In situ impedance spectroscopy tests of Li$_{4-x}$Ge$_{1-x}$P$_x$O$_4$ as potential solid state electrolyte for Micro Li ion Batteries

Anders J. Barlow; Arnold M\"uller; Christof Vockenhuber; Daniele Pergolesi; Kyle J. Stephens; Mohammadhossein Montazerian; Nick A. Shepelin; Thomas Lippert; Vladimir Roddatis

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

In situ impedance spectroscopy tests of Li$_{4-x}$Ge$_{1-x}$P$_x$O$_4$ as potential solid state electrolyte for Micro Li ion Batteries

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that crystalline LGPO films conduct lithium ions at room temperature about ten times better than LiPON, and identifies crystallographic texture and grain boundaries, not just composition, as the controlling factors.

desk verdict Solid in situ impedance/microstructure study of LGPO films, but the headline room-temperature conductivity is an unverified 300 K extrapolation and the texture-conductivity story has a composition confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07720 v1 pith:A3M5TXC3 submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mohammadhossein Montazerian , Kyle J. Stephens , Vladimir Roddatis , Christof Vockenhuber , Arnold Müller , Anders J. Barlow , Thomas Lippert , Nick A. Shepelin

show 1 more author

Daniele Pergolesi

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords solid-stateelectrolyteLISICONLGPOthin-filmbatterypulsedlaserdepositionimpedancespectroscopyionicconductivitylithiumiontransport

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An oxide electrolyte in the LISICON family, Li$_{4-x}$Ge$_{1-x}$P$_x$O$_4$ (LGPO), can be grown as a polycrystalline thin film that conducts lithium ions at room temperature with a conductivity of about $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ S cm$^{-1}$, an order of magnitude above the LiPON benchmark, with activation energy 0.46 eV. The paper reaches this by depositing LGPO films under four temperature and pressure conditions and measuring conductivity in situ, without exposing the film to air. It shows that crystallinity, crystallographic texture, and grain-boundary density, not lithium content alone, determine the ionic transport, since two films with similar composition and grain size differ by a factor of 40 in conductivity. If the central claim holds, LGPO becomes a viable high-temperature-compatible electrolyte for thin-film solid-state microbatteries.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on four pulsed-laser-deposited LGPO films (HTLP, ITLP, LTLP, HTHP) whose deposition temperature (535, 350, 25, 535 $^\circ$C) and oxygen pressure (0.01 or 0.05 mbar) are varied, with composition measured by heavy-ion elastic recoil detection and structure probed by X-ray diffraction and selected-area electron diffraction. In situ impedance spectroscopy with ion-blocking Au or Pt electrodes inside the deposition chamber provides conductivity without air exposure; equivalent-circuit fits separate the film resistance from electrode polarization, and Arrhenius plots yield activation energies. The central comparison that carries the claim is the pair HTLP versus ITLP, which have the same lithium content and similar grain size yet differ by a factor of 40 in conductivity, isolating crystallographic texture and grain-boundary resistance as the decisive variables.

What would settle it

A single room-temperature impedance measurement of the HTLP film would settle the question: if the measured conductivity at 25 $^\circ$C falls below about $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ S cm$^{-1}$, or the Arrhenius curve bends away from the fitted 0.46 eV line, the headline value is not a real room-temperature property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a polycrystalline LGPO film deposited by pulsed laser deposition at 535 $^\circ$C and 0.01 mbar oxygen reaches an extrapolated room-temperature ionic conductivity of about $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ S cm$^{-1}$ with activation energy 0.46 eV, exceeding the LiPON thin-film benchmark by roughly tenfold. The same study finds that amorphous LGPO, grown at 25 $^\circ$C, conducts far worse, about $5.2 \times 10^{-8}$ S cm$^{-1}$ with activation energy 0.72 eV, so crystallinity is essential. Comparing the four films, the authors argue that the dominant factors are microstructural: a polycrystalline film with mixed grain orientations outperforms a textured film of similar composition and grain size by a factor of 40, and a finely grained textured film is too resistive to measure even at 400 $^\circ$C. This assigns a central role to grain-boundary density and crystallographic texture, and the conductivity values agree with bulk LGPO reports, with the in situ measurement credited for avoiding air-exposure degradation.

