Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Universal chemomechanical design rules for solid-ion conductors to prevent dendrite formation in lithium metal batteries


Dendrite formation during electrodeposition while charging lithium metal batteries compromises their safety. Although high-shear-modulus (Gs) solid-ion conductors (SICs) have been prioritized to resolve the pressure-driven instabilities that lead to dendrite propagation and cell shorting, it is unclear whether these or alternatives are needed to guide uniform lithium electrodeposition, which is intrinsically density-driven. Here, we show that SICs can be designed within a universal chemomechanical paradigm to access either pressure-driven dendrite-blocking or density-driven dendrite-suppressing properties, but not both. This dichotomy reflects the competing influence of the SIC’s mechanical properties and the partial molar volume of Li+ (\(V_{\mathrm{Li}^+}\)) relative to those of the lithium anode (GLi and VLi) on plating outcomes. Within this paradigm, we explore SICs in a previously unrecognized dendrite-suppressing regime that are concomitantly ‘soft’, as is typical of polymer electrolytes, but feature an atypically low \(V_{\mathrm{Li}^+}\) that is more reminiscent of ‘hard’ ceramics. Li plating (1 mA cm−2; T = 20 °C) mediated by these SICs is uniform, as revealed using synchrotron hard X-ray microtomography. As a result, cell cycle life is extended, even when assembled with thin Li anodes (~30 µm) and either high-voltage NMC-622 cathodes (1.44 mAh cm−2) or high-capacity sulfur cathodes (3.02 mAh cm−2).

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Classifying SICs within a universal chemomechanical model for dendrite formation during electrodeposition.
Fig. 2: Formulation-dependent architectures, morphologies and mechanical properties for LiF@PIM-1 composites generated in situ by cation metathesis.
Fig. 3: Li ion migration in LESAs.
Fig. 4: Uniform Li metal electrodeposition enabled by dendrite-suppressing LiF@PIM-1 SICs.
Fig. 5: Divergent electrochemical performance of Li–NMC-622 cells assembled with thin Li anodes, highlighting the benefits of dendrite-suppressing LiF@PIM-1 SICs.
Fig. 6: Galvanostatic cycling of Li–S cells, comparing dendrite-suppressing LESAs with artificial SEI-generating electrolyte additives.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Xu, W. et al. Lithium metal anodes for rechargeable batteries. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 513–537 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tikekar, M. D., Choudhury, S., Tu, Z. & Archer, L. A. Design principles for electrolytes and interfaces for stable lithium-metal batteries. Nat. Energy 1, 16114 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lin, D., Liu, Y. & Cui, Y. Reviving the lithium metal anode for high-energy batteries. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 194–206 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cheng, X.-B., Zhang, R., Zhao, C.-Z. & Zhang, Q. Toward safe lithium metal anode in rechargeable batteries: a review. Chem. Rev. 117, 10403–10473 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Manthiram, A., Yu, X. & Wang, S. Lithium battery chemistries enabled by solid-state electrolytes. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 16103 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Albertus, P., Babinec, S., Litzelman, S. & Newman, A. Status and challenges in enabling the lithium metal electrode for high-energy and low-cost rechargeable batteries. Nat. Energy 3, 16–21 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Monroe, C. & Newman, J. Dendrite growth in lithium/polymer systems. J. Electrochem. Soc. 150, A1377–A1384 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Monroe, C. & Newman, J. The effect of interfacial deformation on electrodeposition kinetics. J. Electrochem. Soc. 151, A880–A886 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ahmad, Z. & Viswanathan, V. Stability of electrodeposition at solid–solid interfaces and implications for metal anodes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 056003 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zachman, M. J., Tu, Z., Choudhury, S., Archer, L. A. & Kourkoutis, L. F. Cryo-STEM mapping of solid–liquid interfaces and dendrites in lithium-metal batteries. Nature 560, 345–349 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Barai, P., Higa, K. & Srinivasan, V. Lithium dendrite growth mechanisms in polymer electrolytes and prevention strategies. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 20493–20505 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Singh, M. et al. Effect of molecular weight on the mechanical and electrical properties of block copolymer electrolytes. Macromolecules 40, 4578–4585 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bouchet, R. et al. Single-ion BAB triblock copolymers as highly efficient electrolytes for lithium-metal batteries. Nat. Mater. 12, 452–457 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Khurana, R., Schaefer, J. L., Archer, L. A. & Coates, G. W. Suppression of lithium dendrite growth using cross-linked polyethylene/poly(ethylene oxide) electrolytes: a new approach for practical lithium-metal polymer batteries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 7395–7402 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Harry, K. J., Hallinan, D. T., Parkinson, D. Y., MacDowell, A. A. & Balsara, N. P. Detection of subsurface structures underneath dendrites formed on cycled lithium metal electrodes. Nat. Mater. 13, 69–73 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Porz, L. et al. Mechanism of lithium metal penetration through inorganic solid electrolytes. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1701003 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cheng, E. J., Sharafi, A. & Sakamoto, J. Intergranular Li metal propagation through polycrystalline Li6.25Al0.25La3Zr2O12 ceramic electrolyte. Electrochim. Acta 223, 85–91 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Maier, J. Nanoionics: ion transport and electrochemical storage in confined systems. Nat. Mater. 4, 805–815 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Croce, F., Appetecchi, G. B., Persi, L. & Scrosati, B. Nanocomposite polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries. Nature 394, 456–458 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Liang, C. C. Conduction characteristics of the lithium iodide–aluminum oxide solid electrolytes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 120, 1289–1292 (1973).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Weinstein, L., Yourey, W., Gural, J. & Amatucci, G. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of electrochemically self-assembled lithium-iodine batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 155, A590–A598 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lu, Y., Tu, Z. & Archer, L. A. Stable lithium electrodeposition in liquid and nanoporous solid electrolytes. Nat. Mater. 13, 961–969 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Fan, L., Zhuang, H. L., Gao, L., Lu, Y. & Archer, L. A. Regulating Li deposition at artificial solid electrolyte interphases. J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 3483–3492 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Li, H., Richter, G. & Maier, J. Reversible formation and decomposition of LiF clusters using transition metal fluorides as precursors and their application in rechargeable Li batteries. Adv. Mater. 15, 736–739 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Budd, P. M. et al. Solution‐processed, organophilic membrane derived from a polymer of intrinsic microporosity. Adv. Mater. 16, 456–459 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Li, C. et al. Engineered transport in microporous materials and membranes for clean energy technologies. Adv. Mater. 30, 1704953 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Myung, S.-T. et al. Nickel-rich layered cathode materials for automotive lithium-ion batteries: achievements and perspectives. ACS Energy Lett. 2, 196–223 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Newman, J. & Chapman, T. W. Restricted diffusion in binary solutions. AlChE J. 19, 343–348 (1973).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bader, R. F. W. Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990).

