Design of Solid-State Electrolytes for High-Performance All-Solid-State Batteries

Olaide Ayokunmi Oladosu; Abdulsalam Babaniya Muhammad; MICHEAL Abimbola OLADOSU; Moses Adondua Abah; Timothy Kwame Asem; Chisom Felix Umeh; Franklin Ogonna Ede

doi:10.33961/jecst.2025.00752

J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol > Volume 17(3); 2026 > Article

Oladosu, Muhammad, OLADOSU, Abah, Asem, Umeh, and Ede: Design of Solid-State Electrolytes for High-Performance All-Solid-State Batteries

Mini-Review

Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology 2026;17(3):241-255.

Published online: November 11, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33961/jecst.2025.00752

Design of Solid-State Electrolytes for High-Performance All-Solid-State Batteries

Olaide Ayokunmi Oladosu², Abdulsalam Babaniya Muhammad³, MICHEAL Abimbola OLADOSU^1,^*, Moses Adondua Abah⁴, Timothy Kwame Asem⁵, Chisom Felix Umeh⁶, Franklin Ogonna Ede⁷

¹University of Lagos, LAGOS, Nigeria

²Department of Computer Science Faculty of Science and Technology Babcock University, Ilishan, Ilisan-Remo, Nigeria

³Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Mauduguri, Borno State, Mauduguri, Nigeria

⁴Department of Biochemistry Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences Federal University of Wukari, Wukari Taraba State, Wukari, Nigeria

⁵Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Central Florida, Florida, United States

⁶Department of Chemical Engineering School of Engineering and Engineering Technology Federal University of Technology Owerri, Owerri, Nigeria

⁷Department of Computer Science Faculty: of Physical Sciences University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

^*CORRESPONDENCE T: +2348035264566 E: mikeoladosu@gmail.com

Received August 5, 2025 Accepted October 9, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

All-solid-state batteries (ASSBs) utilizing solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) offer significant advantages over conventional liquid-electrolyte systems, including enhanced safety, improved thermal stability, and the potential for higher cell-level energy density through stable operation of high-energy electrodes such as lithium metal anodes. However, the practical implementation of ASSBs faces considerable challenges related to ionic conductivity at ambient temperature, electrode-electrolyte interfacial engineering, manufacturing scalability, and material recyclability. This review examines the fundamental design principles and recent advances in solid-state electrolyte development, focusing on inorganic (oxide and sulfide), polymeric, and hybrid electrolyte systems. Critical manufacturing challenges, including high-temperature processing requirements, interfacial instability, and the absence of scalable production methods, are analysed. Recycling complexities arising from the chemically inert nature of solid components and their robust interlayer bonding are discussed, emphasizing the need for direct recycling approaches and sustainable material selection. Strategies for commercial viability include roll-to-roll manufacturing, utilization of earth-abundant materials, and advanced interfacial engineering. Addressing these fundamental challenges will be essential for the successful deployment of ASSBs in electric vehicles, grid storage, and consumer electronics applications.

Keywords: All-solid-state batteries, Solid-state electrolytes, Electrode-electrolyte interfacial engineering, Ionic conductivity, Manufacturing scalability, Energy storage

INTRODUCTION

The rapidly growing demand for high-performance energy storage systems with superior safety, energy density, and cycle life has driven significant advances in battery technology beyond conventional liquid-electrolyte lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) [1]. Traditional liquid electrolyte systems face fundamental limitations, including safety hazards due to flammable organic solvents, limited thermal stability, and electrochemical instability that restricts the use of high-energy electrode materials [2]. These constraints have generated substantial interest in all-solid-state batteries (ASSBs) employing solid-state electrolytes (SSEs), which offer pathways to address these limitations while enabling next-generation high-performance energy storage systems [3].

Solid-state electrolytes represent a paradigm shift from liquid to solid ionic-conducting materials that can facilitate lithium-ion transport while providing inherent safety advantages [4]. Unlike conventional liquid electrolytes, SSEs are non-flammable, thereby significantly reducing the risk of thermal runaway and fire hazards that pose critical safety concerns in traditional lithium-ion systems [5]. Additionally, SSEs can potentially enable stable operation of lithium metal anodes, which possess exceptionally high theoretical specific capacity (3,860 mAh/g) compared to conventional graphite anodes (372 mAh/g) [4]. However, this potential comes with significant challenges, including dendrite formation, volume changes during cycling, and interfacial stability issues that must be carefully managed [6]. Fig. 1 presents a schematic comparison of liquid vs. solid-state battery architectures, highlighting their safety and performance differences.

The development of high-performance SSEs requires achieving multiple critical objectives simultaneously: high ionic conductivity at ambient temperature (>10^-4 S/cm), expansive electrochemical stability windows, excellent mechanical properties, chemical compatibility with electrode materials, and cost-effective manufacturing scalability [7]. Various classes of solid-state electrolytes have been investigated, including inorganic ceramics (oxides and sulphides), polymer-based systems, and hybrid composites, each presenting distinct advantages and limitations [8]. Table 1 below shows the overview of SSE classification and key characteristics.

Ceramic electrolytes such as Li₇La₃Zr₂O₁₂ (LLZO) exhibit high ionic conductivity and chemical stability but suffer from brittleness and interfacial compatibility issues [9]. Polymer electrolytes offer superior mechanical flexibility and processability but typically demonstrate lower ionic conductivity at room temperature [10]. Hybrid systems attempt to combine the advantages of both approaches while mitigating individual limitations [11].

