The peak for sulphide compounds (Li2Sx) can be explained by the electrochemical redox reaction in

the Li‐S cell (refer Chapter 2.1.2) resulting in the deposition of solid PS on the anode.

The self‐discharged sample has exhibited a significantly larger quantity of Li2S with respect to LixSyOz

species that the charged sample. This indicates that the chemical PS redox reaction takes effect when

the cell was left idle for 10 days. The dissolved PS in the electrolyte corroded the lithium anode forming

the precipitates Li2Sx on the SEI. Previous literature on the phases of lithium sulphide have pointed out

that Li2S is the only thermodynamically compound that could exist in the operating window of the Li‐S

cell [97]. While other PS species such as Li2S2 and Li2S4 may have precipitated initially, it is possible that

they were most likely to be consumed in reactions with the electrolyte components due to their meta‐

stable state. This experiment thereby suggests that in spite of the addition of LiNO3 to the electrolyte,

self‐discharge reactions are not entirely contained, at least for storage periods over 10 days.

The SEM study of the self‐discharged sample revealed interesting insights about the effect of self‐

discharge on the Li morphology. While the formation of sulphide and oxidised sulphur species was not

visibly distinct, the effect of the PS redox shuttle could be seen manifesting on the lithium anode in the

form of mossy or visibly dissimilar surface features as highlighted in Figures 24 – 26. These features were

found in the vicinity of the surface defects (in this case, edges of pits and dendrites) of the substrate,

suggesting that corrosion of the anode by the chemical PS redox reactions was localised to specific

Experimentation

42

regions on the surface. Inhomogeneous SEI and higher interfacial energy of the large surface

imperfections may have facilitated preferential corrosion. Based on this observation it can be argued

that the surface state of the anode also influences the mechanism by which dissolved PS chemically

corrode the anode, indicating the role of anode morphology in self‐discharge. Further experiments must

be conducted to confirm this argument based on repeatable results.

It must also be noted that EDX study is a very approximate method to chemically characterise the

surface of the Li anode and also study lighter elements such as oxygen, and is therefore accurately

applicable only to identify sulphur presence on the sample surface. Moreover, the source for higher

oxygen presence in the result could be due to atmospheric or other contamination of rough surface

features during SEM transfer.

4.4 Effect of cycling on the Li anode

In this experiment, 7 Li‐Li cells were assembled and cycled under a uniform current density of 400

µA/cm2 to various number of cycles, extracted and studied using the SEM. The morphologies of the Li

anodes were qualitatively studied in order to identify any distinct surface erosions that might have

resulted from the repetitive electrochemical reactions. The SoC 100% sample charged at 400 µA/cm2

from Experiment 4.2 was also studied. The cycling conditions for the lithium samples are listed in Table

6.

Table 6: List of anode samples and cycling conditions

Number of cycles Duration of cycling

1 Cycle 12 hours

1 Cycle + Discharge 18 hours

2 Cycles 24 hours

2 Cycles + Discharge 30 hours

4 Cycles 48 hours


8 Cycles 96 hours


Experimentation

43

4.4.1 Results

The images representative of the anode morphologies at microscopic scale are presented in Figure 28.

As observed from Figure 30, Li dissolution after the first cycle left a spiky features on top of the

dendrites seen in (B). The initial smooth texture of the dendrites was witnessed less frequently.

However as seen from (C), towards the end of the 2nd cycle, the typical dendritic structure of the lithium

anode was still maintained. The dendrite surface texture from the observed regions was smooth and at

the lithium metal substrate was noticeable. In case of the subsequent discharge sample, Li dissolution

from the surface occurred in the form of erosive defects and pits and possible pitting which may have

occurred underneath the dendrites. The sample revealed a rough texture material which was on the

edges of the dendrites. As seen from image (D), a few features resembled thin spiky material on the

dendrites and the surface.

