Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 75 references

Synergistic Interface Stability and High Room-Temperature Ionic Conductivity for Wide-Temperature All-Solid-State Batteries Based on Li6+xSixSb1-xS5I Electrolytes

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Silicon substitution in an antimony iodide argyrodite yields a room-temperature ionic conductivity of 9.9 mS/cm and a full cell that cycles from -20 °C to 60 °C.

desk verdict Useful co-design study on a known electrolyte, but the 0.18 eV activation energy does not survive contact with the paper's own Table S6. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19664 v1 pith:AQEYPEYP submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Liang Ming , Qizhiran Sun , Guanping Xu , Muqing Su , Enyan Zhao , Wenzhe Gu , Weng-Fu Io , Kwun Nam Hui
show 2 more authors
Chuang Yu Hai-Feng Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords solid-statebatteryargyroditeLi6SbS5IsiliconsubstitutionionicconductivityLiNbO3coatingVGCFwide-temperaturecycling
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

This paper argues that the best way to make a sulfide solid-state battery work across a wide temperature range is to co-design the electrolyte and the cathode interface rather than optimize them separately. The authors claim that replacing part of the antimony in Li6SbS5I with silicon — forming Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I — raises the room-temperature ionic conductivity from 1.5×10⁻⁵ S/cm to 9.9×10⁻³ S/cm, lowers the activation energy to 0.18 eV, and broadens the electrochemical stability window. They further report that pairing this electrolyte with a LiNbO₃-coated nickel-rich cathode and a carefully tuned 2 wt% conductive carbon content delivers an initial discharge capacity of 174.8 mAh/g and 68.2% retention after 300 cycles. The paper's central claim is that moderate silicon doping improves bulk lithium transport while moderate carbon content balances electronic percolation against interfacial decomposition, together enabling stable operation down to -20 °C and up to 60 °C.

What carries the argument

The central object is the iodide argyrodite Li6+xSixSb1−xS5I with space group F-43m, synthesized by ball milling and annealing. The key mechanism is aliovalent Si⁴⁺ substitution for Sb⁵⁺, which introduces extra Li⁺ into the framework, increases I⁻/S²⁻ site disorder, and lowers the Li⁺ migration barrier, as quantified by CI-NEB calculations (0.47 eV → 0.28 eV → 0.42 eV across x = 0, 0.6, 0.75). The other load-bearing component is the co-designed cathode: a LiNbO₃ coating plus a moderate 2 wt% VGCF content that balances ionic and electronic transport while suppressing interfacial side reactions. Impedance was interpreted with the equivalent circuit Rs-(R_SE∥CPE_SE)-CPE_SS, where R_SE is treate

What would settle it

Measure the same cold-pressed pellet with a four-probe or micro-contact impedance method that resolves a distinct bulk semi-circle, or perform variable-pressure EIS to see whether R_SE drops with increasing stacking pressure; if the bulk-only conductivity falls substantially below 9.9 mS/cm, the central transport claim would be undermined. A second check is to reconcile the abstract's 200-cycle 84.2% retention with the body's 300-cycle 68.2% retention using the raw cycling data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The optimized composition Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I reaches a room-temperature ionic conductivity of 9.9×10⁻³ S/cm with an activation energy of 0.18 eV, and the assembled full cell retains 68.2% of its initial capacity after 300 cycles at 0.5C. The authors attribute the conductivity jump to aliovalent Si⁴⁺ substitution at the Sb site in the F-43m argyrodite framework, which adds mobile Li⁺ and lowers the DFT migration barrier from about 0.47 eV to 0.28 eV. At the cathode, a LiNbO₃ coating suppresses direct sulfide-oxide reactions, while 2 wt% VGCF provides the electronic percolation needed for high capacity without creating the continuous electron-leakage pathways that, at 3 wt%, accelerate oxidati

Load-bearing premise

The headline conductivity and activation energy rest on a single equivalent-circuit fit in which bulk and grain-boundary resistances were not separated, so R_SE could include contact or grain-boundary contributions; if that is the case, the 9.9 mS/cm and 0.18 eV values are not established as true bulk properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 9.9 mS/cm value holds, Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I is competitive with the best sulfide superionic conductors while using abundant, low-cost silicon in place of phosphorus.
  • The 68.2% retention after 300 cycles at 0.5C implies that sulfide electrolyte–nickel-rich cathode interfaces can be stabilized with a moderate conductive-additive content, not just by coatings alone.
  • The demonstrated -20 °C to 60 °C window suggests that this electrolyte–cathode pair tolerates both slow kinetics at low temperature and accelerated side reactions at high temperature, extending applicability to electric vehicles and outdoor storage.
  • The DFT barrier trend predicts that x≈0.6 is near the composition optimum; further silicon substitution creates impurity phases that disrupt the transport network and raise the barrier, providing a design limit for this family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because R_SE lumps bulk and grain-boundary contributions, the true bulk conductivity could be either higher or lower than the headline 9.9 mS/cm; a four-electrode or single-crystal measurement would settle whether the low activation energy is a bulk property or partly an interface effect.
  • Inference: The ~5 wt% Li2S/LiI/Li4SiS4 impurities at x=0.6 may themselves contribute to grain-boundary conduction, so the reported mechanism might combine ideal-lattice effects with impurity-mediated pathways; longer annealing or hot-pressing to reduce impurities would test this.
  • Inference: The same co-design principle — tuning aliovalent substitution in Sb-based iodide argyrodites and simultaneously optimizing the cathode carbon fraction — could be transferred to Cl/Br variants or to Sn/Ge substitutions, with the optimal carbon loading needing re-calibration for each electrolyte.
  • Inference: The discrepancy between the abstract's 84.2% retention after 200 cycles and the body's 68.2% after 300 cycles suggests that the same cell may have been reported under two different cycling protocols; raw cycling traces would clarify which number corresponds to the standard protocol.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Si-substituted Sb-based iodide argyrodite, Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I, obtained by ball milling and annealing. The authors claim a room-temperature ionic conductivity of 9.9×10−3 S cm−1 and an activation energy of 0.18 eV from EIS on cold-pressed pellets. They combine this electrolyte with a LiNbO3-coated LiNi0.7Co0.1Mn0.2O2 cathode and optimize VGCF content, reporting an initial capacity of 174.8 mAh g−1 with 68.2% retention after 300 cycles at 0.5C, and stable operation from −20 °C to 60 °C. Structural characterization, Rietveld refinement, Raman, SEM/EDS, XPS, and DFT calculations are used to support the proposed electrolyte and interface co-design. The paper’s central claim is that simultaneous Si substitution and cathode conductive-additive control improve bulk ion transport, interfacial stability, and wide-temperature cycling.