The primary challenges in SSE development encompass achieving adequate ionic conductivity at operating temperatures, ensuring stable electrode-electrolyte interfaces, managing chemo-mechanical volume changes during cycling, suppressing lithium dendrite formation, and developing scalable manufacturing processes [12]. Current research efforts focus on advanced materials design, nanostructuring approaches, dopant incorporation, interfacial engineering, and innovative processing techniques to overcome these barriers and realise the full potential of all-solid-state battery technology [13].

TRANSITION FROM LIQUID TO SOLID-STATE ELECTROLYTES

Safety Enhancements through Solid-State Electrolytes

The primary motivation for transitioning from liquid to solid-state electrolytes centres on fundamental safety improvements [2]. Conventional liquid electrolytes, while exhibiting high ionic conductivity (typically 10^-3 to 10^-2 S/cm), are inherently flammable due to their organic solvent components, creating significant safety risks during battery abuse conditions such as overcharging, short circuits, or mechanical damage [14]. Thermal runaway, a cascading process where increasing temperature leads to uncontrolled energy release, represents a critical safety concern for liquid-based systems, particularly under abuse conditions [15].

Solid-state electrolytes are generally non-flammable and exhibit superior thermal stability, substantially reducing thermal runaway risks and fire hazards [16]. This enhanced thermal stability makes SSEs particularly attractive for applications requiring elevated safety standards, including electric vehicles and stationary energy storage systems [17]. Furthermore, the mechanical integrity of solid electrolytes can help suppress lithium dendrite formation - metallic lithium growths that can penetrate separators and cause internal short circuits in conventional batteries [6]. However, it should be noted that dendrite suppression in solid electrolytes is a complex phenomenon involving the interplay of shear modulus, defect density, current distribution, grain boundary effects, and applied pressure, rather than simply mechanical “robustness” [18]. Fig. 2 shows the comparison of thermal runaway behaviour in liquid vs. solid-state systems.

Enabling Higher Cell-Level Energy Density

Solid-state electrolytes enable higher cell-level energy density primarily by facilitating the stable operation of high-energy electrode materials, particularly lithium metal anodes [19]. Conventional liquid electrolytes typically operate within practical voltage windows limited by electrode stability and safety considerations, though the electrolytes themselves may have more expansive electrochemical stability windows (~4.5–5.0 V) [20]. SSEs can provide expanded operational stability windows when properly engineered with compatible electrode materials and protective interlayers [21].

The integration of lithium metal anodes in all-solid-state systems could potentially enhance energy density significantly compared to conventional graphite-based anodes [4]. However, realising this potential requires careful engineering of thin electrolytes, controlled interfacial losses, and stable solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation [22]. The practical achievement of these theoretical energy density improvements remains contingent upon overcoming fundamental challenges in ionic conductivity, interfacial stability, and manufacturing scalability [23].

CLASSIFICATION AND PROPERTIES OF SOLID-STATE ELECTROLYTES

Inorganic Solid-State Electrolytes

Inorganic SSEs comprise primarily ceramic materials, including both oxide and sulfide-based systems [24]. These materials generally exhibit high ionic conductivity and chemical stability, making them promising candidates for high-performance applications [25]. Table 2 presents the Comparative properties of major inorganic SSE systems.

Oxide-Based Electrolytes

Oxide-based solid electrolytes are inorganic ceramics characterized by good chemical stability and thermal resistance. However, they typically exhibit lower ionic conductivity compared to sulfide systems and suffer from mechanical brittleness [9].

Lithium Lanthanum Zirconium Oxide (LLZO) represents one of the most extensively studied oxide-based SSEs [9]. Garnet-type Li₇La₃Zr₂O₁₂ exhibits ionic conductivity of approximately 10^-4 S/cm at room temperature and demonstrates excellent chemical stability and non-flammability [26]. However, LLZO faces significant challenges, including brittleness, grain boundary resistance, and interfacial compatibility issues with lithium metal anodes [27]. These limitations have prompted extensive research into dopant incorporation and processing modifications [28].

Aluminium-doped LLZO (Li₆.₂₅Al₀.₂₅La₃Zr₂O₁₂) has shown improved cubic phase stability and enhanced ionic conductivity exceeding 10^-3 S/cm through the creation of favourable lithium-ion conduction pathways [29]. Other garnet-type electrolytes, such as Li₆La₂Zr₁.₇₅Ta₀.₂₅O₁₂, have demonstrated high ionic conductivity and electrochemical stability, though challenges remain regarding interfacial stability and manufacturing complexity [30].

NASICON-type electrolytes such as Li₁.₃Al₀.₃Ti₁.₇(PO₄)₃ (LATP) offer three-dimensional lithium-ion conduction frameworks [31]. Dopant incorporation with Mg or Ta has been shown to enhance conductivity and structural stability, though these materials typically exhibit lower conductivity than garnet-type systems [32]. Fig. 3 illustrates the Crystal structures of major oxide-based SSEs (LLZO, LATP, LISICON).

Sulfide-Based Electrolytes

Sulfide-based electrolytes have attracted significant attention due to their superior ionic conductivity, often exceeding that of oxide-based systems [33]. These materials generally exhibit better deformability compared to oxides and can provide improved electrode contact [34].

Li₁₀GeP₂S₁₂ (LGPS) represents a benchmark sulfide-based electrolyte with exceptionally high ionic conductivity (up to 10^-3 S/cm), comparable to liquid electrolytes [35]. However, LGPS and related sulfide electrolytes are extremely sensitive to moisture, requiring careful handling and processing under inert atmospheres [36]. Additionally, the direct Li|sulfide interface is known to be chemically reactive, generally requiring protective interlayers and controlled pressure for stable cycling, contrary to simplified claims of broad compatibility [37].