As seen from (E) dendrite deposits formed clumps on the surface at the end of the 4th cycle rather than

branching out as noted in the first cycle in previous experiments. The rough, spiky features also seemed

to agglomerate and deposit on the substrate. The spiky features were encountered more frequently on

this sample. The morphology subsequent discharge sample (F), was dominated by spiky lithium features

while the presence of relatively fewer dendrites. The substrate of the lithium surface appeared to

consist of pits and lithium dissolution features from the previous cycles. It could be suggested from

these observations that in the later cycles, lithium dissolution was taking place at the surface of the

dendrites rather than the surface of the substrate. At the end of the 8th cycle (G), the surface was

dominated by structures that resembled the lithium fragments. Dendritic deposition was not observed

on this sample. Instead, agglomerations of dendrites appeared to have formed. After the subsequent

discharge (H), the surface was dominated by fragments (highlighted in (H)) and spiky, rough features.

Lithium pits and dendrites were observed, possibly as the substrate of the lithium sample was not

visually accessible.

Experimentation

44

Cycled sample Cycled + discharged sample

1 Cycle

2 Cycles

4 Cycles

8 Cycles

Figure 30: Representative macroscopic morphologies of all samples after full cycles and after subsequent discharge (Number of cycles increasing downwards) (Cycled samples: (A), (C), (E) and (G); Cycled + discharged samples: (B), (D), (F) and (H)) (1 Cycle: (A) and (B); 2 Cycles: (C) and (D); 4 Cycles: (E) and (F); 8 Cycles (G) and (H). Red circles indicate agglomerates as discussed in this section

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

(E)

(H)(G)

(F)

Experimentation

45

4.4.2 Discussion

As seen from the observations, lithium morphology transitions over increasing number of cycles from

dendrites and pits to sharp, rough deposits, particularly seen after a discharge step. On further

increasing the number of cycles, it appeared that the dendrite formations and the sharp deposits were

segregated into district agglomerates of their surface texture. Further cycling produced what seemed to

be the presence of lithium fragments. Li dissolution, obstructed by the abundant dendrites at the

surface, ceases to take place at the substrate of the anode. This could result in possible Li dissolution of

the dendrites, which are essentially, extensions of the lithium substrate, during discharge. A similar

mechanism was identified by López et. al. [65]. Due to the protruding nature of the dendrites, lithium

dissolution can also germinate at the dendrites, leading to possible thinning of dendrites in lithium metal

batteries (Figure 4) and rise of needle‐like Li as noted in previous studies [66,68]. Uneven dissolution of

the dendrites, based on the homogeneity of the SEI and the interfacial energy on the dendrite surfaces

might have caused the formation of sharp and rough dendrites. These features upon further dissolution

form the rough surface material which lose electrical contact with the substrate.

However, further study needs to be conducted to understand the possible origins of the sharp and

rough deposits which appeared on the edges of the dendrites at the after the 5th discharge and also the

possible reasons as to what causes the agglomeration of the surface features to form fragments.

Extensive quantitative studies of the anode morphologies are also required to support the observations

made in this experiment.

Conclusions and outlook

46

5 Conclusions and outlook

In this work, the morphological changes undergone by the lithium metal anode in the lithium sulphur

battery system under various experimental conditions of cycling have been studied using electron

microscopy, a surface sensitive method, as the main technique to image and analyse the lithium anode

morphologies. Also, a brief investigation was carried out using photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in

tandem with the SEM understand the influence of the lithium anode morphology on the self‐discharge

phenomenon in the Li‐S cell and vice versa.

Through the use of simple symmetrical Li‐Li cells, it was revealed that almost all resultant formations of

electrochemical dissolution (pits) and deposition (dendrites) occurred preferentially along groove lines

and surface defects from the manufacturing and prior handling of the Li metal anode. This observation

was explained by the presence of a higher interfacial energy and the presence of an inhomogeneous

solid electrolyte interface (SEI) at these surface defects, suggesting that the initial surface state of the

anode significantly affects the ensuing morphological changes, consistent with the literature. Overall,

the experiment also showed that the effect of the electrochemistry on the morphologies of Li‐S cells and

Li‐Li cells was similar and that Li‐Li cells can be used as an alternative and reliable method to simulate

the morphological changes on the anode.

The effect of increased sulphur loading on the anode was simulated by varying the current density

applied on the Li‐Li cells while cycling. Lithium dissolution was found to be linearly proportional to the

applied current density, evident in the increasing sizes of lithium pits with increasing current density

consistent with the expected process of lithium dissolution. Lithium deposition across the surface of the

anode was found to be directly proportional to current density with the rate of lithium deposition

proportional to the current density, consistent with the predictions of the Monroe and Newman model

of dendrite growth. Another interesting observation was that the approximate widths of the dendrites

was independent of the applied current density, at least within the first cycle. Overall it can be

summarized that with increased sulphur loading, the electrochemical effects on the Li anode will be

more severe and continuous cycling using higher sulphur content in a Li‐S cell will result in accelerated

erosion of the anode. This study could be extended further by SEM examination the cross‐sections of Li

anode samples through advanced methods of sample preparation (FIBs).

Conclusions and outlook

47

The effect of multiple cycles on the Li anode was examined qualitatively using the SEM. The

observations revealed that the Li anode undergoes severe erosion within the first 10 cycles. This

experiment can be investigated further by examining the anodes after consecutive cycles to study the

source of dendrite agglomerations observed at later cycles.

The effect of self‐discharge on the anode was studied using XPS and the results indicated that while

LiNO3 was able to partially mitigate the effect of PS reduction on the anode initially, it was unable to

prevent the formation of Li2Sx. The effect of self‐discharge was seen in the form of corrosion on the

anode by chemical PS redox reactions. When studied in the SEM, it was revealed that corrosion was

localised taking place preferentially at the edges of pits and on the surfaces of dendrites. This

experiment has shown that the morphology of the anode also influences the mechanism by which PS

corrode the anode and it could be suggested that an eroded anode surface is more prone to chemical

redox corrosion and thereby, self‐discharge. Further studies using XPS analysis in combination with SEM

could help support these arguments.

In addition to the recommendations mentioned in the summary, the initial lithium anode morphologies

could also be studied using electron microscopy after cycling in the presence of caesium and rubidium

salt additives in the electrolyte. Ding and co‐workers found that during lithium deposition, Cs+ and Rb+

cations, which at low concentrations, have a lower reduction potential than Li+ ions, are attracted to the

protuberant tip of a lithium dendrite, electrostatically forming a shield around the dendrite, thereby

forcing the Li+ ions to deposit in an alternate region due to electrostatic repulsion [98]. This mechanism,

known as the self‐healing electrolyte electrostatic shield (SHES), helps in the formation of a relatively

smoother morphology on the anode. SHES is considered as one of the most promising strategies for

dendrite suppression in lithium metal batteries. It could be very useful to know its effectiveness in the

lithium sulphur battery system.

References

48

6 References

[1] British Petroleum, 2013, “BP Statistical Review of World Energy: June 2013” [Online]. Available: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical‐review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[2] Baroni, M., 2013, “World Energy Outlook 2013,” Int. Energy Agency [Online]. Available: http://www.iea.org/media/weowebsite/2013/iew2013/IEW2013WEOpresentations.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[3] Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, 2013, “World Oil Outlook 2013” [Online]. Available: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_2013.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[4] International Energy Agency, 2013, “Key World Energy Statistics,” Int. Energy Agency [Online]. Available: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf. [Accessed: 13‐Apr‐2014].

[5] Alternate Fuels Data Center, 2013, “Fuel Properties Comparison” [Online]. Available: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[6] Gale, J., Bradshaw, J., Chen, Z., Garg, A., Gomez, D., Rogner, H.‐H., Simbeck, D., and Williams, R., 2012, “Sources of CO2,” IPCC Spec. Rep. Carbon dioxide Capture Storage, pp. 78 – 84 [Online]. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special‐reports/srccs/srccs_chapter2.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[7] Kahn Ribeiro, S., Kobayashi, S., Beuthe, M., Gasca, J., Greene, D., Lee, D. S., Muromachi, Y., Newton, P. J., Plotkin, S., Sperling, D., Wit, R., and Zhou, P. J., 2007, “Transport and its infrastructure,” Clim. Chang. 2007 Mitigation. Contrib. Work. Gr. III to Fourth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang., pp. 325 – 380 [Online]. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment‐report/ar4/wg3/ar4‐wg3‐chapter5.pdf. [Accessed: 03‐May‐2014].