Significance. If the transport claims survive scrutiny, the work would be a useful demonstration of co-optimizing an argyrodite electrolyte and composite-cathode architecture for sulfide-based all-solid-state batteries. The structural refinement is careful, including quantitative impurity-phase analysis, and the full-cell study systematically varies VGCF content with supporting XPS, DRT, and DFT analysis. The activation-energy claim and the bulk-vs-total conductivity ambiguity are currently load-bearing weaknesses: the low Ea is used to validate the DFT migration barrier, and the 9.9 mS cm−1 value is presented as a bulk property even though the paper admits bulk and grain-boundary contributions are not separated. These issues, plus a direct abstract/body discrepancy in the headline full-cell numbers, prevent acceptance in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (3), Table S6] Using the R_SE values in Table S6 (8.123, 5.895, 5.206, 4.198, 3.112 Ω at 30–70 °C) and Eq. (3), ln(σT) vs 1000/T, an ordinary least-squares fit yields E_a ≈ 0.22 eV, not the reported 0.18 eV. The lower value is reproducible only by fitting log10 σ against 1000/T and omitting the T pre-factor that Eq. (3) explicitly includes. No raw spectra, fit residuals, or error bars are provided. Because the low activation energy is a headline result and is used to rationalize the DFT barrier (0.28 eV), this inconsistency must be corrected or the claim reanalyzed with transparent fits.
  2. [§2.2 and §4.4] The manuscript explicitly states that 'the bulk and grain-boundary contributions cannot be unambiguously separated' and that R_SE is used as the effective total ion-transport resistance. Under that caveat, the 9.9 mS cm−1 value cannot be asserted as the true bulk ionic conductivity; it may include grain-boundary and contact resistances. Consequently, comparisons with literature bulk conductivities and the mechanistic link to computed migration barriers are not fully established. The authors should either provide a deconvolution (e.g., DRT analysis, variable-thickness measurements, or clearly resolved spectra) or qualify the claim as an effective total conductivity.
  3. [Abstract vs. §2.3 and Conclusions] The abstract states 171.2 mAh g−1 initial discharge capacity with 84.2% retention after 200 cycles at 0.5C, while the body reports 174.8 mAh g−1 with 68.2% retention after 300 cycles. These are different results, and the choice of headline performance is ambiguous. Please harmonize the numbers and specify the primary cycling condition (200 cycles at 84.2% or 300 cycles at 68.2%).
  4. [§2.4 and §4.6] The DFT models equate one and three graphene layers to 2 wt% and 3 wt% VGCF in the composite cathode. No structural argument or length-scale justification is given for this mapping. In addition, the CI-NEB migration barriers are computed for impurity-free model structures, whereas the measured x=0.6 electrolyte contains about 5 wt% impurities (Li2S, LiI, Li4SiS4) per Table S4. The agreement between the experimental activation energy and the computed barrier should therefore be presented as qualitative; the current wording overstates the quantitative validation.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§2.2 and Fig. 2(c)] The activation energies in the text (0.28, 0.18, 0.23 eV) differ from those in the Fig. 2(c) caption (0.27, 0.23, 0.18 eV). Please reconcile.
  2. [Table S5] For Li6SbS5I, R_s at 70 °C (9.516 Ω) and the calculated σ (1.50×10−4 S cm−1) are non-monotonic relative to lower temperatures; this suggests a typo or an outlier that should be checked.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The transference-number equation uses 'I_ss' and 'R_ss' after first defining I*ss and R*ss; notation should be made uniform.
  4. [§2.3 and §2.4] Phrases such as 'pronounced space-charge-layer effect' are used as direct mechanistic conclusions, but the evidence (rate and capacity trends, XPS, DRT) is indirect. Please soften the causal language.
  5. [§4.6] The text states that transition states were verified by a single imaginary frequency, but no frequencies or transition-state analysis are shown. Add the verification data to the SI.
  6. [Introduction and ref. [36]] The composition Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I is described both as 'reported by Zhou [36]' and as part of a 'novel' electrolyte. Please clarify what is newly reported here relative to ref. [36].
  7. [Fig. S6 caption] The caption in the appendix reads 'Impedance analysis of composite cathodes' but the figure shows charge/discharge curves. The caption should match the content.