Load-bearing premise

The room-temperature conductivity figure assumes that the straight-line Arrhenius relationship measured between 350 and 535 $^\circ$C for the best crystalline film continues unchanged down to 25 $^\circ$C, and the paper does not report a room-temperature impedance measurement to verify that extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Thin-film microbatteries could use LGPO as the electrolyte and still process electrodes at temperatures above 400 $^\circ$C, something LiPON cannot tolerate without losing its amorphous structure.
The route to high conductivity is crystalline growth with mixed grain orientations and limited grain-boundary resistance; amorphous films are not viable for room-temperature microbatteries.
Composition near x $\approx$ 0.5 and lithium content set the baseline, but microstructural control can shift conductivity by orders of magnitude even at fixed composition.
In situ impedance values for LGPO align with bulk-pellet data, so the thin-film result is not an artifact of film geometry or ambient contamination.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the texture argument transfers to other LISICON chemistries, controlling out-of-plane orientation during pulsed laser deposition could be a general lever for in-plane ionic conductivity in thin-film electrolytes.
Because the reported conductivity is measured in-plane, parallel to the substrate, vertical or through-plane battery stacks may see different grain-boundary contributions; measuring the cross-plane direction would be a natural next test.
The room-temperature value rests on an extrapolation from 350–535 $^\circ$C, so a direct 25 $^\circ$C impedance measurement would either confirm the headline number or require revising it downward.
Amorphous LGPO with higher lithium content, closer to the optimal composition, might perform better than the $5.2 \times 10^{-8}$ S cm$^{-1}$ observed here, since the paper notes that composition optimization can improve amorphous LGPO.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a genuinely useful experimental paper on LGPO thin films. The in situ impedance setup (measuring right in the PLD chamber, no air exposure) is a real methodological step forward, and the four-condition deposition matrix with HI-ERDA composition, XRD/SAED texture, and SEM/HIM grain size on the same films gives a solid structural–electrical correlation. The high-temperature conductivity data look internally consistent, and the equivalent-circuit fits are standard. The paper is also honest about the stray capacitance problem that prevents separating bulk and grain-boundary contributions.

The soft spots are real, though. The headline claim—room-temperature conductivity of ~1.2e-5 S/cm, an order of magnitude above LiPON—is not measured. It is extrapolated from the 350–535 °C range down to 25 °C, a 300+ K gap, using the combined grain-plus-grain-boundary resistance. The authors never show RT or intermediate-temperature data for the polycrystalline film, and they don't give error bars on Ea or sigma_RT. If grain-boundary conduction has a higher activation energy than bulk, the Arrhenius line will curve downward and the extrapolated value will be too high. The agreement with pellet values (Rodger, Muy, Song) is suggestive, but those are sintered bulk samples, not thin films. With the abstract and conclusion selling the LiPON comparison, this extrapolation is load-bearing.

There's also a confound in the 40× HTLP vs. ITLP comparison. The paper attributes it to texture, but the Ge/P ratio is quite different (x=0.47 vs. x=0.32), and they later argue that Ge content affects activation energy. Similar Li content and grain size do not isolate texture as the cause.

None of this kills the paper—the high-temperature dataset and the methodology are worth publishing. But the RT claim needs either a direct measurement or heavy caveats. I'd send it to peer review; a good referee should push for impedance data at intermediate temperatures to test Arrhenius linearity, and for a clearer separation of composition and texture effects. For your own reading: worth a skim for the in situ setup and the structural correlations, but don't quote the RT number yet.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports pulsed-laser-deposited Li4-xGe1-xPxO4 (LGPO) thin films grown under four deposition conditions and characterized by XRD, SAED, SEM/HIM, HI-ERDA, and in situ impedance spectroscopy. The central claim is that the polycrystalline HTLP film (535 °C, 0.01 mbar) has an activation energy of 0.46 eV and a projected room-temperature ionic conductivity of about 1.2 × 10^-5 S cm^-1, which is about an order of magnitude higher than typical LiPON values. The authors also conclude that crystallinity, texture, and grain-boundary density strongly influence ionic transport, based mainly on the conductivity contrast between HTLP, ITLP, and HTHP films.