Li₂S-P₂S₅ glass-ceramic systems have been extensively investigated due to their relatively low activation energy for lithium-ion conduction [38]. These materials can be processed at moderate temperatures and exhibit good mechanical properties, though moisture sensitivity remains a critical limitation for large-scale implementation [39].

Polymeric Solid-State Electrolytes

Polymeric electrolytes offer distinct advantages, including mechanical flexibility, ease of processing, and the ability to form uniform thin films [40]. However, they typically exhibit lower ionic conductivity compared to inorganic materials, particularly at ambient temperature [10]. Table 3 highlights the properties of major polymer electrolyte systems.

Polyethylene Oxide (PEO)-Based Electrolytes

PEO-based electrolytes are among the most extensively studied polymer systems for solid-state batteries [41]. When combined with lithium salts (such as LiTFSI or LiPF₆), PEO forms amorphous regions that facilitate lithium-ion conduction [42]. However, PEO-based electrolytes exhibit low ionic conductivity at room temperature (~10⁻⁵ S/cm), with adequate performance typically requiring elevated temperatures (60-80°C) to achieve sufficient ionic mobility through enhanced polymer segmental motion [43].

Polymer-in-salt electrolytes employ high concentrations of lithium salts within polymer matrices to enhance ionic conductivity [44]. This approach addresses the low conductivity limitation of pure polymer electrolytes, though challenges persist regarding mechanical integrity and interfacial stability [45].

Advanced Polymer Systems

Block copolymer electrolytes, particularly polystyrene-b-polyethylene oxide (PS-b-PEO), have been investigated for their ability to enhance ionic conductivity while maintaining mechanical integrity [46]. The PS blocks provide mechanical strength while PEO blocks facilitate ion conduction, though performance remains temperature-dependent [47].

Hybrid and Composite Electrolyte Systems

Hybrid electrolytes combine ceramic and polymeric phases to leverage the advantages of both material classes while mitigating individual limitations [11].

Polymer-Ceramic Composites

LLZO-PEO composites integrate high-conductivity ceramic particles within flexible polymer matrices [48]. The ceramic phase provides ionic conductivity pathways while the polymer phase offers mechanical flexibility and improved electrode contact [49]. These composites can reduce interfacial resistance and improve mechanical stability, though optimising the ceramic-polymer interface remains challenging [50].

Sulfide-polymer composites incorporating materials like Li₂S-P₂S₅ within polymer matrices show promise for combining high ionic conductivity with processability [51]. However, the moisture sensitivity of sulfide components requires careful engineering of protective polymer phases [52]. Table 4 presents the performance comparison of hybrid electrolyte systems.

INTERFACIAL ENGINEERING AND ION TRANSPORT

Interfacial Compatibility Challenges

Interfacial compatibility represents one of the most critical challenges in all-solid-state battery development [53]. Unlike liquid electrolytes that can flow to maintain contact, solid-solid interfaces are susceptible to void formation, delamination, and high interfacial resistance [54].

Poor Physical Contact between solid electrolytes and electrodes can result from surface roughness, thermal expansion mismatches, and chemo-mechanical volume changes during lithiation/delithiation cycles [55]. These volume changes, rather than thermal expansion alone, represent the primary driver of interfacial degradation during cycling [56].

Dendrite Formation in lithium metal systems is primarily driven by current focusing at defects and interfacial irregularities, rather than simply inadequate adhesion [57]. Current distribution non-uniformities at grain boundaries, surface defects, and regions of high interfacial resistance can promote localised lithium deposition and subsequent dendrite growth [58]. Fig. 5 presents the mechanisms of dendrite formation and suppression in solid electrolytes.

Interfacial Engineering Strategies

Protective Interlayers

Lithium Phosphorous Oxynitride (LiPON) serves as a widely-used protective interlayer that provides ionic conductivity while forming stable interfaces with both electrodes and electrolytes [59]. LiPON layers can suppress dendrite formation and reduce interfacial resistance, though their effectiveness depends on thickness and processing conditions [60].

Oxide interlayers such as LiNbO₃ and Li₃PO₄ are essential for achieving stable high-voltage operation with oxide-based SSEs [61]. These protective layers prevent direct contact between the electrolyte and high-voltage cathode materials, enabling practical utilization of expansive electrochemical stability windows [62].

Surface Modifications

Buffer layers composed of materials like LiBOB or composite systems can improve compatibility between electrolytes and electrodes by accommodating mechanical stresses and providing stable chemical interfaces [63].

Electronic conductor integration should be carefully distinguished from ionic conductivity enhancement [64]. Carbon-based coatings provide electronic conductivity and structural support but do not serve as ionic conduction channels [65]. Table 5 gives a summary of interfacial engineering approaches and their effectiveness.

Ion Transport Mechanisms

Conductivity Limitations

Grain boundary resistance in ceramic electrolytes often limits overall ionic conductivity, even when bulk conductivity is high [66]. Grain boundaries may exhibit different ionic conduction properties compared to bulk materials, creating bottlenecks for ion transport [67].

Temperature dependence remains a significant challenge for many SSE systems [68]. While sulfide electrolytes can achieve high conductivity at room temperature, many oxide and polymer systems require elevated temperatures for adequate performance [69].

Enhancement Strategies

Nanostructuring can reduce grain boundary resistance and enhance ion transport pathways [70]. Careful control of particle size, morphology, and assembly can improve overall conductivity while maintaining mechanical integrity [71].

