Talk:Solid-state electrolyte

Units of measure

You could write more beautiful units of measure with the math mode, ex: $10^{5}V/s$. Very interesting topic, well done! --Boogiewoogiefra (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Tecnology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2020.

The expression “solid ionic conductors” indicates a class of “solid electrolytes”, and then the word “electrolyte”, after the expression “solid ionic conductor”, is redundant, though such expression “solid ionic conductor electrolyte” is sometime used in the literature. The introduction refers to the particular case of solid-state lithium ion batteries to highlight advantages and expectations of a technology shift from liquid to solid electrolytes. This is understandable, for obvious reasons. However, solid electrolytes include a rich variety of materials and have much wider interest and applications, relating to not only batteries, but also fuel cells and sensors. The figure in the introduction is not adequate; in fact, it does not provide any additional or explanatory information. Since the introduction addresses the case of solid-state lithium ion battery, a figure that shows schematically the basic working principle of such a battery compared to that of a lithium ion battery with a liquid electrolyte would be more appropriate.

In the section “Properties”, the statement: “high mechanical strength (at least tens of MPa) that can be measured through a traditional tensile test” is simplistic, since it overlooks the issue of measuring mechanical properties of solid electrolyte materials, which are often relatively peculiar or unusual materials. Of course, tensile testing and more generally the measurement of mechanical properties by universal machine testing, is a method that has been used also for solid electrolyte materials, in particular polymer and polymer composite electrolytes. However, special equipment may be required, with regard to testing and measuring capabilities, or even dedicated equipment depending on the nature and shape of the material. In this regard, the expression “traditional tensile test” is misleading. Moreover, mechanical properties such as hardness, fracture toughness and elastic modulus, which are of practical interest for (particularly inorganic) solid electrolytes, require other techniques, such as indentation testing or acoustic measurements techniques. About “compatibility with electrode material”, the statement “that [it] can be measured through EIS analysis repeated over more consecutive days” needs some clarification. Of course, EIS allows monitoring cell resistance (e.g. electrode/solid electrolyte interface resistance) as a function of time, but –in particular– this is done during charge / discharge cycling, to reveal in fact possible ageing effects due to the irreversible modifications at the electrode / electrolyte interface.

For “casting”, the link to “polymer solution casting” is not appropriate.

In the “opportunities” section, the statement that “SSE guarantees a homogeneous contact etc.…” is more an expectation than a consolidated achievement.

Majorett (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)