Interdependence of Support Wettability -Electrodeposition Rate - Sodium Metal Anode and SEI Microstructure

Chang-An Lo,Yixian Wang,Varun R Kankanallu,Aditya Singla,Dean Yen,Xiaoyin Zheng,Kaustubh G Naik,Bairav S Vishnugopi,Callum Campbell,Vikalp Raj,Chonghang Zhao,Lu Ma,Jianming Bai,Feipeng Yang,Ruipeng Li,Mingyuan Ge,John Watt,Partha P Mukherjee,David Mitlin,Yu-Chen Karen Chen-Wiegart
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202412550
2024-09-15
Abstract:This study examines how current collector support chemistry (sodiophilic intermetallic Na2Te vs. sodiophobic baseline Cu) and electrodeposition rate affect microstructure of sodium metal and its solid electrolyte interphase (SEI). Capacity and current (6 mAh cm-2, 0.5-3 mA cm-2) representative of commercially relevant mass loading in anode-free sodium metal battery (AF-SMBs) are analyzed. Synchrotron X-ray nanotomography and grazing-incidence wide-angle X-ray scattering (GIWAXS) are combined with cryogenic focused ion beam (cryo-FIB) microscopy. Highlighted are major differences in film morphology, internal porosity, and crystallographic preferred orientation e.g. (110) vs. (100) and (211) with support and deposition rate. Within the SEI, sodium fluoride (NaF) is more prevalent with Te-Cu versus sodium hydride (NaH) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) with baseline Cu. Due to competitive grain growth the preferred orientation of sodium crystallites depends on film thickness. Mesoscale modelling delineates the role of SEI (ionic conductivity, morphology) on electrodeposit growth and onset of electrochemical instability.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?