  8. [Introduction] The sentence 'Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) ... offer high energy density (3860 mAh g−1)' is imprecise: 3860 mAh g−1 is the specific capacity of lithium metal, not the energy density of a LIB. Please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; central conductivity, cell performance, and DFT results are independently derived, with only background self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any claimed result to its own inputs. The ionic conductivity is measured by EIS and computed from the fitted R_SE via Eq. (1); the activation energy is a separate Arrhenius fit (Eq. (3)) to the temperature-dependent conductivity. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the target quantity and then 'predicted' as a closely related output; the 9.9 mS cm−1 and 0.18 eV values are summaries of the measurements themselves, not predictions. The DFT migration barriers are computed from an externally published Li6SbS5I structure (Yi et al.) with standard PBE/CI-NEB and no fitting to the measured conductivity, so the mechanistic comparison with the observed doping trend is an independent post hoc rationalization, not an ansatz smuggled in. Self-citations such as refs. [32], [41]–[43], [57], [58], and [68] provide background or prior work on related argyrodites/Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I, but the present conclusion does not rest on any of them: the same composition is synthesized, characterized, and electrochemically tested in this paper. The VGCF optimization is an empirical three-point scan (0/2/3 wt%) and is reported as such, not as a derived prediction. One numerical concern is that the stated 0.18 eV activation energy is not reproduced by a least-squares fit of ln(σT) vs. 1000/T using the R_SE values in Table S6 (which gives ≈0.22 eV); however, this is an internal consistency/fitting-procedure issue, not circular reasoning, because the activation energy is not used to generate the conductivity or cell-performance claims. No uniqueness theorem, self-defined quantity, or self-citation chain forces the results.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The paper uses established concepts (space-charge layer, LNO coating, VGCF percolation, electron-leakage pathways) as interpretations rather than postulating entities that need independent evidence. The main input-carrying items are empirical optimization parameters (Si content, VGCF content, annealing conditions) and standard DFT modeling assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Si substitution content x = 0.6
    Only x = 0, 0.6, and 0.75 were tested; x = 0.6 gives the highest conductivity and is designated optimized. This is an empirical composition optimization, not a derived quantity.
  • VGCF content in composite cathode = 2 wt%
    Only 0, 2, and 3 wt% VGCF were compared; 2 wt% gives the best rate and cycling performance and is selected as optimal. This is empirical parameter selection.
  • Annealing temperature and time = 450 °C, 6 h
    Synthesis conditions are fixed by the workflow; the measured conductivity depends on this choice, but it is not independently varied in this study.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The parent Li6SbS5I structure from Yi et al. [77] is an accurate representation of the as-synthesized material, including the x = 0.6 composition with its measured impurities.
    DFT migration barriers (Section 4.6) are computed on impurity-free ordered supercells, yet the measured sample contains Li2S, LiI, and Li4SiS4 impurities (Section 2.1, Table S4).
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA with DFT+U (U-J = 6.2, 3.9, 3.32 eV for Ni, Mn, Co) and DFT-D3 gives sufficiently accurate interfacial electronic structure for the NCM/graphene models.
    Section 4.6 uses standard settings but provides no benchmark against experimental spectra; DOS peak shifts of 0.15-0.3 eV are used to explain capacity and decomposition trends.
  • ad hoc to paper One and three graphene layers in the DFT models represent 2 wt% and 3 wt% VGCF in real composite cathodes.
    Section 4.6 constructs only NCM-1 (one graphene layer) and NCM-3 (three graphene layers); the mapping to weight percent is asserted, and no carbon-free interface model is described.
  • domain assumption Cell operation up to 3.7 V vs Li-In is kinetically stable despite the measured CV oxidation feature at 2.65 V vs Li-In.
    The stability window in Section 2.2 is narrower than the cycling voltage window in Section 2.3; the paper assumes LNO coating and moderate carbon content suppress decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synergistic Interface Stability and High Room-Temperature Ionic Conductivity for Wide-Temperature All-Solid-State Batteries Based on Li6+xSixSb1-xS5I Electrolytes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQEYPEYP

@misc{pith2026260719664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synergistic Interface Stability and High Room-Temperature Ionic Conductivity for Wide-Temperature All-Solid-State Batteries Based on Li6+xSixSb1-xS5I Electrolytes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQEYPEYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19664}
}
read the original abstract

Solid-state lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are increasingly recognized for their exceptional energy density and safety. However, their widespread adoption is challenged by persistent issues such as thermal and electrochemical instability, dendrite formation, and limited compatibility with high-voltage cathodes. Sulfide-based solid electrolytes (SEs), particularly iodide argyrodites, offer outstanding ionic conductivity and stability; however, their practical application is constrained by the formation of space-charge layers, slow ion transport, and susceptibility to dendrite penetration. To address these challenges, we synthesized a novel Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I argyrodite electrolyte via ball milling and heat treatment, achieving a remarkable room-temperature ionic conductivity of 9.9 mS cm^-1. The electrolyte was integrated with a LiNbO3-coated LiNi0.7Co0.1Mn0.2O2 cathode to form an all-solid-state battery, which demonstrated an initial discharge capacity of 171.2 mAh g^-1, retained 84.2% of its capacity after 200 cycles at 0.5C, and maintained stable cycling across a broad temperature range from -20 degrees C to 60 degrees C. Our study shows that tailored electrolyte composition and a composite cathode configuration significantly enhance cycling stability and improve interfacial protection. These findings highlight the potential of Si-doped antimony-type iodide argyrodites for next-generation high-performance all-solid-state batteries, offering durable operation under diverse thermal conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structural characterization of Li6+xSixSb1−xS5I electrolytes. (a) XRD Rietveld refinement profiles, (b) illustration of the crystal structure, and (c) Raman spectra of Li6+xSixSb1−xS5I. (d) SEM image and corresponding EDS elemental mapping for Si, Sb, and S in Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I electrolyte, demonstrating uniform distribution of each element. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ionic conductivity and electrochemical stability analysis. (a) Nyquist plots, and (b) room-temperature ionic conductivity of Li6SbS5I, Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I, and Li6.75Si0.75Sb0.25S5I. (c) Arrhenius plots for the three electrolytes, revealing activation energies. (d) CV profiles of Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I and Li6.75Si0.75Sb0.25S5I, highlighting their electrochemical stability windows. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Li-ion migration barriers and pathways for various electrolytes. (a) Li-ion migration barriers and the corresponding path diagrams for (b) Li6SbS5I, (c) Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I, and (d) Li6.75Si0.75Sb0.25S5I. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electrochemical performance of composite cathodes. (a) Schematic illustration of the assembled solid-state batteries. (b) Rate capability and (c) long-term cycling performance of batteries with different carbon ratios. (d–f) Corresponding dQ/dV −1 plots for batteries w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Morphological and Chemical state evolutions of cathode interfaces. SEM images depicting the surface morphology of the LiNbO3-coated cathode mixture with Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I (a,b) before and (c,d) after 100 charge/discharge cycles, demonstrating morphological evolution. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electronic properties of cathodes with varying carbon content. (a) Total density of states for cathodes with varied carbon amounts; partial density of states for batteries with carbon ratios of (b) x = 0, (c) x = 0.2, and (d) x = 0.3. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperature-dependent cycling performance. Charge/discharge curves of LNO@NCM712/Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I/Li-In (a) at 0.2C and −20 ◦C, with long-term cycling performance (b); (c) at 0.5C and 60 ◦C with long-term cycling performance (d), demonstrating stable electrochemical …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interfacial dynamics at room temperature. Electrochemical characterization of LNO@NCM712/Li6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I/Li-In batteries during the initial cycle. Impedance spectra under various (a,b) charge (SOC) and discharge (SOD) states at room temperature, with corresponding (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references

  1. [68]

    C. Liao, C. Yu, S. Chen, C. Wei, Z. Wu, S. Chen, Z. Jiang, S. Cheng, J. Xie, Mitigation of the instability of ultrafast Li-ion conductor Li 6.6Si0.6Sb0.4S5I enables high-performance all-solid-state batteries, Renewables 1 (2023) 266–76

    2023

  2. [77]

    S. Yi, T. Jeon, J. Lee, Y.-K. Han, S. C. Jung, Conductivity enhancement of argyrodite Li6SbS5I solid electrolyte via charge modulation around Li diffusion paths through Si substitution, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 13 (2025) 36597–608. 30 Appendix 31 a 2 θ (deg.) 2 θ (deg.) b Intensity ( a. u .) Li 6 SbS 5 I Li 6.6 Si 0.6 Sb 0.4 S 5 I Li 6.75 Si 0.75 ...

    2025

  3. [1]

    Banerjee, X

    A. Banerjee, X. Wang, C. Fang, E. A. Wu, Y. S. Meng, Interfaces and interphases in all-solid-state batteries with inorganic solid electrolytes, Chemical Reviews 120 (2020) 6878–933

    2020

  4. [2]

    Lim, J.-H

    H.-D. Lim, J.-H. Park, H.-J. Shin, J. Jeong, J. T. Kim, K.-W. Nam, H.-G. Jung, K. Y. Chung, A review of challenges and issues concerning interfaces for all-solid-state batteries, Energy Storage Materials 25 (2020) 224–50

    2020

  5. [4]

    D. H. Tan, A. Banerjee, Z. Chen, Y. S. Meng, From nanoscale interface characterization to sustainable energy storage using all-solid-state batteries, Nature Nanotechnology 15 (2020) 170–80

    2020

  6. [5]

    Y. Kato, S. Hori, T. Saito, K. Suzuki, M. Hirayama, A. Mitsui, M. Yonemura, H. Iba, R. Kanno, High-power all-solid-state batteries using sulfide superionic conductors, Nature Energy 1 (2016) 1–7

    2016

  7. [6]

    Z. Zhao, D. Luo, S. Wu, K. Sun, Z. Lin, H.-F. Li, Predicting doping strategies for ternary nickel–cobalt–manganese cathode materials to enhance battery performance using graph neural networks, Journal of Energy Storage 98 (2024) 112982

    2024

  8. [7]

    X. Wang, S. Hu, F. Xiao, G. Xu, Z. Zhao, C. Chang, X. Zhang, C. Han, H.-F. Li, H.-M. Cheng, A Highly Water-Retentive Electrolyte Enabling Stable Aqueous Zinc-Ion Batteries Across a Wide Temperature Range, Advanced Functional Materials (2025) e19785

    2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    S. Lou, F. Zhang, C. Fu, M. Chen, Y. Ma, G. Yin, J. Wang, Interface issues and challenges in all-solid-state batteries: lithium, sodium, and beyond, Advanced Materials 33 (2021) 2000721

    2021

  2. [10]

    S. Wang, R. Fang, Y. Li, Y. Liu, C. Xin, F. H. Richter, C.-W. Nan, Interfacial challenges for all-solid-state batteries based on sulfide solid electrolytes, Journal of Materiomics 7 (2021) 209–18

    2021

  3. [11]

    Riphaus, B

    N. Riphaus, B. Stiaszny, H. Beyer, S. Indris, H. A. Gasteiger, S. J. Sedlmaier, Understand- ing chemical stability issues between different solid electrolytes in all-solid-state batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 166 (2019) A975–83

    2019

  4. [12]

    Z. Zhao, J. Xia, S. Wu, X. Wang, G. Xu, Y. Zhu, J. Sun, H.-F. Li, Insights Into Dendritic Growth Mechanisms in Batteries: A Combined Machine Learning and Computational Study, Battery Energy 4 (2025) e70015

    2025

  5. [13]

    Z. Zhao, X. Wang, S. Wu, P. Zhou, Q. Zhao, G. Xu, K. Sun, H.-F. Li, Deep learning- driven evaluation and prediction of ion-doped NASICON materials for enhanced solid-state battery performance, AAPPS Bulletin 34 (2024) 26. 25

    2024

  6. [14]

    P. Zhou, Z. Zhao, K. Sun, Q. Zhao, F. Xiao, Y. Fu, H.-F. Li, Machine Learning Guided Cobalt-doping Strategy for Solid-state NASICON Electrolytes, European Journal of Inor- ganic Chemistry 26 (2023) e202300382

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. Wu, S. Liu, F. Han, X. Yao, C. Wang, Lithium/sulfide all-solid-state batteries using sulfide electrolytes, Advanced Materials 33 (2021) 2000751

    2021

  8. [16]

    Zhang, D

    Q. Zhang, D. Cao, Y. Ma, A. Natan, P. Aurora, H. Zhu, Sulfide-based solid-state elec- trolytes: synthesis, stability, and potential for all-solid-state batteries, Advanced Materials 31 (2019) 1901131

    2019

  9. [17]

    K. H. Park, Q. Bai, D. H. Kim, D. Y. Oh, Y. Zhu, Y. Mo, Y. S. Jung, Design strategies, practical considerations, and new solution processes of sulfide solid electrolytes for all- solid-state batteries, Advanced Energy Materials 8 (2018) 1800035

    2018

  10. [18]

    J. Lee, T. Lee, K. Char, K. J. Kim, J. W. Choi, Issues and advances in scaling up sulfide- based all-solid-state batteries, Accounts of Chemical Research 54 (2021) 3390–402

    2021

  11. [19]

    Liang, H

    Y. Liang, H. Liu, G. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Ni, C.-W. Nan, L.-Z. Fan, Challenges, interface engineering, and processing strategies toward practical sulfide-based all-solid-state lithium batteries, InfoMat 4 (2022) e12292

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y. S. Jung, D. Y. Oh, Y. J. Nam, K. H. Park, Issues and challenges for bulk-type all- solid-state rechargeable lithium batteries using sulfide solid electrolytes, Israel Journal of Chemistry 55 (2015) 472–85

    2015

  13. [21]

    L. Zhou, N. Minafra, W. G. Zeier, L. F. Nazar, Innovative approaches to Li-argyrodite solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries, Accounts of Chemical Research 54 (2021) 2717–28

    2021

  14. [22]

    X. Bai, Y. Duan, W. Zhuang, R. Yang, J. Wang, Research progress in Li-argyrodite-based solid-state electrolytes, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 8 (2020) 25663–86

    2020

  15. [23]

    R. P. Rao, S. Adams, Studies of lithium argyrodite solid electrolytes for all-solid-state batteries, Physica Status Solidi (a) 208 (2011) 1804–7

    2011

  16. [24]

    Y. Lee, J. Jeong, H. J. Lee, M. Kim, D. Han, H. Kim, J. M. Yuk, K.-W. Nam, K. Y. Chung, H.-G. Jung, et al., Lithium argyrodite sulfide electrolytes with high ionic conductivity and air stability for all-solid-state Li-ion batteries, ACS Energy Letters 7 (2021) 171–9

    2021

  17. [25]

    L. Peng, C. Yu, C. Wei, C. Liao, S. Chen, L. Zhang, S. Cheng, J. Xie, Recent progress on lithium argyrodite solid-state electrolytes, Acta Phys. Chim. Sin 39 (2023) 2211034

    2023

  18. [26]

    Brinek, C

    M. Brinek, C. Hiebl, H. M. R. Wilkening, Understanding the origin of enhanced Li-ion transport in nanocrystalline argyrodite-type Li 6PS5I, Chemistry of Materials 32 (2020) 4754–66

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hogrefe, I

    K. Hogrefe, I. Hanghofer, H. M. R. Wilkening, With a little help from 31p NMR: the complete picture on localized and long-range Li + diffusion in Li 6PS5I, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 125 (2021) 22457–63

    2021

  20. [28]

    He, Z.-Q

    Z.-Y. He, Z.-Q. Zhang, M. Yu, C. Yu, H.-T. Ren, J.-Z. Zhang, L.-F. Peng, L. Zhang, S.-J. Cheng, J. Xie, Synthetic optimization and application of Li-argyrodite Li 6PS5I in solid-state battery at different temperatures, Rare Metals 41 (2022) 798–805. 26

    2022

  21. [29]

    Zhang, L

    J. Zhang, L. Li, C. Zheng, Y. Xia, Y. Gan, H. Huang, C. Liang, X. He, X. Tao, W. Zhang, Silicon-doped argyrodite solid electrolyte Li6PS5I with improved ionic conductivity and in- terfacial compatibility for high-performance all-solid-state lithium batteries, ACS Applied Mater...

    2020

  22. [30]

    S. Ohno, B. Helm, T. Fuchs, G. Dewald, M. A. Kraft, S. P. Culver, A. Senyshyn, W. G. Zeier, Further evidence for energy landscape flattening in the superionic argyrodites Li6+xP1−xMxS5I (M = Si, Ge, Sn), Chemistry of Materials 31 (2019) 4936–44

    2019

  23. [31]

    Y. B. Song, D. H. Kim, H. Kwak, D. Han, S. Kang, J. H. Lee, S.-M. Bak, K.-W. Nam, H.-W. Lee, Y. S. Jung, Tailoring solution-processable Li argyrodites Li 6+xP1−xMxS5I (M = Ge, Sn) and their microstructural evolution revealed by Cryo-TEM for all-solid-state batteries, Nano Lett...

    2020

  24. [32]

    L. Ming, D. Liu, Q. Luo, C. Wei, C. Liu, Z. Jiang, Z. Wu, L. Li, L. Zhang, S. Cheng, et al., Si-doped Li 6PS5I with enhanced conductivity enables superior performance for all-solid-state lithium batteries, Chinese Chemical Letters 35 (2024) 109387

    2024

  25. [33]

    H. Li, H. Liu, H. Ding, C. Fu, L. Gao, Z. Li, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, A. J. Khan, G. Zhao, Enhanced air/electrochemical stability and li-ion conductivity of argyrodite-type Li5.5+x(P1−xGex)S4.5Cl1.5 ceramic solid electrolytes for all-solid-state batteries, Journal of Alloys and Comp...

    2025

  26. [34]

    L. Gao, Y. Xie, Y. Tong, M. Xu, J. You, H. Wei, X. Yu, S. Xu, Y. Zhang, Y. Che, et al., Lithium-site substituted argyrodite-type Li 6PS5I solid electrolytes with enhanced ionic conduction for all-solid-state batteries, Science China Technological Sciences 66 (2023) 2059–68

    2023

  27. [35]

    Hanghofer, M

    I. Hanghofer, M. Brinek, S. Eisbacher, B. Bitschnau, M. Volck, V. Hennige, I. Hanzu, D. Rettenwander, H. Wilkening, Substitutional disorder: structure and ion dynamics of the argyrodites Li 6PS5Cl, Li 6PS5Br and Li 6PS5I, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 21 (2019) 8489–507

    2019

  28. [36]

    C. Liao, C. Yu, L. Peng, X. Miao, S. Chen, Z. Zhang, S. Cheng, J. Xie, Achieving superior ionic conductivity of Li 6PS5I via introducing LiCl, Solid State Ionics 377 (2022) 115871

    2022

  29. [37]

    Deiseroth, S.-T

    H.-J. Deiseroth, S.-T. Kong, H. Eckert, J. Vannahme, C. Reiner, T. Zaiß, M. Schlosser, Li6PS5X: a class of crystalline Li-rich solids with an unusually high Li + mobility, Ange- wandte Chemie 120 (2008) 767–70

    2008

  30. [38]

    Brinek, C

    M. Brinek, C. Hiebl, K. Hogrefe, I. Hanghofer, H. Wilkening, Structural disorder in Li6PS5I speeds 7Li nuclear spin recovery and slows down 31P relaxation–implications for translational and rotational jumps as seen by nuclear magnetic resonance, The Journal of Physical Chemist...

    2020

  31. [39]

    L. Zhou, A. Assoud, Q. Zhang, X. Wu, L. F. Nazar, New family of argyrodite thioan- timonate lithium superionic conductors, Journal of the American Chemical Society 141 (2019) 19002–13

    2019

  32. [40]

    Morino, H

    Y. Morino, H. Tsukasaki, S. Mori, Microscopic degradation mechanism of argyrodite-type sulfide at the solid electrolyte–cathode interface, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 15 (2023) 23051–7. 27

    2023

  33. [41]

    Q. Luo, L. Ming, D. Zhang, C. Wei, Z. Wu, Z. Jiang, C. Liu, S. Liu, K. Cao, L. Zhang, et al., Constructing Br-doped Li 10SnP2S12-based all-solid-state batteries with superior performances, Energy Material Advances 4 (2023) 0065

    2023

  34. [42]

    L. Ming, Q. Luo, C. Wei, C. Liu, Z. Jiang, Z. Wu, L. Li, L. Zhang, X. Chen, S. Cheng, et al., Unravelling the O-doping effect on chemical/electrochemical stability of Li 5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 for all-solid-state lithium batteries, Next Materials 5 (2024) 100233

    2024

  35. [43]

    L. Ming, M. Deng, S. Li, Z. Jiang, L. Li, Z. Lu, Q. Luo, J. Yang, Z. Cui, C. Yu, Reviving the ionic conductivity of air-instable solid-state electrolytes via a facile heat treatment, Chinese Chemical Letters (2025) 111114

    2025

  36. [44]

    Chang, A

    L. Chang, A. Wei, S. Luo, S. Cao, X. Bi, W. Yang, R. Yang, J. Liu, Lithium-ion battery: A comprehensive research progress of high nickel ternary cathode material, International Journal of Energy Research 46 (2022) 23145–72

    2022

  37. [45]

    J. Wu, L. Shen, Z. Zhang, G. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Zhou, H. Wan, X. Xu, X. Yao, All- solid-state lithium batteries with sulfide electrolytes and oxide cathodes, Electrochemical Energy Reviews 4 (2021) 101–35

    2021

  38. [46]

    Morino, S

    Y. Morino, S. Kanada, Electrochemical and material analyses for sulfide-based solid electrolyte–cathode interface under high voltage, Journal of Power Sources 509 (2021) 230376

    2021

  39. [47]

    Sumita, Y

    M. Sumita, Y. Tanaka, M. Ikeda, T. Ohno, Charged and discharged states of cath- ode/sulfide electrolyte interfaces in all-solid-state lithium ion batteries, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120 (2016) 13332–9

    2016

  40. [48]

    X. Li, Q. Sun, Z. Wang, D. Song, H. Zhang, X. Shi, C. Li, L. Zhang, L. Zhu, Outstanding electrochemical performances of the all-solid-state lithium battery using Ni-rich layered oxide cathode and sulfide electrolyte, Journal of Power Sources 456 (2020) 227997

    2020

  41. [49]

    Haruyama, K

    J. Haruyama, K. Sodeyama, L. Han, K. Takada, Y. Tateyama, Space–charge layer effect at interface between oxide cathode and sulfide electrolyte in all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, Chemistry of Materials 26 (2014) 4248–55

    2014

  42. [50]

    B. K. Park, H. Kim, K. S. Kim, H.-S. Kim, S. H. Han, J.-S. Yu, H. J. Hah, J. Moon, W. Cho, K. J. Kim, Interface design considering intrinsic properties of dielectric materials to minimize space-charge layer effect between oxide cathode and sulfide solid electrolyte in all-soli...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Y. Chen, L. Huang, D. Zhou, X. Gao, T. Hu, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhen, X. Chen, L. Cui, G. Wang, Elucidating and minimizing the space-charge layer effect between ncm cathode and Li 6PS5Cl for sulfide-based solid-state lithium batteries, Advanced Energy Materials 14 (2024) 2304443

    2024

  44. [52]

    L. Wang, R. Xie, B. Chen, X. Yu, J. Ma, C. Li, Z. Hu, X. Sun, C. Xu, S. Dong, et al., In-situ visualization of the space-charge-layer effect on interfacial lithium-ion transport in all-solid-state batteries, Nature Communications 11 (2020) 5889

    2020

  45. [53]

    Zhao, H.-F

    Z. Zhao, H.-F. Li, Investigating Material Interface Diffusion Phenomena through Graph Neural Networks in Applied Materials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 16 (2024) 53153–62. 28

    2024

  46. [54]

    D. H. Yoon, Y. J. Park, Electrochemical properties of cathode according to the type of sulfide electrolyte and the application of surface coating, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology 12 (2020) 126–36

    2020

  47. [55]

    Z. D. Hood, A. U. Mane, A. Sundar, S. Tepavcevic, P. Zapol, U. D. Eze, S. P. Adhikari, E. Lee, G. E. Sterbinsky, J. W. Elam, et al., Multifunctional Coatings on Sulfide-Based Solid Electrolyte Powders with Enhanced Processability, Stability, and Performance for Solid-State Bat...

    2023

  48. [56]

    C. Zou, Z. Zang, X. Tao, L. Yi, X. Chen, X. Zhang, L. Yang, X. Liu, X. Wang, Stabilized cathode/sulfide electrolyte interface through conformally interfacial nanocoating for all- solid-state batteries, ACS Applied Energy Materials 6 (2023) 3599–607

    2023

  49. [57]

    Q. Luo, C. Liu, L. Li, Z. Jiang, J. Yang, S. Chen, X. Chen, L. Zhang, S. Cheng, C. Yu, O-doping strategy enabling enhanced chemical/electrochemical stability of Li 3InCl6 for superior solid-state battery performance, Journal of Energy Chemistry 99 (2024) 484–94

    2024

  50. [58]

    Q. Luo, S. Li, C. Wei, Z. Wu, C. Liu, Z. Jiang, L. Li, S. Chen, C. Yu, Local Charge Distribution Regulation toward Sulfide Superionic Conductor for Superior Electrochemical Performance in All-Solid-State Batteries, ACS Applied Energy Materials 8 (2025) 2465–76

    2025

  51. [59]

    Rosenbach, F

    C. Rosenbach, F. Walther, J. Ruhl, M. Hartmann, T. A. Hendriks, S. Ohno, J. Janek, W. G. Zeier, Visualizing the chemical incompatibility of halide and sulfide-based elec- trolytes in solid-state batteries, Advanced Energy Materials 13 (2023) 2203673

    2023

  52. [60]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Yu, J. Cheng, H. Chen, X. Huang, B. Tian, Halide/sulfide composite solid- state electrolyte for Li-anode based all-solid-state batteries, Chinese Chemical Letters 34 (2023) 108228

    2023

  53. [61]

    J.-U. Cho, R. Rajagopal, D. H. Yoon, Y. J. Park, K.-S. Ryu, Control of side reactions using LiNbO3 mixed/doped solid electrolyte for enhanced sulfide-based all-solid-state batteries, Chemical Engineering Journal 452 (2023) 138955

    2023

  54. [62]

    J. W. Lee, Y. J. Park, Enhanced cathode/sulfide electrolyte interface stability using an Li 2ZrO3 coating for all-solid-state batteries, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology 9 (2018) 176–83

    2018

  55. [63]

    Y.-J. Kim, R. Rajagopal, S. Kang, K.-S. Ryu, Novel dry deposition of LiNbO 3 or Li2ZrO3 on LiNi 0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 for high performance all-solid-state lithium batteries, Chemical Engineering Journal 386 (2020) 123975

    2020

  56. [64]

    Tsukazaki, N

    R. Tsukazaki, N. Matsui, S. Hori, K. Suzuki, R. Kanno, Oxygen-Substitution Effects on the Properties of Argyrodite-Type Sulfide Solid Electrolytes (Li 5.5PS4.5−xBr1.5Ox, 0≤x≤ 0.5), Electrochemistry 93 (2025) 063012–

    2025

  57. [65]

    Pogodin, M

    A. Pogodin, M. Filep, T. Malakhovska, V. Vakulchak, V. Komanicky, S. Vorobiov, V. Izai, L. Satrapinskyy, I. Shender, V. Bilanych, et al., Recrystallization and heterovalent sub- stitution effects on mechanical and electrical parameters of Ag 6+x(P1−xGex)S5I–based ce- ramics, J...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Yubuchi, H

    S. Yubuchi, H. Tsukasaki, A. Sakuda, S. Mori, A. Hayashi, M. Tatsumisago, Quantitative analysis of crystallinity in an argyrodite sulfide-based solid electrolyte synthesized via solution processing, RSC Advances 9 (2019) 14465–71. 29

    2019

  59. [67]

    Calaminus, S

    R. Calaminus, S. Harm, D. H. Fabini, L. G. Balzat, A.-K. Hatz, V. Duppel, I. Moudrakovski, B. V. Lotsch, Enhancing ionic conductivity by in situ formation of Li7SiPS8/Argyrodite hybrid solid electrolytes, Chemistry of Materials 34 (2022) 7666–77

    2022

  60. [69]

    C. Wei, C. Yu, S. Chen, S. Chen, L. Peng, Y. Wu, S. Li, S. Cheng, J. Xie, Unraveling the LiNbO3 coating layer on battery performances of lithium argyrodite-based all-solid-state batteries under different cut-off voltages, Electrochimica Acta 438 (2023) 141545

    2023

  61. [70]

    Shrestha, J

    S. Shrestha, J. Kim, J. Jeong, H. J. Lee, S. C. Kim, H. J. Hah, K. Oh, S.-H. Lee, Ef- fect of amorphous lipon coating on electrochemical performance of LiNi 0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) in all solid-state batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 168 (2021) 060537

    2021

  62. [71]

    N. Sun, Y. Song, Q. Liu, W. Zhao, F. Zhang, L. Ren, M. Chen, Z. Zhou, Z. Xu, S. Lou, et al., Surface-to-Bulk Synergistic Modification of Single Crystal Cathode Enables Stable Cycling of Sulfide-Based All-Solid-State Batteries at 4.4 V, Advanced Energy Materials 12 (2022) 2200682

    2022

  63. [72]

    Werner, D

    D. Werner, D. H. Apaydin, E. Portenkirchner, An Anthraquinone/Carbon Fiber Compos- ite as Cathode Material for Rechargeable Sodium-Ion Batteries, Batteries & Supercaps 1 (2018) 160–8

    2018

  64. [73]

    Joo, S.-Y

    S. Joo, S.-Y. Kim, Y.-J. Min, S.-Y. Kim, Electrochemical Study on Rate Characteristics of All-Solid-State Batteries (2024) 4963–

    2024

  65. [74]

    K. S. Saqib, T. J. Embleton, J. H. Choi, S.-J. Won, J. Ali, K. Ko, S. Choi, M. Jo, S. Park, J. Park, et al., Understanding the carbon additive/sulfide solid electrolyte interface in nickel-rich cathode composites and prioritizing the corresponding interplay between the electri...

    2024

  66. [75]

    H. Xu, G. Cao, Y. Shen, Y. Yu, J. Hu, Z. Wang, G. Shao, Enabling argyrodite sulfides as superb solid-state electrolyte with remarkable interfacial stability against electrodes, Energy & Environmental Materials 5 (2022) 852–64

    2022

  67. [76]

    Y. J. Kim, H. Jeong, S. Nam, D. Shin, J.-H. Lee, H. Kim, Degradation analysis during fast lifetime cycling of sulfide-based all-solid-state Li-metal batteries using in situ electro- chemical impedance spectroscopy, Journal of Materials Chemistry A (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.