Composite architectures that create percolating networks of high-conductivity phases can enhance overall ionic transport while preserving mechanical properties [72]. Fig. 6 below illustrates ion transport pathways in nanostructured vs. conventional SSEs.

ADVANCED DESIGN STRATEGIES

Nanostructuring Approaches

Nanostructuring involves precise control of material morphology and particle size at the nanoscale to enhance ionic transport and interfacial properties [73]. Key advantages include increased surface area for electrode interaction, reduced ion diffusion distances, and mitigation of grain boundary resistance effects [74].

Nanoparticle dispersion in composite systems can create percolating networks that enhance ionic conductivity while maintaining mechanical flexibility [75]. However, achieving uniform distribution and preventing agglomeration remain significant challenges [76].

Dopant Incorporation

Strategic dopant incorporation can significantly enhance SSE properties by creating favourable defect sites, stabilising desired crystal phases, and improving ionic conductivity [77].

Aliovalent doping in garnet systems, such as Al³⁺ substitution in LLZO, stabilizes the cubic phase and creates lithium vacancies that enhance ionic mobility [78]. Similarly, Ta⁵⁺ or Nb⁵⁺ doping can improve phase stability and conductivity [79].

Isovalent substitution can optimize lattice parameters and reduce activation energies for ionic conduction [80]. Careful selection of dopant species based on ionic radius and electronic properties is essential for achieving desired improvements [81].

Composite System Design

Advanced composite systems seek to combine complementary properties of different material classes while minimizing individual limitations [82].

Three-phase composites incorporating ceramic, polymer, and functional additives can provide optimized combinations of ionic conductivity, mechanical flexibility, and interfacial stability [83]. However, increasing system complexity requires careful optimization of processing conditions and component interactions [84]. Table 6 presents the design parameters and performance metrics for advanced composite systems.

MANUFACTURING AND SCALABILITY CHALLENGES

Processing Requirements

High-temperature sintering required for many ceramic SSEs (typically 1000-1200°C) presents significant manufacturing challenges, including energy consumption, equipment costs, and thermal stress management [85]. These processing requirements can also lead to interfacial reactions and degradation of sensitive components [86].

Atmosphere control is critical for sulfide-based systems due to extreme moisture sensitivity [87]. Manufacturing facilities require sophisticated environmental controls and inert atmosphere processing capabilities [88].

Scalable Manufacturing Approaches

Tape casting and roll-to-roll processing offer potential pathways for large-scale SSE production, particularly for thin-film applications [89]. These techniques can provide uniform thickness control and continuous manufacturing capabilities [90].

Solution-based processing methods, where applicable, can reduce energy requirements and enable lowtemperature fabrication, though they may be limited by material solubility and chemical compatibility requirements [91].

Cost Considerations

Raw material costs for many advanced SSE systems, particularly those containing rare earth elements (La, Ge) or expensive components, present significant barriers to commercialization [92]. Research into earth-abundant alternatives is essential for large-scale deployment [93].

Processing complexity and yield optimization remain critical factors in determining manufacturing costs [94]. Simplification of processing steps and improvement of manufacturing yields are essential for economic viability [95].

RECYCLING AND SUSTAINABILITY

Recycling Challenges

All-solid-state batteries present unique recycling challenges compared to conventional lithium-ion systems due to the chemically inert nature of solid components and their robust interlayer bonding [96].

Conventional hydrometallurgical methods used for traditional LIB recycling are insufficient for many SSE components [97]. Ceramic electrolytes are typically insoluble in standard leaching solutions, requiring alternative approaches for material recovery [98].

Physical disassembly is complicated by strong adhesion between solid layers and the absence of liquid electrolytes that can be easily drained [99]. Mechanical separation methods must be developed to separate different components without material degradation [100] effectively.

Advanced Recycling Strategies

Direct recycling approaches that preserve the structure and functionality of electrode and electrolyte materials show promise for SSE systems [101]. These methods can potentially recover materials with minimal processing, reducing energy requirements and maintaining material performance [102].

Thermal treatment methods may be necessary for organic component removal and material recovery, though temperature requirements must be carefully controlled to prevent unwanted phase transitions or decomposition [103].

Sustainable Design Principles

Material selection should prioritize earth-abundant elements and recyclable components where possible [104]. Avoiding scarce or toxic materials can improve sustainability profiles and reduce supply chain vulnerabilities [105].

Design for disassembly principles should be incorporated during battery design phases to facilitate end-of-life material recovery and reduce recycling complexity [106].

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND COMMERCIALIZATION

Technology Readiness

Current SSE technology spans a wide range of technology readiness levels, from fundamental research to pilot-scale demonstrations [107]. Oxide-based systems have achieved higher manufacturing maturity but face performance limitations, while sulfide-based systems show superior performance but require significant manufacturing infrastructure development [108].

Market Deployment Timeline

Near-term applications (2025–2030) likely include niche high-value applications such as medical devices, aerospace, and premium electronics where performance advantages justify higher costs [109].

Medium-term deployment (2030–2035) may see broader adoption in electric vehicles and grid storage as manufacturing scales increase and costs decrease [110].

Long-term prospects (2035+) could include widespread replacement of liquid-electrolyte systems if fundamental challenges in cost, performance, and manufacturing are successfully addressed [111].

Critical Research Directions

Interfacial engineering remains the most critical research area, requiring fundamental advances in understanding and controlling solid-solid interfaces [112].

Manufacturing innovation is essential for cost reduction and quality control, particularly for complex multilayer structures and sensitive processing requirements [113].