Significance. If the room-temperature conductivity claim holds, the work is significant for thin-film solid-state microbatteries: it demonstrates an oxide electrolyte that tolerates high-temperature processing while outperforming LiPON in projected conductivity, and it introduces an in situ impedance platform that avoids air exposure. The paper also provides compositional analysis by HI-ERDA, systematic comparison of four deposition conditions, and a public data repository, which are strengths. The significance is currently conditional, however, because the headline conductivity is extrapolated over roughly 310 K below the measured range and because the microstructural attribution is based on a small number of deliberately varied samples.

major comments (2)

[§2.2, Figure 5] The headline room-temperature conductivity of the HTLP film is not measured but extrapolated. The Arrhenius fit uses only data between 535 °C and 350 °C (Figure 5), and the fitted resistance is the combined R||CPE of grain interiors plus grain boundaries (Figure 4a inset); the text states in §2.2 that stray capacitance from the MgO substrate prevents separation of bulk and grain-boundary contributions. Because the authors themselves argue that grain boundaries 'dramatically affect' transport, a grain-boundary contribution with a higher activation energy would bend the total-resistance Arrhenius line downward at lower temperatures and make the extrapolated σ_RT = 1.2 × 10^-5 S cm^-1 too high. No room-temperature or intermediate-temperature (below 350 °C) impedance data for HTLP are shown, and no uncertainty is given for E_a or σ_RT. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude comparison with LiPON and for the conclusion that LGPO is a high-performance thin-film electrolyte. Please provide direct low-temperature impedance data for the HTLP film, or if that is not possible, report the room-temperature value explicitly as an extrapolation and soften the claim accordingly.
[§2.2, Table 3] The attribution of the 40-fold difference between HTLP and ITLP to crystallographic texture is underdetermined. The two films differ not only in orientation/texture but also in chemical composition (Li3.08Ge0.52P0.47O4 vs Li2.96Ge0.72P0.32O4, Table 3), and the HTHP film, used to support the grain-boundary-density argument, has no measured conductivity at all (Table 3, 'Open circuit'). With only four deposition conditions and these confounded variables, the conclusion that 'textured crystalline orientation leads to increased grain boundary resistance' is not uniquely supported. Please either provide additional samples that isolate texture from composition/grain size or rephrase the microstructural interpretation as a hypothesis with explicitly listed confounds.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2] The sentence 'For the LTLP and ITLP samples, resistance measurements were obtained only at approximately 400 °C' contradicts the earlier statement in §2.1 and Figure 5, where LTLP shows data from 150 °C to 400 °C; the sentence should likely refer to HTHP and ITLP.
[Equation (1)] Equation (1) uses an undefined uppercase K in the exponential; it should be the Boltzmann constant k_B, and the equation should more clearly separate σ0, T, and E_a (or be written for ln(σT) vs 1/T).
[Table 3] The LTLP composition Li2.44Ge0.72P0.41O4 has Ge + P = 1.13, which is inconsistent with the structural formula Li4-xGe1-xPxO4; please normalize the HI-ERDA compositions or explain the oxygen-normalization procedure, since the later discussion of Ge content and x for LTLP depends on this.
[Figure 5] The extrapolated portion of the HTLP Arrhenius line should be visually distinguished from the measured data (for example, a dashed line and an open symbol for σ_RT), so that readers can immediately see which part of the LiPON comparison is based on measurement and which part is projection.
[Introduction] The sentence 'The observed conductivity values are the largest to date in a thin film system' is too broad, since Table 1 lists LLZO thin films with ~10^-4 S cm^-1; if the statement refers specifically to LGPO thin films, it should be reworded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are derived from its own measured impedance and Arrhenius data, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental study whose derivations are self-contained. Activation energies for HTLP and LTLP films are extracted from in situ impedance measurements over the stated temperature ranges (535–350 °C for HTLP; 150–360 °C for LTLP) using equivalent-circuit fits, and the room-temperature conductivity is explicitly described as 'extrapolated' from the Arrhenius line, not as a directly fitted replacement for measured data. This is a standard model extrapolation, not a circular reduction: the fit parameters (Ea and pre-exponential factor) are determined from measured high-temperature points, and the extrapolated value is a consequence of the Arrhenius relation, not an input to it. The paper openly states that stray capacitance prevents separating bulk and grain-boundary contributions, and it does not disguise this limitation. The self-citation to Gilardi et al. [19], which shares co-authors, is used only as a literature comparison for composition trends and prior thin-film conductivity values; it is not load-bearing for the main claim that the HTLP film has the highest conductivity, which rests on the present in situ measurements. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The main caveat is that the room-temperature conductivity of HTLP is not directly measured and depends on the unverified linearity of the Arrhenius plot over a ~300 K extrapolation, but that is a correctness or validity risk, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rely on Arrhenius extrapolations, equivalent-circuit fits to impedance spectra, and phase and composition assignment to ICSD and ERDA data. None of these are independently verified in the paper, and the microstructure-conductivity attribution is drawn from only four samples with partial compositional confounding.

