Article

Direct observation of lithium polysulfides in lithium–sulfur batteries using operando X-ray diffraction

  • Nature Energy volume 2, Article number: 17069 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.69
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:

Abstract

In the on going quest towards lithium-battery chemistries beyond the lithium-ion technology, the lithium–sulfur system is emerging as one of the most promising candidates. The major outstanding challenge on the route to commercialization is controlling the so-called polysulfide shuttle, which is responsible for the poor cycling efficiency of the current generation of lithium–sulfur batteries. However, the mechanistic understanding of the reactions underlying the polysulfide shuttle is still incomplete. Here we report the direct observation of lithium polysulfides in a lithium–sulfur cell during operation by means of operando X-ray diffraction. We identify signatures of polysulfides adsorbed on the surface of a glass-fibre separator and monitor their evolution during cycling. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the adsorption of the polysulfides onto SiO2 can be harnessed for buffering the polysulfide redox shuttle. The use of fumed silica as an electrolyte additive therefore significantly improves the specific charge and Coulombic efficiency of lithium–sulfur batteries.

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

     & Building better batteries. Nature 451, 652–657 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Car industry: charging up the future. Nature 456, 436–440 (2008).

  3. 3.

     & Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nat. Chem. 7, 19–29 (2015).

  4. 4.

    et al. Review on Li-sulfur battery systems: an integral perspective. Adv. Energy Mater. 5, 1500212 (2015).

  5. 5.

    , , ,  & Recent advances in lithium sulfide cathode materials and their use in lithium sulfur batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 5, 1500110 (2015).

  6. 6.

    et al. High energy density lithium–sulfur batteries: challenges of thick sulfur cathodes. Adv. Energy Mater. 5, 1402290 (2015).

  7. 7.

    ,  & Lithium–sulfur batteries: progress and prospects. Adv. Mater. 27, 1980–2006 (2015).

  8. 8.

    ,  & Sulfur-based composite cathode materials for high-energy rechargeable lithium batteries. Adv. Mater. 27, 569–575 (2015).

  9. 9.

    et al. Enabling prominent high-rate and cycle performances in one lithium–sulfur battery: designing permselective gateways for Li+ transportation in holey-CNT/S cathodes. Adv. Mater. 27, 3774–3781 (2015).

  10. 10.

    ,  & A highly ordered nanostructured carbon-sulphur cathode for lithium–sulphur batteries. Nat. Mater. 8, 500–506 (2009).

  11. 11.

    , , ,  & Sulfur infiltrated activated carbon cathodes for lithium sulfur cells: the combined effects of pore size distribution and electrolyte molarity. J. Power Sources 248, 752–761 (2014).

  12. 12.

    et al. Manipulating surface reactions in lithium–sulphur batteries using hybrid anode structures. Nat. Commun. 5, 3015 (2014).

  13. 13.

    , , , ,  & Novel positive electrode architecture for rechargeable lithium/sulfur batteries. J. Power Sources 211, 19–26 (2012).

  14. 14.

    , ,  & High-performance lithium–sulfur batteries with a self-supported, 3D Li2S-doped graphene aerogel cathodes. Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501355 (2016).

  15. 15.

    , ,  & Fair performance comparison of different carbon blacks in lithium–sulfur batteries with practical mass loadings-simple design competes with complex cathode architecture. J. Power Sources 296, 454–461 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Liquid electrolyte lithium/sulfur battery: fundamental chemistry, problems, and solutions. J. Power Sources 231, 153–162 (2013).

  17. 17.

    et al. Effect of LiNO3 additive and pyrrolidinium ionic liquid on the solid electrolyte interphase in the lithium sulfur battery. J. Power Sources 295, 212–220 (2015).

  18. 18.

    et al. Lithium–sulfur batteries—the solution is in the electrolyte, but is the electrolyte a solution? Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 3902–3920 (2014).

  19. 19.

    , , , ,  & In-operando optical imaging of temporal and spatial distribution of polysulfides in lithium–sulfur batteries. Nano Energy 11, 579–586 (2015).

  20. 20.

    et al. In operando X-ray diffraction and transmission X-ray microscopy of lithium sulfur batteries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 6337–6343 (2012).

  21. 21.

    et al. Morphological and structural studies of composite sulfur electrodes upon cycling by HRTEM, AFM and Raman spectroscopy. J. Electrochem. Soc. 157, A1131–A1138 (2010).

  22. 22.

    ,  & Analysis of soluble intermediates in the lithium–sulfur battery by a simple in situ electrochemical probe. Electrochem. Commun. 46, 91–93 (2014).

  23. 23.

    et al. Multidimensional operando analysis of macroscopic structure evolution in lithium sulfur cells by X-ray radiography. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 10630–10636 (2016).