System-level integration research is needed to optimize all-solid-state battery performance at the cell and pack levels, including thermal management, mechanical design, and safety systems [114].

CONCLUSIONS

Solid-state electrolytes represent a transformative approach to next-generation energy storage, offering pathways to enhanced safety, improved performance, and new application opportunities through the stable operation of high-energy electrode materials. This comprehensive review has examined the fundamental principles, current challenges, and recent advances across the major classes of solid-state electrolytes, including inorganic ceramics, polymeric systems, and hybrid composites.

The successful development of commercially viable all-solid-state batteries will require continued advances in materials science, interfacial engineering, manufacturing processes, and system-level integration. Interdisciplinary collaboration between materials scientists, electrochemists, manufacturing engineers, and system designers will be essential for overcoming the complex technical challenges that remain. While significant hurdles persist, the potential benefits of all-solid-state battery technology - including enhanced safety, improved performance, and new application possibilities - justify continued intensive research and development efforts toward this transformative energy storage technology.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledged all the authors of this work for their valuable contribution.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

No special funding was received for this research work.

Fig. 1.

Schematic comparison of liquid vs. solid-state battery Architectures showing safety and performance differences. Source: Adapted from Nature Energy.

Fig. 2.

Comparison of thermal runaway behaviour in liquid vs. solid-state systems. Source: Journal of Power Sources.

Fig. 3.

Crystal structures of major oxide-based SSEs (LLZO, LATP, LISICON). Source: Advanced Materials compilation.

Fig. 4.

shows microstructural evolution in hybrid polymer-ceramic composites. Source: Nature Materials.

Fig. 5.

Mechanisms of dendrite formation and suppression in solid electrolytes. Source: Advanced Materials Interfaces.

Fig. 6.

Ion transport pathways in nanostructured vs. conventional SSEs. Source: Nature Energy.

Table 1.

Overview of SSE classification and key characteristics

SSE Category	Material Examples	Primary Advantages	Key Limitations	Target Applications
Oxide-based	LLZO, LATP, LAGP	High stability, non-flammable, wide ESW	Brittleness, interfacial resistance	EVs, grid storage
Sulfide-based	LGPS, Li₂S-P₂S₅	High conductivity, good deformability	Moisture sensitivity, narrow ESW	High-power applications
Polymer-based	PEO-LiTFSI, PVdF-HFP	Flexibility, processability, and thin films	Low RT conductivity, limited stability	Wearables, flexible devices
Hybrid systems	PEO-LLZO, PVDF-ceramic	Balanced properties, tunable performance	Processing complexity, optimisation challenges	Next-generation EVs

Source: Comprehensive Literature review

Table 2.

Comparative properties of major inorganic SSE systems

Material	Ionic Conductivity (S/cm, 25ºC)	ESW (V)	Density (g/cm³)	Sintering Temp (ºC)	Key Challenges
Li₇La₃Zr₂O₁₂	3.0 × 10⁻⁴	0-6	5.09	1100-1200	Grain boundaries, Li reactivity
Li₁.₃Al₀.₃Ti₁.₇(PO₄)₃	7.0 × 10⁻⁴	2.8-4.2	2.95	800-900	Ti reduction, limited ESW
Li₁₀GeP₂S₁₂	1.2 × 10⁻²	1.7-2.1	2.84	550	Moisture sensitivity, narrow ESW
Li₆PS₅Cl	1.3 × 10⁻³	1.0-2.5	2.30	300-400	Chemical stability, processing
Li₂S-P₂S₅ (70:30)	1.7 × 10⁻³	0-5	2.15	280	H₂S evolution, Li incompatibility

Source: Chemical Reviews compilation

Table 3.

Properties of major polymer electrolyte systems

Polymer System	Ionic Conductivity (S/cm)	Operating Temp (°C)	Mechanical Properties	Advantages	Limitations
PEO-LiTFSI	10⁻⁵ (25ºC), 10⁻³ (80ºC)	60-80	Flexible, low modulus	Easy processing, stable SEI	Temperature dependence
PVDF-HFP	10⁻⁴ (25ºC)	25-60	Semi-crystalline	Good mechanical strength	Lower conductivity
PAN-based	10⁻³ (25ºC)	25-80	High strength	RT performance	Complex synthesis
Polymer-in-salt	10⁻⁴ (25ºC)	25-60	Variable	High Li⁺ transport	Salt crystallization
Block copolymers	10⁻⁵ (25ºC)	40-90	Tunable	Structural control	Limited conductivity

Source: Materials Today Energy review

Table 4.

Performance comparison of hybrid electrolyte systems

Composite System	Ceramic Content (wt%)	Ionic Conductivity (S/cm, 25ºC)	Li⁺ Transference Number	Mechanical Modulus (GPa)	Key Benefits
PEO-LLZO	10-30	1.2 × 10⁻⁴	0.35	0.1-1.0	Balanced properties
PVDF-LAGP	20-40	8.5 × 10⁻⁵	0.42	0.5-2.0	Good interfacial stability
PEO-Li₆.₄La₃Zr₁.₄Ta₀.₆O₁₂	15-25	2.1 × 10⁻⁴	0.38	0.2-0.8	High stability window
Polymer-sulfide glass	30-50	1.5 × 10⁻³	0.25	0.01-0.1	High conductivity
Three-phase composite	20-35	3.2 × 10⁻⁴	0.40	0.3-1.5	Optimized performance

Source: Advanced Energy Materials compilation

Table 5.

Summary of interfacial engineering approaches and their effectiveness

Approach	Materials/Methods	Primary Function	Effectiveness	Limitations	Best Applications
Protective interlayers	LiPON, Li₃PO₄, LiNbO₃	Chemical isolation, ionic conduction	High	Thickness optimization	High-voltage cathodes
Surface coatings	Al₂O₃, ZrO₂, carbon	Mechanical protection, SEI modification	Moderate	Processing complexity	Li-metal anodes
Buffer layers	LiBOB, organic polymers	Stress accommodation	Moderate	Limited stability	Volume-change anodes
Interface doping	Mg, Al at grain boundaries	Conductivity enhancement	High	Precise control needed	Ceramic electrolytes
Mechanical pressure	Stack compression, spring loading	Contact enhancement	High	System complexity	All interfaces
Liquid-phase sintering	Li₂CO₃, LiOH addition	Densification, bonding	Moderate	Impurity control	Manufacturing

Source: Chemical Reviews compilation

Table 6.

Design parameters and performance metrics for advanced composite systems

Design Parameter	Optimal Range	Performance Impact	Control Methods	Trade-offs
Ceramic loading	20-40 wt%	Ionic conductivity (+), flexibility (-)	Mixing ratio, particle size	Conductivity vs. processability
Particle size	100-500 nm	Interface area (+), agglomeration (-)	Ball milling, synthesis control	Dispersion vs. conductivity
Polymer molecular weight	10⁵-10⁶ g/mol	Mechanical strength (+), ion mobility (-)	Synthesis conditions	Strength vs. conductivity
Processing temperature	80-120oC	Interfacial bonding (+), degradation (-)	Controlled atmosphere, time	Quality vs. energy cost
Electrolyte thickness	10-50 μm	Energy density (+), resistance (-)	Coating techniques	Performance vs. safety
Crosslinking density	5-15%	Stability (+), flexibility (-)	Initiator concentration, UV dose	Durability vs. processability

Source: Materials Horizons compilation

REFERENCES

[1] M. Armand and J.-M. Tarascon, Nature, 2008, 451, 652–657.

[2] D. Aurbach, B. Markovsky, A. Shechter, Y. Ein-Eli and H. Cohen, J. Electrochem. Soc., 1996, 143(12), 3809–3815.

[3] J. Wan, J. Xie, X. Kong, Z. Liu, K. Liu, F. Shi, A. Pei, H. Chen, W. Chen, J. Chen, X. Zhang, L. Zong, J. Wang, L.-Q. Chen, J. Qin and Y. Cui, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2019, 14(7), 705–711.

[4] R. Chen, W. Qu, X. Guo, L. Li and F. Wu, Mater. Horiz., 2016, 3(6), 487–516.

[5] J. G. Kim, B. Son, S. Mukherjee, N. Schuppert, A. Bates, O. Kwon, M. J. Choi, H. Y. Chung and S. Park, J. Power Sources, 2015, 282, 299–322.

[6] S. Li, S.-Q. Zhang, L. Shen, Q. Liu, J.-B. Ma, W. Lv, Y.-B. He and Q.-H. Yang, Adv. Sci., 2020, 7(5), 1903088.

[7] J. B. Goodenough and K.-S. Park, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135(4), 1167–1176.

[8] J. Janek and W. G. Zeier, Nat. Energy, 2016, 1(9), 16141.

[9] X. Ji, Y. Zhang, M. Cao, Q. Gu, H. Wang, J. Yu, Z.-H. Guo and X. Zhou, J. Adv. Ceram., 2022, 11(6), 835–861.

[10] X. Tao, Y. Liu, W. Liu, G. Zhou, J. Zhao, D. Lin, C. Zu, O. Sheng, W. Zhang, H. W. Lee and Y. Cui, Nano Lett., 2017, 17(5), 2967–2972.

[11] W. Liu, S. W. Lee, D. Lin, F. Shi, S. Wang, A. D. Sendek and Y. Cui, Nat. Energy, 2017, 2(5), 17035.

[12] Y. Inaguma, C. Liquan, M. Itoh, T. Nakamura, T. Uchida, H. Ikuta and M. Wakihara, Solid State Commun., 1993, 86(10), 689–693.

[13] Q. Zhang, S. Liu, Y. Lu, L. Xing and W. Li, J. Energy Chem., 2021, 58, 198–206.

[14] Y. Lu, C.-Z. Zhao, J.-Q. Huang and Q. Zhang, Joule, 2022, 6(6), 1172–1198.

[15] R. Murugan, V. Thangadurai and W. Weppner, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2007, 46(41), 7778–7781.

[16] J. B. Goodenough and Y. Kim, Chem. Mater., 2010, 22(3), 587–603.

[17] N. Nitta, F. Wu, J. T. Lee and G. Yushin, Mater. Today, 2015, 18(5), 252–264.

[18] E. Rangasamy, J. Wolfenstine and J. Sakamoto, Solid State Ion., 2012, 206, 28–32.

[19] A. Manthiram, X. Yu and S. Wang, Nat. Rev. Mater., 2017, 2(4), 16103.

[20] H. Huo, Y. Chen, R. Li, N. Zhao, J. Luo, J. G. Pereira da Silva, R. Mücke, P. Kaghazchi, X. Guo and X. Sun, Energy Environ. Sci., 2020, 13(1), 127–134.

[21] J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, Nature, 2001, 414(6861), 359–367.

[22] A. Sharafi, C. G. Haslam, R. D. Kerns, J. Wolfenstine and J. Sakamoto, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5(40), 21491–21504.

[23] Y. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Cao, F. Du, C. Chen, Z. Cui and X. Guo, Electrochim. Acta, 2015, 180, 37–42.