free parameters (5)

Activation energy Ea (HTLP film) = 0.46 eV
From Arrhenius fit of in situ impedance data between 535 and 350 °C; used with sigma0 to extrapolate sigma_RT.
Activation energy Ea (LTLP film) = 0.72 eV
From Arrhenius fit between 150 and 360 °C before crystallization; used to extrapolate sigma_RT.
Pre-exponential factor sigma0 (HTLP) = not explicitly reported
Second Arrhenius fit parameter; not listed in text, but determines extrapolated sigma_RT.
Pre-exponential factor sigma0 (LTLP) = not explicitly reported
Second Arrhenius fit parameter for the amorphous film.
Equivalent-circuit resistance and CPE parameters = not reported
Impedance spectra are fitted to R-CPE models; extracted R values directly set the reported conductivities.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Arrhenius law governs ionic conduction in LGPO films over the measured range and remains linear down to room temperature.
Used in Figure 5 to extrapolate room-temperature conductivity from 350-535 °C (HTLP) and 150-360 °C (LTLP); no low-temperature crystalline data are shown.
domain assumption The in-plane impedance is dominated by Li-ion transport in the LGPO film, with negligible electronic contribution and no significant parasitic conduction through MgO substrate or electrodes.
Standard two-electrode ion-blocking measurement; the paper assumes the extracted resistance is the film's ionic resistance.
domain assumption The chosen equivalent circuit (series R, parallel R-CPE for grain and grain boundaries, electrode CPE) correctly represents the physical system, even though stray capacitance prevents separating bulk and grain-boundary responses.
Section 2.2 and Figure 4; conductivity values depend on these fits.
domain assumption XRD and SAED peak assignments against ICSD_250066 (Pnma) correctly identify the LGPO phase in all films.
Phase identification supports crystallinity and texture arguments; no alternative phase analysis is considered.
domain assumption The chemical composition measured by HI-ERDA is representative of the conducting volume and remains constant during impedance measurements.
Composition is used to compare samples and explain conductivity differences; possible Li loss during heating is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In situ impedance spectroscopy tests of Li$_{4-x}$Ge$_{1-x}$P$_x$O$_4$ as potential solid state electrolyte for Micro Li ion Batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3M5TXC3