  30. 30.

    Bader, R. F. W., Carroll, M. T., Cheeseman, J. R. & Chang, C. Properties of atoms in molecules: atomic volumes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 109, 7968–7979 (1987).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ozhabes, Y., Gunceler, D. & Arias, T. A. Stability and surface diffusion at lithium–electrolyte interphases with connections to dendrite suppression. Preprint at (2015).

  32. 32.

    Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sharada, S. M., Bligaard, T., Luntz, A. C., Kroes, G.-J. & Nørskov, J. K. SBH10: a benchmark database of barrier heights on transition metal surfaces. J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 19807–19815 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wellendorff, J. et al. Density functionals for surface science: exchange-correlation model development with Bayesian error estimation. Phys. Rev. B 85, 235149 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Berne, B. J., Cicotti, G. & Coker, D. F. Classical and Quantum Dynamics in Condensed Phase Simulations (World Scientific, 1998).

  36. 36.

    Bruce, P. G., Evans, J. & Vincent, C. A. Conductivity and transference number measurements on polymer electrolytes. Solid State Ionics 28–30, 918–922 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Suo, L., Hu, Y.-S., Li, H., Armand, M. & Chen, L. A new class of solvent-in-salt electrolyte for high-energy rechargeable metallic lithium batteries. Nat. Commun. 4, 1481 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Orilall, M. C. & Wiesner, U. Block copolymer based composition and morphology control in nanostructured hybrid materials for energy conversion and storage: solar cells, batteries and fuel cells. Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 520–535 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Peng, Q., Tseng, Y.-C., Darling, S. B. & Elam, J. W. Nanoscopic patterned materials with tunable dimensions via atomic layer deposition on block copolymers. Adv. Mater. 22, 5129–5133 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Llordes, A. et al. Linear topology in amorphous metal oxide electrochromic networks obtained via low-temperature solution processing. Nat. Mater. 15, 1267–1273 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Blochl, P. E. Projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953–17979 (1994).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Kresse, G. & Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758–1775 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Mortensen, J. J., Hansen, L. B. & Jacobsen, K. W. Real-space grid implementation of the projector augmented wave method. Phys. Rev. B 71, 035109 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Enkovaara, J. et al. Electronic structure calculations with GPAW: a real-space implementation of the projector augmented-wave method. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22, 253202 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Monkhorst, H. J. & Pack, J. D. Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188–5192 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 29, 273002 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Li, C. et al. A polysulfide-blocking microporous polymer membrane tailored for hybrid Li–sulfur flow batteries. Nano Lett. 15, 5724–5729 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ward, A. L. et al. Materials genomics screens for adaptive ion transport behavior by redox-switchable microporous polymer membranes in lithium–sulfur batteries. ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 399–406 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Markevich, E., Salitra, G. & Aurbach, D. Fluoroethylene carbonates an important component for the formation of an effective solid electrolyte interphase on anodes and cathodes for advanced Li-ion batteries. ACS Energy Lett. 2, 1337–1345 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Aurbach, D. et al. On the use of vinylene carbonate (VC) as an additive to electrolyte solutions for Li-ion batteries. Electrochim. Acta 47, 1423–1439 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy Integration and Optimization of Novel Ion Conducting Solids (IONICS) programme under grant no. DE-AR0000774. Z.A. was supported in part by the Phillips and Huang Family Fellowship in Energy from the College of Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. A.W.E. was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) under the Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) programme. Portions of this work, including polymer synthesis and characterization, were carried out as a User Project at the Molecular Foundry, which is supported by the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Synchrotron hard X-ray tomography was conducted on beamline 8.3.2 at the Advanced Light Source, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility under the same contract. NMC-622 cathodes were provided by B.J. Polzin from the Cell Analysis, Modeling and Prototyping (CAMP) Facility at Argonne National Laboratories. The computational portion of this work was performed on the Hercules computer cluster, which was funded through a Carnegie Mellon College of Engineering Equipment grant. We thank Y. Wang, D. Prendergast, D. Parkinson, P. Frischmann, Y.-M. Chiang, P. Albertus, S. Babinec and D. Cagle for helpful discussions.