[24] V. Thangadurai, H. Kaack and W. J. F. Weppner, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2003, 86(3), 437–440.

[25] Z. Bao, Theor. Nat. Sci., 2025, 109(1), 8–17.

[26] E. Karimi, S. Iglauer and M. R. Azhar, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 2025, 346, 103686.

[27] Z. Zhang, Y. Shao, B. Lotsch, Y. S. Hu, H. Li, J. Janek, C. L. Nan, L. F. Nazar, J. Maier, M. Armand and L. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci., 2018, 11(8), 1945–1976.

[28] Z. Zhang, A. R. Gonzalez and K. L. Choy, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 2019, 2(10), 7438–7448.

[29] Z. Lin, Z. Liu, W. Fu, N. J. Dudney and C. Liang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2013, 152(29), 7608–7611.

[30] J. Awaka, N. Kijima, H. Hayakawa and J. Akimoto, J. Solid State Chem., 2009, 182(8), 2046–2052.

[31] H. Aono, E. Sugimoto, Y. Sadaoka, N. Imanaka and G.-Y. Adachi, J. Electrochem. Soc., 1990, 137(4), 1023–1027.

[32] K. Arbi, J. M. Rojo and J. Sanz, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2007, 27, 4215–4218.

[33] Y. Seino, T. Ota, K. Takada, A. Hayashi and M. Tatsumisago, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7(2), 627–631.

[34] Y. Kato, S. Hori, T. Saito, K. Suzuki, M. Hirayama, A. Mitsui, M. Yoemura, H. Iba and R. Kanno, Nat. Energy, 2016, 1(4), 16030.

[35] N. Kamaya, K. Homma, Y. Yamakawa, M. Hirayama, R. Kanno, M. Yonemura, T. Kamiyama, S. Hama, K. Kwamoto and A. Mitsui, Nat. Mater., 2011, 10(9), 682–686.

[36] A. Hayashi, K. Noi, A. Sakuda and M. Tatsumisago, Nat. Commun., 2012, 3(1), 856.

[37] S. Wenzel, S. Randau, T. Leichtweiß, D. A. Weber, J. Sann, W. G. Zeier and J. Janek, Chem. Mater., 2016, 28(7), 2400–2407.

[38] F. Mizuno, A. Hayashi, K. Tadanaga and M. Tatsumisago, Adv. Mater., 2005, 17(7), 918–921.

[39] T. Ohtomo, A. Hayashi, M. Tatsumisago, Y. Tsuchida, S. Hama and K. Kawamoto, J. Power Sources, 2013, 233, 231–235.

[40] P. V. Wright, Br. Polym. J., 1975, 7(5), 319–327.

[41] D. E. Fenton, J. M. Parker and P. V. Wright, Polymer, 1973, 14(11), 589.

[42] P. G. Bruce and C. A. Vincent, J. Electroanal. Chem. Interfacial Electrochem., 1987, 225(1–2), 1–17.

[43] F. M. Gray, Solid Polymer Electrolytes: Fundamentals and Technological Applications. Wiley-VCH, New York, 1991. p.245.

[44] M. A. Ratner and D. F. Shriver, Chem. Rev., 1988, 88(1), 109–124.

[45] J. R. MacCallum and C. A. Vincent, Polymer Electrolyte Reviews. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, 1987. p.351.

[46] M. Singh, O. Odusanya, G. M. Wilmes, H. B. Eitouni, E. D. Gomez, A. J. Patel, V. L. Chen, M. J. Park, P. Fragouli, H. Iatrou, N. Hadjichristidis, D. Cookson and N. P. Balsara, Macromolecules, 2007, 40(13), 4578–4585.

[47] W.-S. Young and T. H. Epps, Macromolecules, 2009, 42(7), 2672–2678.

[48] L. Chen, Y. Li, S. P. Li, L. Z. Fan, C. W. Nan and J. B. Goodenough, Nano Energy, 2018, 46, 176–184.

[49] J. Zhang, N. Zhao, M. Zhang, Y. Li, P. K. Chu, X. Guo, Z. Di, X. Wang and H. Li, Nano Energy, 2016, 28, 447–454.

[50] J. Zheng, M. Tang and Y.-Y. Hu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2016, 55(40), 12538–12542.

[51] L. Yue, J. Ma, J. Zhang, J. Zhao, S. Dong, Z. Liu, G. Cui and L. Chen, Energy Storage Mater., 2016, 5, 139–164.

[52] X. Judez, H. Zhang, C. Li, G. G. Eshetu, Y. Zhang, J. A. González-Marcos, M. Armand and L. M. Rodriguez-Martinez, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2017, 8(15), 3473–3477.

[53] R. Khurana, J. L. Schaefer, L. A. Archer and G. W. Coates, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136(20), 7395–7402.

[54] X. B. Cheng, R. Zhang, C. Z. Zhao, F. Wei, J. G. Zhang and Q. Zhang, Adv. Sci., 2016, 3(3), 1500213.

[55] C. Monroe and J. Newman, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2005, 152(2), A396–A404.

[56] M. R. Busche, T. Drossel, T. Leichtweiss, D. A. Weber, M. Falk, M. Schneider, M.-L. Reich, H. Sommer, P. Adelhelm and J. Janek, Nat. Chem., 2016, 8(5), 426–434.

[57] L. Porz, T. Swamy, B. W. Sheldon, D. Rettenwander, T. Frömling, H. L. Thaman, S. Berendts, R. Uecker, W. C. Caeter and Y.-M. Chiang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2017, 7(20), 1701003.