  24. 24.

    et al. In operando scanning electron microscopy and ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy studies of lithium/sulfur cells using all solid-state polymer electrolyte. J. Power Sources 319, 247–254 (2016).

  25. 25.

    et al. Operando characterization of intermediates produced in a lithium–sulfur battery. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, A1146–A1155 (2015).

  26. 26.

     & Application of in operando UV/Vis spectroscopy in lithium–sulfur batteries. ChemSusChem 7, 2167–2175 (2014).

  27. 27.

    , , , ,  & Li–S battery analyzed by UV/Vis in operando mode. ChemSusChem 6, 1177–1181 (2013).

  28. 28.

    et al. Sulfur speciation in Li–S batteries determined by operando X-ray absorption spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4, 3227–3232 (2013).

  29. 29.

     & A metastable beta-sulfur phase stabilized at room temperature during cycling of high efficiency carbon fibre–sulfur composites for Li–S batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 1, 13089–13092 (2013).

  30. 30.

    et al. New insight into the working mechanism of lithium–sulfur batteries: in situ and operando X-ray diffraction characterization. Chem. Commun. 49, 7899–7901 (2013).

  31. 31.

    , ,  & Simple cathode design for Li–S batteries: cell performance and mechanistic insights by in operando X-ray diffraction. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 18765–18771 (2014).

  32. 32.

    Advanced research on lithium–sulfur batteries: studies of lithium polysulfides. MSc thesis, Univ. Waterloo (2013).

  33. 33.

    ,  & Formation of sulfur atomic layers on gold from aqueous solutions of sulfide and thiosulfate: studies using EC-STM, UHV-EC, and TLEC. Langmuir 19, 8416–8427 (2003).

  34. 34.

    et al. High-energy, high-rate, lithium–sulfur batteries: synergetic effect of hollow TiO2-webbed carbon nanotubes and a dual functional carbon-paper interlayer. Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501480 (2016).

  35. 35.

    et al. Lithium/sulfur batteries upon cycling: structural modifications and species quantification by in situ and operando X-ray diffraction spectroscopy. Adv. Energy Mater. 5, 1500165 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Bestimmung der Grösse und der Inneren Struktur von Kolloidteilchen Mittels Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Göttingen. Nachr Ges Wiss Göttingen, Math-Phys Kl 2, 98–100 (1918).

  37. 37.

    , , , ,  & A highly efficient polysulfide mediator for lithium–sulfur batteries. Nat. Commun. 6, 5682 (2015).

  38. 38.

    et al. Improved lithium–sulfur batteries with a conductive coating on the separator to prevent the accumulation of inactive S-related species at the cathode–separator interface. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 3381–3390 (2014).

  39. 39.

    et al. Single step transformation of sulphur to Li2S2/Li2S in Li–S batteries. Sci. Rep. 5, 12146 (2015).

  40. 40.

    et al. Understanding glass fiber membrane used as a novel separator for lithium–sulfur batteries. J. Membr. Sci. 504, 89–96 (2016).

  41. 41.

    , ,  & In situ X-ray diffraction characterisation of Fe0.5TiOPO4 and Cu0.5TiOPO4 as electrode material for sodium-ion batteries. Electrochim. Acta 176, 18–21 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 200021_144292) and thank Robert Bosch GmbH for providing lithium PSs. The authors would like to express their gratitude to P. Novák for fruitful discussions about Li–S batteries. H. Kaiser and C. Junker are acknowledged for their help with all technical aspects of this study. C. Goudet-Prunier is thanked for her help in writing the manuscript. S. Sallard is acknowledged for help and contributions to the experimental part of the study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Paul Scherrer Institute, Electrochemistry Laboratory, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland

    • Joanna Conder
    • , Sigita Trabesinger
    • , Cyril Marino
    • , Lorenz Gubler
    •  & Claire Villevieille
  2. Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble INP, LEPMI Laboratory, 38402 St Martin d’Hères, France

    • Renaud Bouchet

Authors

  1. Search for Joanna Conder in:

  2. Search for Renaud Bouchet in:

  3. Search for Sigita Trabesinger in:

  4. Search for Cyril Marino in:

  5. Search for Lorenz Gubler in:

  6. Search for Claire Villevieille in:

Contributions

C.V., J.C. and R.B. conceived the project. J.C. and C.V. designed the experimental set-up for operando XRD, built the experimental set-up and performed the experiments. C.M. performed the XPS and TEM analyses. C.V., J.C. and R.B. analysed the data. C.V. and J.C. wrote the manuscript, with contributions from R.B., S.T. and L.G.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Villevieille.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–5, Supplementary Notes, Supplementary References.