@misc{pith2026250707720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In situ impedance spectroscopy tests of Li$_4-x$Ge$_1-x$P$_x$O$_4$ as potential solid state electrolyte for Micro Li ion Batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3M5TXC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07720}
}

abstract

Lithium-ion batteries employing solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) are emerging as a safer and more compact alternative to conventional batteries using liquid electrolytes, especially for miniaturized energy storage systems. However, the industry-standard SSE, LiPON, imposes limitations due to its incompatibility with high-temperature processing. In this study, we investigate Li$_{4-x}$Ge$_{1-x}$P$_x$O$_4$ (LGPO), a LISICON-type oxide, as a promising alternative thin-film SSE. LGPO thin films are fabricated using pulsed laser deposition under four distinct deposition conditions, with in situ impedance spectroscopy enabling precise conductivity measurements without ambient exposure. We systematically correlate deposition temperature, background pressure, chemical composition, crystallinity, and morphology with ionic transport properties. Polycrystalline LGPO films grown at high temperature (535 $^\circ$C) and low oxygen pressure (0.01 mbar) exhibited the highest room-temperature ionic conductivity ($\sim 1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ S cm$^{-1}$), exceeding that of LiPON by an order of magnitude, with an activation energy of 0.46 eV. In contrast, amorphous films show significantly lower conductivity ($\sim 5.2 \times 10^{-8}$ S cm$^{-1}$) and higher activation energy (0.72 eV). The results reveal that crystallinity, chemical composition, and grain boundary density critically affect ion transport, highlighting the importance of microstructural control. This work establishes LGPO as a viable, high-performance oxide SSE compatible with high-temperature processing for next-generation microbattery architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07720 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Schematic image of the in situ impedance spectroscopy set-up. The XRD patterns of the samples are shown in Figure 2a. The HTHP and ITLP samples exhibit a single out-of-plane crystallographic orientation within the measured range, corresponding to the (002) and (410) planes, respectively. In contrast, the HTLP sample displays multiple outof-plane reflections, confirming its polycrystalline nature. The as-grown LTLP … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

T. Kim, W. Song, D. Son, L. K. Ono, Y . Qi, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 2942-2964

work page 2019
[2]

Armand, J

M. Armand, J. M. Tarascon, Building better batteries. Nature 2008, 451, 652–657

work page 2008
[3]

P. U. Nzereogu, A. Oyesanya, S. N. Ogba, S. O. Ayanwunmi, M. S. Sobajo, V . C. Chimsunum, V . O. Ayanwunmi, M. O. Amoo, O. T. Adefemi, C. C. Chukwudi, Hybrid Advances 2025, 8, 100339

work page 2025
[4]

Joshi, D

A. Joshi, D. K. Mishra, R. Singh, J. Zhang, Y . Ding, Applied Energy 2025, 386, 125546

work page 2025
[5]

H. Huo, J. Janek, National Science Review 2023, 10, nwad098

work page 2023
[6]

S. S. Park, S. A. Han, R. Chaudhary, J. H. Suh, J. Moon, M. S. Park, J. H. Kim, Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2023, 4, 2300074

work page 2023
[7]

K. V . Kravchyk, F. Okur. M. V . Kovalenko, ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 2202–2207

work page 2021
[8]

S. A. Jose, A. Gallant, P. L. Gomez, Z. Jaggers, E. Johansson, Zachary LaPierre, P. L. Menezes, Batteries 2025, 11, 90

work page 2025

Show all 30 references

[9]

J. Liu, T. Wang, J. Yu, S. Li, H. Ma, X. Liu, Materials 2023, 16, 2510

2023
[10]

M. H. Futscher , L. Brinkman , A. Müller , J. Casella , A. Aribia, Y . E. Romanyuk, Communications Chemistry 2023, 6, 110

2023
[11]

J. N. Dudney, Electrochem. Soc. Interf. 2008, 17, 44–48

2008
[12]

S. Lobe, A. Bauer, S. Uhlenbruck, F. Rohlfing, Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2002044

2021
[13]

B. Hu, X. Wang, J. Micromech. Microeng. 2021, 31, 114002

2021
[14]

Fujibayashi, Y

T. Fujibayashi, Y. Kubota, K. Iwabuchi, N. Yoshii, AIP Advances 2017, 7, 085110

2017
[15]

H. Y . Park, S. C. Nam, Y . C. Lim, K. G. Choi, K. C. Lee, G. B. Park, S. R. Lee, H. P. Kim, S. B. Cho, J Electroceram 2006, 17, 1023–1030

2006
[16]