[8] Quirin, M., Gärtner, S. O., Pehnt, M., and Reinhardt, G. A., 2004, CO2 Mitigation through Biofuels in the Transport Sector Status and Perspectives, Heidelberg.

[9] Bruce, P. G., Freunberger, S. a, Hardwick, L. J., and Tarascon, J.‐M., 2012, “Li‐O2 and Li‐S batteries with high energy storage.,” Nat. Mater., 11(1), pp. 19–29.

[10] Etacheri, V., Marom, R., Elazari, R., Salitra, G., and Aurbach, D., 2011, “Challenges in the development of advanced Li‐ion batteries: a review,” Energy Environ. Sci., 4(9), p. 3243.

[11] Kinoshita, K., 2000, Energy Storage Systems in Electronics, CRC Press.

References

49

[12] Xu, W., Wang, J., Ding, F., Chen, X., Nasybulin, E., Zhang, Y., and Zhang, J.‐G., 2014, “Lithium metal anodes for rechargeable batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci., 7(2), p. 513.

[13] Aurbach, D., Zinigrad, E., Teller, H., and Dan, P., 2000, “Factors Which Limit the Cycle Life of Rechargeable Lithium (Metal) Batteries,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 147(4), p. 1274.

[14] Huang, C., Xiao, J., Shao, Y., Zheng, J., Bennett, W. D., Lu, D., Laxmikant, S. V, Engelhard, M., Ji, L., Zhang, J., Li, X., Graff, G. L., and Liu, J., 2014, “Manipulating surface reactions in lithium‐sulphur batteries using hybrid anode structures.,” Nat. Commun., 5, p. 3015.

[15] Herbert, D., and Ulam, J., 1962, “Electric dry cells and storage batteries.”

[16] Ji, X., and Nazar, L. F., 2010, “Advances in Li–S batteries,” J. Mater. Chem., 20(44), p. 9821.

[17] Choi, Y.‐J., Chung, Y.‐D., Baek, C.‐Y., Kim, K.‐W., Ahn, H.‐J., and Ahn, J.‐H., 2008, “Effects of carbon coating on the electrochemical properties of sulfur cathode for lithium/sulfur cell,” J. Power Sources, 184(2), pp. 548–552.

[18] Tischer, R. P., 1983, The Sulfur electrode: fused salts and solid electrolytes.

[19] Hovensa, “Sulphur Material Safety Data Sheet” [Online]. Available: http://www.westliberty.edu/health‐and‐safety/files/2012/08/Sulfur.pdf. [Accessed: 06‐May‐2014].

[20] Mikhaylik, Y. V., Kovalev, I., Schock, R., Kumaresan, K., Xu, J., and Affinito, J., 2010, “High Energy Rechargeable Li‐S Cells for EV Application: Status, Remaining Problems and Solutions,” ECS Transactions, The Electrochemical Society, pp. 23–34.

[21] Unites States Advanced Battery Consortium, “USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs” [Online]. Available: file:///C:/Users/Anurag/Downloads/Goals_for_Advanced_EV_Batteries.pdf. [Accessed: 11‐May‐2014].

[22] Aurbach, D., 2002, “A short review of failure mechanisms of lithium metal and lithiated graphite anodes in liquid electrolyte solutions,” Solid State Ionics, 148(3‐4), pp. 405–416.

[23] Ishikawa, M., and Morita, M., 2009, “Current Issues of Metallic Lithium Anode,” Lithium Batteries Science and Technology, G.A. Nazri, and G. Pistoria, eds., Springer, New York, pp. 297 – 311.

[24] Chu, M., Jonghe, L. De, Katz, B., and Visco, S., 2000, “Liquid electrolyte lithium‐sulfur batteries,” US Pat. 6,030,720.

[25] Rosso, M., Brissot, C., Teyssot, A., Dollé, M., Sannier, L., Tarascon, J.‐M., Bouchet, R., and Lascaud, S., 2006, “Dendrite short‐circuit and fuse effect on Li/polymer/Li cells,” Electrochim. Acta, 51(25), pp. 5334–5340.

References

50

[26] Aurbach, D., Pollak, E., Elazari, R., Salitra, G., Kelley, C. S., and Affinito, J., 2009, “On the Surface Chemical Aspects of Very High Energy Density, Rechargeable Li–Sulfur Batteries,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 156(8), p. A694.