Author information




B.A.H. designed and directed the study. C.F. characterized LiF@PIM-1 structure–transport relationships, carried out hard X-ray microtomography, and implemented LiF@PIM-1 composites in Li–NMC cells, with assistance from A.W.E. J.K. characterized LiF@PIM composites in Li–Li symmetric cells (plate-strip tests and EIS from assembly to formation and high-rate cycling) and in Li–S full cells. V.Viswanathan designed and directed the theoretical study. V.Venturi and Z.A. conducted the simulations. B.A.H., V.Venturi, C.F., V.Viswanathan and J.K. wrote the paper, with contributions from all co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett A. Helms.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

B.A.H. is named as an inventor on PCT patent application 62/431,300 submitted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that covers these and related classes of solid-ion conductors, as well as aspects of their use in electrochemical devices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Isosurfaces of charge density on LiF surface during Li hopping.

The charge density is obtained using self-consistent DFT. The Bader volume for each atom is calculated by partitioning the density into zero-flux surfaces.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Ion migration along a cation-rich LiF surface, modeled by adsorbed LiPF6.

The LiPF6 salt had its structure relaxed, and was subsequently placed on top of the LiF slab.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparing energy landscapes for Li+ migration along anion- and cation-rich LiF surfaces.

Minimum energy pathways for Li+ motion on both anion and cation-rich LiF surfaces obtained from nudged elastic band (NEB) simulations using the BEEF-vdW functional. The hopping barrier for the cation-rich system was calculated to be 0.14 ± 0.07 eV.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, Figs. 1–12 and Table 1.

Supplementary Video 1

Electrolyte permeability tests for LESA-3 and Celgard.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

g, XRD raw data of LESAs and LiF; h, Shear modulus and LiF grain size raw data

Source Data Fig. 3

a, Calculated Li+ hopping energy through LiF surface and bulk; c, EIS raw data of LESA-3 depending on temperature; d, EIS raw data of Celgard depending on temperature; e, Ahrrenius plot source data derived from Fig. 3c, d; f, Galvanostatic polarization source data for LESA-3; g, EIS source data before and after polarization of LESA-3

Source Data Fig. 4

a, Galvanostatic Li|Li symmetric cell cycling source data for LESA-3, PIM-1, and Celgard; b, EIS source data for LESA-3, PIM-1, and Celgard before Li|Li symmetric cell cycling; c, EIS source data after Li|Li symmetric cell cycling for LESA-3, PIM-1, and Celgard.

Source Data Fig. 5

a, Galvanostatic Li-NMC cell cycling raw data of LESA-3; b, Li|NMC cell rate capability source data for LESA-3, PIM-1, and Celgard; c, Li-NMC cell cycling source data for LESA-3, PIM-1, and Celgard

Source Data Fig. 6

a, Galvanostatic Li-S cell cycling source data of LESA-3; b, Galvanostatic Li-S cell cycling source data of Celgard; c, Li-S cell cycling source data for LESA-3 and Celgard

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Calculated activation energy raw data of anion- and cation-rich LiF surface for Li+ hopping

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fu, C., Venturi, V., Kim, J. et al. Universal chemomechanical design rules for solid-ion conductors to prevent dendrite formation in lithium metal batteries. Nat. Mater. 19, 758–766 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing