Abstract
Kinetics of LiFePO4, LiMn2O4, and LiCoO2 cathodes operating in 1 M LIPF6 solution in a mixture of ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate was deduced from impedance spectra taken at different temperatures. The most striking difference of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) curves is the impedance magnitude: tens of ohms in the case of LiFePO4, hundreds of ohms for LiMn2O4, and thousands of ohms for LiCoO2. Charge transfer resistances (R ct) for lithiation/delitiation processes estimated from the deconvolution procedure were 6.0 Ω (LiFePO4), 55.4 Ω (LiCoO2), and 88.5 Ω (LiMn2O4), respectively. Exchange current density for all the three tested cathodes was found to be comparable (0.55–1·10−2 mAcm−2, T = 298 K). Corresponding activation energies for the charge transfer process, \( {E}_{ct}^{\#} \), differed considerably: 66.3, 48.9, and 17.0 kJmol−1 for LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiFePO4, respectively. Consequently, temperature variation may have a substantial influence on exchange current densities (j o) in the case of LiMn2O4 and LiCoO2 cathodes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Rechargeable Li-ion batteries have become major power sources in a growing number of applications, including the automotive industry. This creates new requirements such as high rate performance during both charging and discharging. To describe the rate limiting process, all internal system resistances must be known. Among several processes taking place in Li-ion batteries, the Li+ charge transfer reaction at both the cathode and anode seems to be essential to gain insight into the internal cell impedance. The most studied anode materials are different carbons and LiMn2O4, while LiCoO2 and LiFePO4 are basic cathode materials. Kinetics of anodic [1–8] and cathodic processes [9–24] have been studied. Results of reported studies are not comparable. However, one of the most important factors is the resistance (impedance) associated with the charge transfer process, which has not been fully clarified for cathodes. The general aim of this study was to compare the charge transfer process taking place at LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiFePO4 cathodes using the same methodology and electrolytes.
Experimental
Materials
LiFePO4 (carbon coated, battery grade, Aldrich), LiMn2O4 (Aldrich), LiCoO2 (Aldrich), carbon black (CB, Fluka), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF, M W = 180,000 Fluka), lithium foil (Aldrich, 0.75 mm thick), and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP, Fluka) were used as received. LiPF6 solution (1 M) in a mixture of ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (EC + DMC 1:1, Aldrich) was used as electrolyte.
Tested cathodes were prepared on golden current collectors by a casting technique from a slurry of electrode material, carbon black, and PVdF suspension in NMP. After solvent (NMP) evaporation at 120 °C in a vacuum, a layer of the electrode, containing the active material, the electronic conductor (CB), and a binder (PVdF) was formed.
Procedures and measurements
Electrochemical properties of the cells were characterized using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and galvanostatic charging/discharging tests. The cycling measurements were taken with the use of the ATLAS 0461 MBI multichannel electrochemical system (Atlas-Sollich, Poland). Impedance spectroscopy measurements were performed using the Gamry 1000 multichannel electrochemical system (USA) at different temperatures. Tested anodes were separated from metal-lithium counter and reference electrode by the glass microfiber GF/A separator (Whatmann, 0.4–0.6-mm thick), all placed in an adopted Swagelok® connecting tube. Typically, the mass of the lithium was ca. 31 mg (0.785 cm2), while that of cathodes was 3.0–4.0 mg. The cells were assembled in a glove box in the dry argon atmosphere. After electrochemical measurements, the cells were disassembled and the cathodes were washed with DMC and dried in vacuum at room temperature. The morphology of electrodes was observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM, Tescan Vega 5153). The BET surface of pristine electrode materials was determined with an Autosorb iQ apparatus (Quantochrome Instruments, UK) and particle size distribution with a Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern Instruments Ltd., UK).
Results and discussion
BET surface, size distribution, and SEM images
Specific surface area of cathode materials from BET analysis was between 15.4 and 2.05 m2 g−1 (Table 1). Particle size distribution is shown in Fig. 1. LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 materials contained particles of diameters between 1 and 4 μm, with the maximum amount of ca. 2 μm. The size distribution of LiMn2O4 particles was broader (2 and 7 μm with a maximum at 4–6 μm). Figures 2, 3, and 4 show SEM images of cathodes (1) after electrode formation but before its cycling and (2) in the discharged state after the second cycle. In the case of all cathodes, their cycling results in the formation of small particles. In the case of LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4, the diameter of particles remained similar while LiCoO2 was converted into material of a smaller diameter.
Impedance and kinetic parameters
Figure 5 shows impedance spectra of tested cathode materials at room temperature. All curves consist of two semicircles at the high frequency region and a straight line at low frequencies (in the case of LiFePO4, only a part of the first semicircle can be seen). The most striking difference is the impedance (resistance) magnitude: tens of ohm in the case of LiFePO4, hundreds of ohm for LiMn2O4, and thousands of ohm for LiCoO2. Impedance spectra were deconvoluted according to the equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 6. It was selected from a library of circuits based on two time constants due to best correlation of fits with experimental data. Passivation film (R f) and charge transfer (R ct) resistances obtained from the deconvolution procedure are shown in Table 1. Both R f and R ct given in ohms are expressed versus the geometrical surface area of electrodes (1.27 cm2). It can be seen from Table 1 that resistance of the passivation film differs by two orders of magnitude depending on the electrode material: it was 4.9 Ω for LiFePO4, ca. 20 times more for LiMn2O4 (102 Ω), and as high as 645 Ω for LiCoO2. Charge transfer resistances (R ct) estimated from the deconvolution procedure were between 6.0 and 88.5 Ω (Table 1). Those resistances can be expressed against the anode real surface area A (estimated from BET measurements S = m·S BET) as R ct·S (expressed in Ωcm2).
Charge transfer resistances may be converted into surface area independent of exchange current densities:
Both R ct·S and j o values are given in Table 1. It can be seen that while charge transfer resistances differ for one order of magnitude, the corresponding R ct·S values are comparable: from ca. 4.7 to ca. 2.5 kΩcm2. Consequently, exchange current density for all the three cathode materials is also comparable, amounting to 10−2 mAcm−2: from ca. 0.55 10−2 mAcm−2 (LiMn2O4) to ca. 0.94·10−2–1.01 10−2 mAcm−2 (LiCoO2 and LiFePO4). Exchange current densities can be found in the literature for the LiFePO4 material [16–18]. In general, j o values are reported in a broad range between 10−5 mAcm−2 (5.19 10−5 mAcm−2 [17], 2.12 10−5 mAcm−2 [18]), and 10−1 mAcm−2 (1.7·10−1 mAcm−2 [16]). However, a comparison of the present results with literature data is difficult because (i) different solvents or electrolytes were used and (ii) the real surface areas of electrodes were not reported or even not taken into account in calculations. For the other cathodes (LiCoO2 and LiMn2O4), R ct·S and j o values are not available.
Kinetic parameters of cathodes may be compared to the corresponding data for the metallic lithium [9, 25–30] anode. A typical reported value is of the order of 10–10−1 mA cm−2, depending on the solvent, electrolyte, and its concentration [30]. Exchange current density values, expressed versus the active material specific surface, suggest that the kinetics of the charge transfer taking place at the cathode is slower in comparison to metallic lithium, while the surface area is larger. To our knowledge, available literature does not present exchange current densities for LiC6 (graphite) anodes working together with classical LiPF6 electrolytes. Generally, R ct values determined from impedance spectroscopy for a lithiated graphite anode can be found in the literature; however, resistance depends on the electrode size (real surface area), which usually is not mentioned. Therefore, the j o value for LiC6 was measured in the present study in the same way as for cathodes (the impedance spectrum for the LiC6 anode is shown in Fig. 7) and data are listed in Table 1. It can be seen that the exchange current density is comparable to that characteristic of anodes (0.77·10−2 mA cm−2).
Values of R f and R ct measured at different temperatures and plotted as −lnR = f(T −1) provide electrode size-independent charge transfer activation energy E #. Figure 8 shows the Arrhenius plot for a LiFePO4 cathode as an example. Both \( {E}_f^{\#} \) and \( {E}_{ct}^{\#} \) values for all cathodes are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that activation energies for the Li+ ion conduction in passivation film and charge transfer reaction are similar in the case of LiMn2O4 and LiCoO2 while in the case of the LiFePO4 cathode, both \( {E}_f^{\#} \) and \( {E}_{ct}^{\#} \) are considerably lower. Activation energies for the charge transfer process taking places at cathodes can be found in the literature [11–15]. Again, a comparison of data is difficult due to different solvents, electrolytes, and their concentrations. Some data are reported for polymer electrolytes. In addition, the state of cathodes intercalation is different, which is equivalent to a comparison of different compounds. For example, the \( {E}_{ct}^{\#} \) value found here for the LiCoO2/1 M LiPF6 in EC + DMC system is 48.9 kJmol−1, comparable to that reported for the LiCoO2/1 M LiClO4 or LiCF3SO3 in PC (46–48 kJmol−1 [14]). Both values were measured at a potential of ca. 3.9 V versus metallic lithium. The corresponding activation energy measured at a higher potential (4.2 V), equivalent to a lower degree of intercalation, was reported to be much lower (ca. 25 kJmol−1 [15]).
Compatibility of cathodes with the LiC6 anode
Li-ion batteries typically contain a carbon anode, which capacity (for graphite ca. 370 mAh g−1) is usually higher in comparison to that characteristic of cathodes (Table 2). However, the capacity of the CF x material is very high (ca. 900 mAh g−1), and hence, literature kinetic data for this cathode [31] are also shown in Table 2. The ratio of the cathode and graphite mass should be equal to the corresponding ratio of specific capacity (n c/n G = q c/q G) to maximize active material utilization. The ratio m c/m G indicates also the mass of the cathode compatible with 1 g of carbon material. It can be seen from Table 2 that the mass ratio n c/n G for LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiFePO4 cathodes is between 3.08 and 2.18 in contrast to the CF x material (n CFx/n G = 0.41). On the other hand, from the point of view of power, the ratio of anodic and cathodic charge transfer resistance should be close to 1 (a more resistive electrode determines the operation rate). The ratio of cathodic and anodic resistances R c/R G can be calculated from the ratio of electrode surface S G/S c and exchange current densities \( {j}_o^G \)/\( {j}_o^c \):
The R c/R G ratio values shown in Table 2 fall within a broad range between 0.13 and 10.04. While LiMn2O4 and LiCoO2 cathodes (R c/R G ≈ 1) are kinetically compatible with the carbon anode, the situation in the case of other cathodes is different. The LiFePO4 material shows resistance by one order of magnitude lower than the equivalent amount of carbon. In contrast, the CF x cathode is characterized by resistance by one order of magnitude higher than the equivalent amount of the anode.
Conclusions
The most striking difference of EIS curves is the impedance magnitude: tens of ohms in the case of LiFePO4, hundreds of ohms for LiMn2O4, and thousands of ohms for LiCoO2. Charge transfer resistances (R ct) for the lithiation/delitiation process estimated from the deconvolution procedure were 6.0 Ω (LiFePO4), 55.4 Ω (LiCoO2), and 88.5 Ω (LiMn2O4). Exchange current density for all the three tested cathodes was found to be comparable (0.55·10−2–1·10−2 mAcm−2, T = 298 K).
Corresponding activation energies for the charge transfer process, \( {E}_{ct}^{\#} \), differed considerably: 66.3, 48.9, and 17.0 kJmol−1 for LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiFePO4, respectively. Consequently, temperature variation may have a substantial effect on j o in the case of LiMn2O4 and LiCoO2 cathodes.
References
Abe T, Fukuda H, Iriyama Y, Ogumi Z (2004) Solvated Li-ion transfer at interface between graphite and electrolyte. J Electrochem Soc 151:A1120–A1123
Xu K, Lam Y, Zhang SS, Jow TR, Curtis TB (2007) Solvation sheath of Li+ in nonaqueous electrolytes and its implication of graphite/electrolyte interface chemistry. J Phys Chem C 111:7411–7421
Yamada Y, Iriyama Y, Abe T, Ogumi Z (2009) Kinetics of lithium ion transfer at the interface between graphite and liquid electrolytes: effects of solvent and surface film. Langmuir 25:12766–12770
Wibowo R, Jones SEW, Compton RG (2010) Investigating the electrode kinetics of the Li/Li+ couple in a wide range of room temperature ionic liquids at 298 K. J Chem Eng Data 55:1374–1376
Xu K, von Cresce A, Lee U (2010) Differentiating contributions to “ion transfer” barrier from interphasial resistance and Li+ desolvation at electrolyte/graphite interface. Langmuir 26:11538–11543
Jow TR, Allen JL, Marx M, Nechev K, Deveney B, Rickman S (2010) Electrolytes, SEI and charge discharge kinetics of Li-ion batteries. ECS Trans 25:3–12
Yamada Y, Iriyama Y, Abe T, Ogumi Z (2010) Kinetics of electrochemical insertion and extraction of lithium ion at SiO. J Electrochem Soc 157:A26–A30
Lewandowski A, Biegun M, Galinski M, Swiderska-Mocek A (2013) Kinetic analysis of Li|Li+ interphase in an ionic liquid electrolyte. J Appl Electrochem 43:367–374
Zeng X, Xu GL, Li Y, Luo X, Maglia F, Bauer C, Lux SF, Paschos O, Kim SJ, Lamp P, Lu J, Amine K, Chen Z (2016) Kinetic study of parasitic reactions in Lithium-ion batteries: a case study on LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:3446–3451
Kim J, Kim M, Noh S, Lee G, Shin D (2016) Enhanced electrochemical performance of surface modified LiCoO2 for all solid state lithium batteries. Ceramics Int 42:2140–2146
Li J, Yuan CF, Guo ZH, Zhang ZA, Lai YQ, Liu J (2012) Limiting factors for low-temperature performance in LiFePO4/Li and graphite/Li half cells. Electrochim Acta 59:69–74
Hanai K, Ueno M, Imanishi N, Hirano A, Yamamoto O, Takeda Y (2011) Interfacial resistance of the LiFePO4-C/PEO-LiTFSI composite electrode for dry-polymer lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources 196:6756–6761
Yamada I, Abe T, Iriyama Y, Ogumi Z (2003) Lithium-ion transfer at LiMn2O4 thin film electrode prepared by pulsed laser deposition. Electrochem Commun 5:502–505
Yamada I, Iriyama Y, Abe T, Ogumi Z (2007) Lithium-ion transfer on a LixCoO2 thin film electrode prepared by pulsed laser deposition – effect of orientation. J Power Sources 172:933–937
Baek B, Jung C (2010) Enhacement of the Li+ ion transfer reaction at the LiCoO2 interface by 1,3.5-trifluorobenzene. Electrochem Acta 55:3307–3311
Zhu YR, Xie Y, Zhu RS, Shu J, Jiang LJ, Qiao HB, Yi TF (2011) Kinetic study on LiFePO4-positive electrode material of lithium-ion battery. Ionics 17:437–441
Zhong S, Wu L, Liu J (2012) Sol–gel synthesis and electrochemical properties of 9LiFePO4·Li3V2(PO4)3/C composite cathode material for lithium ion batteries. Electrochem Acta 74:8–15
Cao J, Qu Y, Guo R (2012) La0.6Sr0.4CoO3−ı modified LiFePO4/C composite cathodes with improved electrochemical performances. Electrochem Acta 67:152–158
Zhang Y, Wang C-Y, Tang X (2011) Cycling degradation of an automotive LiFePO4 lithium-ion battery. J Power Sources 196:1513–1520
Ju H, Wu J, Xu Y (2013) Revisiting the electrochemical impedance behaviour of the LiFePO4/C cathode. J Chem Sci 125:687–693
Guo ZP, Konstantinov K, Wang GX, Liu HK, Dou SX (2003) Preparation of orthorhombic LiMnO2 material via the sol-gel process. J Power Sources 119-121:221–225
Lu D, Li W, Zuo X, Yuan Z, Huang Q (2007) Study on electrode kinetics of Li+ insertion in LixMn2O4 (0 ≤ x ≤ 1) by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. J Phys Chem C 111:12067–12074
Nobili F, Tossici R, Marassi R, Croce F, Scrosati B (2002) An AC impedance spectroscopic study of LixCoO2 at different temperatures. J Phys Chem B 106:3909–3915
Manjunatha H, Mahesh KC, Suresh GS, Venkatesha TV (2011) The study of lithium ion de-insertion/insertion in LiMn2O4 and determination of kinetic parameters in aqueous Li2SO4 solution using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Electrochem Acta 56:1439–1446
Nagasubramanian G, Attia AI, Halpert G (1994) A polyacrylonitrile-based gelled electrolyte: electrochemical kinetic studies. J Appl Electrochem 24:298–302
Liebenow C, Luhder K (1996) Electrochemical characterization of polymer precoated electrodes. J Appl Electrochem 26:689–692
Munichandaiah N, Shukla AK, LScanlon LG, Marsh RA (1996) On the stability of lithium turing ageing of Li/PEO8LiClO4/Li cells. J Power Sources 62:201–206
Wang XM, Iyoda M, Nishina T, Uchida I (1997) Microelectrode investigation of the lithium redox behavior in plasticized polymer electrolytes. J Power Sources 68:487–491
Wang XM, Nishina T, Uchida I (1997) Application of the microelectrode technique to the kinetic study of lithium deposition/dissolution and alloying in organic solutions. J Power Sources 68:483–486
Lee SI, Jung UH, Kim YS, Kim MH, Ahn DJ, Chun HS (2002) A study of electrochemical kinetics of lithium ion in organic solvents. Korean J Chem Eng 19:638–644
Lewandowski A, Jakobczyk P Kinetics of Na|CFx and Li|CFx systems. J Solid State Electrochem, In Press. doi:10.1007/s10008-016-3305-5
Xu K (2007) “Charge-transfer” process at graphite/electrolyte interface and the solvation sheath structure of Li+ in nonaqueous electrolytes. J Electrochem Soc 154:A162–A167
Acknowledgements
Support of grant NCN UMO/2013/09/B/ST4/00107 is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Swiderska-Mocek, A., Lewandowski, A. Kinetics of Li-ion transfer reaction at LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiFePO4 cathodes. J Solid State Electrochem 21, 1365–1372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-016-3499-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-016-3499-6