[27] Tarascon, J. M., and Armand, M., 2001, “Issues and challenges facing rechargeable lithium batteries.,” Nature, 414(6861), pp. 359–67.

[28] Mikhaylik, Y. V., and Akridge, J. R., 2004, “Polysulfide Shuttle Study in the Li/S Battery System,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 151(11), p. A1969.

[29] Kumaresan, K., Mikhaylik, Y., and White, R. E., 2008, “A Mathematical Model for a Lithium–Sulfur Cell,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 155(8), p. A576.

[30] Ryu, H. S., Guo, Z., Ahn, H. J., Cho, G. B., and Liu, H., 2009, “Investigation of discharge reaction mechanism of lithium|liquid electrolyte|sulfur battery,” J. Power Sources, 189(2), pp. 1179–1183.

[31] Dias, F. B., Plomp, L., and Veldhuis, J. B. J., 2000, “Trends in polymer electrolytes for secondary lithium batteries,” J. Power Sources, 88(2), pp. 169–191.

[32] Jeon, B. H., Yeon, J. H., Kim, K. M., and Chung, I. J., 2002, “Preparation and electrochemical properties of lithium–sulfur polymer batteries,” J. Power Sources, 109(1), pp. 89–97.

[33] Marmorstein, D., Yu, T. ., Striebel, K. ., McLarnon, F. ., Hou, J., and Cairns, E. ., 2000, “Electrochemical performance of lithium/sulfur cells with three different polymer electrolytes,” J. Power Sources, 89(2), pp. 219–226.

[34] Lacey, M. J., Edström, K., and Brandell, D., 2014, “Analysis of soluble intermediates in the lithium–sulfur battery by a simple in situ electrochemical probe,” Electrochem. commun., 46, pp. 91–93.

[35] Yamin, H., Penciner, J., Gorenshtain, A., Elam, M., and Peled, E., 1985, “The electrochemical behavior of polysulfides in tetrahydrofuran,” J. Power Sources, 14(1‐3), pp. 129–134.

[36] Zhang, S. S., 2013, “Liquid electrolyte lithium/sulfur battery: Fundamental chemistry, problems, and solutions,” J. Power Sources, 231, pp. 153–162.

[37] Mikhaylik, Y. V., and Akridge, J. R., 2003, “Low Temperature Performance of Li/S Batteries,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 150(3), p. A306.

[38] Rauh, R. D., Shuker, F. S., Marston, J. M., and Brummer, S. B., 1977, “Formation of lithium polysulfides in aprotic media,” J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem., 39(10), pp. 1761–1766.

[39] Mikhaylik, Y. V., and Akridge, J. R., 2004, “Polysulfide Shuttle Study in the Li/S Battery System,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 151(11), p. A1969.

References

51

[40] Zu, C., and Manthiram, A., 2014, “Stabilized Lithium–Metal Surface in a Polysulfide‐Rich Environment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries,” J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 5(15), pp. 2522–2527.

[41] Dean, J. A., 1999, “Lange’s Handbook Of Chemistry,” Lange’s Handbook Of Chemistry, McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 3 – 5.

[42] Zhang, S. S., and Read, J. A., 2012, “A new direction for the performance improvement of rechargeable lithium/sulfur batteries,” J. Power Sources, 200, pp. 77–82.

[43] Shim, J., Striebel, K. A., and Cairns, E. J., 2002, “The Lithium/Sulfur Rechargeable Cell,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 149(10), p. A1321.

[44] Cheon, S.‐E., Cho, J.‐H., Ko, K.‐S., Kwon, C.‐W., Chang, D.‐R., Kim, H.‐T., and Kim, S.‐W., 2002, “Structural Factors of Sulfur Cathodes with Poly(ethylene oxide) Binder for Performance of Rechargeable Lithium Sulfur Batteries,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 149(11), p. A1437.

[45] Choi, J.‐W., Kim, J.‐K., Cheruvally, G., Ahn, J.‐H., Ahn, H.‐J., and Kim, K.‐W., 2007, “Rechargeable lithium/sulfur battery with suitable mixed liquid electrolytes,” Electrochim. Acta, 52(5), pp. 2075–2082.

[46] Lacey, M. J., Jeschull, F., Edström, K., and Brandell, D., 2014, “Functional, water‐soluble binders for improved capacity and stability of lithium–sulfur batteries,” J. Power Sources, 264, pp. 8–14.

[47] Ji, X., Lee, K. T., and Nazar, L. F., 2009, “A highly ordered nanostructured carbon‐sulphur cathode for lithium‐sulphur batteries.,” Nat. Mater., 8(6), pp. 500–6.

[48] Choi, Y.‐J., Kim, K.‐W., Ahn, H.‐J., and Ahn, J.‐H., 2008, “Improvement of cycle property of sulfur electrode for lithium/sulfur battery,” J. Alloys Compd., 449(1‐2), pp. 313–316.

[49] Cheon, S.‐E., Ko, K.‐S., Cho, J.‐H., Kim, S.‐W., Chin, E.‐Y., and Kim, H.‐T., 2003, “Rechargeable Lithium Sulfur Battery,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 150(6), p. A796.

[50] Zhang, S. S., 2013, “Liquid electrolyte lithium/sulfur battery: Fundamental chemistry, problems, and solutions,” J. Power Sources, 231, pp. 153–162.

[51] Goodenough, J. B., and Kim, Y., 2010, “Challenges for Rechargeable Li Batteries,” Chem. Mater., 22, pp. 587–603.

[52] Gao, J., Lowe, M. A., Kiya, Y., and Abruña, H. D., 2011, “Effects of Liquid Electrolytes on the Charge–Discharge Performance of Rechargeable Lithium/Sulfur Batteries: Electrochemical and in‐Situ X‐ray Absorption Spectroscopic Studies,” J. Phys. Chem. C, 115(50), pp. 25132–25137.

[53] Kim, S., Jung, Y., and Lim, H. S., 2004, “The effect of solvent component on the discharge performance of Lithium–sulfur cell containing various organic electrolytes,” Electrochim. Acta, 50(2‐3), pp. 889–892.

References

52

[54] Choi, J.‐W., Cheruvally, G., Kim, D.‐S., Ahn, J.‐H., Kim, K.‐W., and Ahn, H.‐J., 2008, “Rechargeable lithium/sulfur battery with liquid electrolytes containing toluene as additive,” J. Power Sources, 183(1), pp. 441–445.

[55] Ryu, H.‐S., Ahn, H.‐J., Kim, K.‐W., Ahn, J.‐H., Cho, K.‐K., Nam, T.‐H., Kim, J.‐U., and Cho, G.‐B., 2006, “Discharge behavior of lithium/sulfur cell with TEGDME based electrolyte at low temperature,” J. Power Sources, 163(1), pp. 201–206.

[56] Kim, S., Jung, Y., and Park, S.‐J., 2005, “Effects of imidazolium salts on discharge performance of rechargeable lithium–sulfur cells containing organic solvent electrolytes,” J. Power Sources, 152, pp. 272–277.

[57] Choi, Y. S., Kim, S., Choi, S. S., Han, J. S., Kim, J. D., Jeon, S. E., and Jung, B. H., 2004, “Effect of cathode component on the energy density of lithium–sulfur battery,” Electrochim. Acta, 50(2‐3), pp. 833–835.

[58] Jin, B., Kim, J.‐U., and Gu, H.‐B., 2003, “Electrochemical properties of lithium–sulfur batteries,” J. Power Sources, 117(1‐2), pp. 148–152.

[59] Chang, D.‐R., Lee, S.‐H., Kim, S.‐W., and Kim, H.‐T., 2002, “Binary electrolyte based on tetra(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether and 1,3‐dioxolane for lithium–sulfur battery,” J. Power Sources, 112(2), pp. 452–460.

[60] RYU, H., AHN, H., KIM, K., AHN, J., LEE, J., and CAIRNS, E., 2005, “Self‐discharge of lithium–sulfur cells using stainless‐steel current‐collectors,” J. Power Sources, 140(2), pp. 365–369.

[61] Kanamura, K., 1997, “Chemical Reaction of Lithium Surface during Immersion in LiClO[sub 4] or LiPF[sub 6]∕DEC Electrolyte,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 144(6), p. 1900.

[62] Kim, H. S., Jeong, C.‐S., and Kim, Y.‐T., 2011, “Shuttle inhibitor effect of lithium perchlorate as an electrolyte salt for lithium–sulfur batteries,” J. Appl. Electrochem., 42(2), pp. 75–79.

[63] Mikhaylik, Y. V., 2008, “Electrolytes for lithium sulfur cells.”

[64] Zhang, S. S., 2012, “Role of LiNO3 in rechargeable lithium/sulfur battery,” Electrochim. Acta, 70, pp. 344–348.

[65] López, C. M., Vaughey, J. T., and Dees, D. W., 2009, “Morphological Transitions on Lithium Metal Anodes,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 156(9), p. A726.

[66] Yoshimatsu, I., 1988, “Lithium Electrode Morphology during Cycling in Lithium Cells,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 135(10), p. 2422.

[67] Xu, K., 2004, “Nonaqueous Liquid Electrolytes for Lithium‐Based Rechargeable Batteries,” Chem. Rev., 104(10), pp. 4303–4418.

References

53

[68] Arakawa, M., Tobishima, S., Nemoto, Y., Ichimura, M., and Yamaki, J., 1993, “Lithium electrode cycleability and morphology dependence on current density,” J. Power Sources, 43(1‐3), pp. 27–35.

[69] Gireaud, L., Grugeon, S., Laruelle, S., Yrieix, B., and Tarascon, J.‐M., 2006, “Lithium metal stripping/plating mechanisms studies: A metallurgical approach,” Electrochem. commun., 8(10), pp. 1639–1649.

[70] Vuillemin, B., Philippe, X., Oltra, R., Vignal, V., Coudreuse, L., Dufour, L. C., and Finot, E., 2003, “SVET, AFM and AES study of pitting corrosion initiated on MnS inclusions by microinjection,” Corros. Sci., 45(6), pp. 1143–1159.

[71] Xu, W., Wang, J., Ding, F., Chen, X., Nasybulin, E., Zhang, Y., and Zhang, J.‐G., 2014, “Lithium metal anodes for rechargeable batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci., 7(2), p. 513.

[72] Chazalviel, J.‐N., 1990, “Electrochemical aspects of the generation of ramified metallic electrodeposits,” Phys. Rev. A, 42(12), pp. 7355–7367.

[73] Brissot, C., Rosso, M., Chazalviel, J.‐N., and Lascaud, S., 1999, Dendritic growth mechanisms in lithium/polymer cells.

[74] Rosso, M., Gobron, T., Brissot, C., Chazalviel, J.‐N., and Lascaud, S., 2001, “Onset of dendritic growth in lithium/polymer cells,” J. Power Sources, 97‐98, pp. 804–806.

[75] Teyssot, A., Belhomme, C., Bouchet, R., Rosso, M., Lascaud, S., and Armand, M., 2005, “Inter‐electrode in situ concentration cartography in lithium/polymer electrolyte/lithium cells,” J. Electroanal. Chem., 584(1), pp. 70–74.

[76] Brissot, C., Rosso, M., Chazalviel, J.‐N., Baudry, P., and Lascaud, S., 1998, “In situ study of dendritic growth inlithium/PEO‐salt/lithium cells,” Electrochim. Acta, 43(10‐11), pp. 1569–1574.

[77] Barton, J. L., and Bockris, J. O., 1962, “The Electrolytic Growth of Dendrites from Ionic Solutions,” Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 268(1335), pp. 485–505.

[78] Monroe, C., and Newman, J., 2003, “Dendrite Growth in Lithium/Polymer Systems,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 150(10), p. A1377.

[79] Jeschull, F., 2013, “Insights into the beneficial effects of poly(ethylene oxide) for lithium‐sulfur batteries,” Uppsala University.

[80] Cohen, Y. S., Cohen, Y., and Aurbach, D., 2000, “Micromorphological Studies of Lithium Electrodes in Alkyl Carbonate Solutions Using in Situ Atomic Force Microscopy,” J. Phys. Chem. B, 104(51), pp. 12282–12291.

[81] Pinson, M. B., and Bazant, M. Z., 2012, “Theory of SEI Formation in Rechargeable Batteries: Capacity Fade, Accelerated Aging and Lifetime Prediction.”

References

54

[82] Aurbach, D., and Granot, E., 1997, “The study of electrolyte solutions based on solvents from the ‘glyme’ family (linear polyethers) for secondary Li battery systems,” Electrochim. Acta, 42(4), pp. 697–718.

[83] Aurbach, D., 2000, “Review of selected electrode–solution interactions which determine the performance of Li and Li ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, 89(2), pp. 206–218.

[84] Morigaki, K., and Ohta, A., 1998, “Analysis of the surface of lithium in organic electrolyte by atomic force microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and scanning auger electron microscopy,” J. Power Sources, 76(2), pp. 159–166.

[85] Aurbach, D., Youngman, O., and Dan, P., 1990, “The electrochemical behavior of 1,3‐dioxolane—LiClO4 solutions—II. Contaminated solutions,” Electrochim. Acta, 35(3), pp. 639–655.

[86] Aurbach, D., Youngman, O., Gofer, Y., and Meitav, A., 1990, “The electrochemical behaviour of 1,3‐dioxolane—LiClO4 solutions—I. Uncontaminated solutions,” Electrochim. Acta, 35(3), pp. 625–638.

[87] Gofer, Y., Ben‐Zion, M., and Aurbach, D., 1992, “Solutions of LiAsF6 in 1,3‐dioxolane for secondary lithium batteries,” J. Power Sources, 39(2), pp. 163–178.

[88] Xiong, S., Xie, K., Diao, Y., and Hong, X., 2014, “Characterization of the solid electrolyte interphase on lithium anode for preventing the shuttle mechanism in lithium–sulfur batteries,” J. Power Sources, 246, pp. 840–845.

[89] Hertz, H., 1887, “Ueber einen Einfluss des ultravioletten Lichtes auf die electrische Entladung,” Ann. der Phys. und Chemie, 267(8), pp. 983–1000.

[90] Einstein, A., 1905, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Ann. Phys., 322(10), pp. 891–921.

[91] Younesi, R., 2012, “Characterization of reaction products in the Li‐O2 battery using photoelectron spectroscopy,” Uppsala University.

[92] Högström, K. C., 2014, “The complex nature of the electrode/electrolyte interfaces in Li‐ion batteries,” Uppsala University.

[93] Maibach, J., 2014, “Preparation and Characterization of Solution Processed Organic Semiconductor Interfaces: Electronic Properties of Thiophene‐Fullerene based Donor‐Acceptor Systems.”

[94] Naumkin, A. V., Kraut‐Vass, A., Gaarenstroom, S. W., and Powell, C. J., 2012, “NIST X‐ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Database, Version 3.5,” Meas. Serv. Div. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. [Online]. Available: http://srdata.nist.gov/xps/Default.aspx. [Accessed: 18‐Jun‐2014].

[95] Aurbach, D., 1989, “The Correlation Between Surface Chemistry, Surface Morphology, and Cycling Efficiency of Lithium Electrodes in a Few Polar Aprotic Systems,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 136(11), p. 3198.

References

55

[96] Suo, L., Hu, Y.‐S., Li, H., Armand, M., and Chen, L., 2013, “A new class of Solvent‐in‐Salt electrolyte for high‐energy rechargeable metallic lithium batteries.,” Nat. Commun., 4, p. 1481.

[97] Okamoto, H., 1995, “The Li‐S (lithium‐sulfur) system,” J. Phase Equilibria, 16(1), pp. 94–97.

[98] Ding, F., Xu, W., Graff, G. L., Zhang, J., Sushko, M. L., Chen, X., Shao, Y., Engelhard, M. H., Nie, Z., Xiao, J., Liu, X., Sushko, P. V, Liu, J., and Zhang, J.‐G., 2013, “Dendrite‐free lithium deposition via self‐healing electrostatic shield mechanism.,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., 135(11), pp. 4450–6.

Documents

Insights into the morphological changes undergone by the anode …765276/FULLTEXT02.pdf · 2014-11-21 · I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my parents, Madhavi and