Hasan, R

M.M. Hasan, R. Haque, M.I. Jahirul, M.G. Rasul, I.M.R. Fattah, N.M.S. Hassan, M. Mofijur, Journal of Energy Storage 2025, 120, 116511

2025
[17]

Umair, S

M. Umair, S. Zhou, W. Li, H. T. H. Rana, J. Yang, L. Cheng, M. Li, S. Yu, J. Wei, Batteries & Supercaps 2024, e202400667

2024
[18]

Huang, P

S. Huang, P. Cao, Advanced Ceramics for Energy Storage, Thermoelectrics and Photonics 2023, 77-117

2023
[19]

Gilardi, G

E. Gilardi, G. Materzanini, L. Kahle, M. Dobeli , S. Lacey, X. Cheng, N. Marzari, D. Pergolesi, A. Hintennach, and T. Lippert, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 9910−9917

2020
[20]

Aguesse, V

F. Aguesse, V. Roddatis, J. Roquetab, P. Garcíab, D. Pergolesi, J. Santiso, J. A. Kilner, Solid State Ionics 2015, 272, 1–8

2015
[21]

Siller, A

V . Siller, A. Morata, M. N. Eroles, J. C. Gozales, J. M. Lopez del Amo, J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 17760-17769

2021
[22]

Sastre, A

J. Sastre, A. Priebe, M. Döbeli, J. Michler, A. N. Tiwari, Y . E. Romanyuk, Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 7, 2000425

2020
[23]

Garbayo, M

I. Garbayo, M. Struzik, W. J. Bowman, R. Pfenninger, E. Stilp, J. L. M. Rupp , Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1702265

2018
[24]

S. Muy, J. C. Bachman, H. Chang, L. Giordano, F. Maglia, S. Lupart, P. Lamp, W. G. Zeier, Y. Shao-Horn, Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 5573−5582

2018
[25]

A. R. Rodger, J. Kuwano, A. R. West, Solid State Ionics 1985, 15, 185-198

1985
[26]

Döbeli, C

M. Döbeli, C. Kottler, F. Glaus, M. Suter, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 2005, 241, 428-435

2005
[27]

Gerstl, E

M. Gerstl, E. Navickas, G. Friedbacher, F. Kubel, M. Ahrens, J. Fleig, Solid State Ionics 2011, 185, 32−41

2011
[28]

J. D. LaCoste, A. Zakutayev, L. Fei, J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 3651−3667

2021
[29]

S. Song, Z. Dong, F. Deng, N. Hu, Functional Materials Letters 2018, 11, 1850039

2018
[30]

Ojeda-G-P, M

A. Ojeda-G-P, M. Döbeli, T. Lippert, Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 5, 1701062

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

T. Kim, W. Song, D. Son, L. K. Ono, Y . Qi, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 2942-2964

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Armand, J

M. Armand, J. M. Tarascon, Building better batteries. Nature 2008, 451, 652–657

work page 2008

[3] [3]

P. U. Nzereogu, A. Oyesanya, S. N. Ogba, S. O. Ayanwunmi, M. S. Sobajo, V . C. Chimsunum, V . O. Ayanwunmi, M. O. Amoo, O. T. Adefemi, C. C. Chukwudi, Hybrid Advances 2025, 8, 100339

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Joshi, D

A. Joshi, D. K. Mishra, R. Singh, J. Zhang, Y . Ding, Applied Energy 2025, 386, 125546

work page 2025

[5] [5]

H. Huo, J. Janek, National Science Review 2023, 10, nwad098

work page 2023

[6] [6]

S. S. Park, S. A. Han, R. Chaudhary, J. H. Suh, J. Moon, M. S. Park, J. H. Kim, Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2023, 4, 2300074

work page 2023

[7] [7]

K. V . Kravchyk, F. Okur. M. V . Kovalenko, ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 2202–2207

work page 2021

[8] [8]

S. A. Jose, A. Gallant, P. L. Gomez, Z. Jaggers, E. Johansson, Zachary LaPierre, P. L. Menezes, Batteries 2025, 11, 90

work page 2025