[58] A. Sharafi, H. M. Meyer, J. Nanda, J. Wolfenstine and J. Sakamoto, J. Power Sources, 2016, 302, 135–139.

[59] J. B. Bates, N. J. Dudney, B. Neudecker, A. Ueda and C. D. Evans, Solid State Ion, 2000, 135(1–4), 33–45.

[60] S. Put, P. M. Vereecken, J. Meersschaut, A. Sepúlveda and A. Stesmans, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2016, 8(7), 7060–7068.

[61] X. Han, Y. Gong, K. K. Fu, X. He, G. T. Hitz, J. Dai, A. Pearse, B. Liu, H. Wang, G. Rubloff, Y. Mo, V. Thangadurai, E. D. Wachsman and L. Hu, Nat. Mater., 2017, 16(5), 572–579.

[62] Y. Zhu, X. He and Y. Mo, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4(9), 3253–3266.

[63] Z. Liu, W. Fu, E. A. Payzant, X. Yu, Z. Wu, N. J. Dudney, J. Kiggans, A. J. Rondinone and C. Liang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135(3), 975–978.

[64] C. Wang, Y. Gong, B. Liu, K. Fu, Y. Yao, E. Hitz, Y. Li, S. Xu, W. Luo, E. D. Wachsman and L. Hu, Nano Lett., 2017, 17(1), 565–571.

[65] K. K. Fu, Y. Gong, B. Liu, Y. Zhu, S. Xu, Y. Yao, W. Luo, C. Wang, S. D. Lacey, J. Dai, Y. Chen, Y. Mo, E. Wachsman and L. Hu, Sci. Adv., 2017, 3(4), e1601659.

[66] F. Aguesse, W. Manalastas, L. Buannic, G. Singh, A. Llordés and J. Kilner, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2017, 9(4), 3808–3816.

[67] J.-M. Doux, H. Nguyen, D. H. Tan, A. Banerjee, X. Wang, E. A. Wu, C. Jo, H. Yang and Y. S. Meng, Adv. Energy Mater., 2020, 10(1), 1903253.

[68] F. Zheng, M. Kotobuki, S. Song, M. O. Lai and L. Lu, J. Power Sources, 2018, 389, 198–213.

[69] K. Xu, Chem. Rev., 2004, 104(10), 4303–4417.

[70] M. Kotobuki, H. Munakata, K. Kanamura, Y. Sato and T. Yoshida, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2010, 157(10), A1076–A1079.

[71] Y. Li, J.-T. Han, C.-A. Wang, H. Xie and J. B. Goodenough, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22(30), 15357–15361.

[72] J. Wolfenstine, J. Ratchford, E. Rangasamy, J. Sakamoto and J. L. Allen, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2012, 134(2–3), 571–575.

[73] M. Kotobuki, M. Koishi and Y. Kato, Ionics, 2013, 19(12), 1945–1948.

[74] P. Knauth, Solid State Ion., 2009, 180(14–16), 911–916.

[75] J. W. Fergus, J. Power Sources, 2010, 195(15), 4554–4569.

[76] K. Takada, Acta Mater., 2013, 61(3), 759–770.

[77] J. C. Bachman, S. Muy, A. Grimaud, H. H. Chang, N. Pour, S. F. Lux, O. Paschos, F. Maglia, S. Lupart, P. Lamp, L. Giordano and Y. Shao-Horn, Chem. Rev., 2015, 116(1), 140–162.

[78] J. B. Wagner and C. Wagner, J. Chem. Phys., 1957, 26(6), 1597–1601.

[79] J. Awaka, N. Kijima, Y. Takahashi, H. Hayakawa and J. Akimoto, Solid State Ion., 2009, 180(6–8), 602–606.

[80] V. Thangadurai, D. Pinzaru, S. Narayanan and A. K. Baral, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2014, 6(2), 292–299.

[81] K. Meier, T. Laino and A. Curioni, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2014, 118(13), 6668–6679.

[82] T. Thompson, S. Yu, L. Williams, R. D. Schmidt, R. Garcia-Mendez, J. Wolfenstine, J. L. Allen, E. Kioupakis, D. J. Siegel and J. Sakamoto, ACS Energy Lett., 2017, 2(2), 462–468.

[83] B. R. Shin, Y. J. Nam, D. Y. Oh, D. H. Kim, J. W. Kim and Y. S. Jung, Electrochim. Acta, 2014, 146, 395–402.

[84] X. Yao, B. Huang, J. Yin, G. Peng, Z. Huang, C. Gao, D. Liu and X. Xu, Chin. Phys. B, 2016, 25(1), 018802.

[85] A. Hayashi, A. Sakuda and M. Tatsumisago, Front. Energy Res., 2016, 4, 25.

[86] A. Hayashi, S. Hama, H. Morimoto, M. Tatsumisago and T. Minami, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2004, 84(2), 477–479.

[87] A. Hayashi, S. Hama, T. Minami and M. Tatsumisago, Electrochem. Commun., 2003, 5(2), 111–114.

[88] G. Ferraresi, M. El Kazzi, L. Czornomaz, C. L. Tsai, S. Uhlenbruck and C. Villevieille, ACS Energy Lett., 2018, 3(4), 1006–1012.

[89] R. Sudo, Y. Nakata, K. Ishiguro, M. Matsui, A. Hirano, Y. Takeda, O. Yamamoto and N. Imanishi, Solid State Ion., 2014, 262, 151–154.

[90] C.-L. Tsai, V. Roddatis, C. V. Chandran, Q. Ma, S. Uhlenbruck, M. Bram, P. Heitjans and O. Guillon, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2016, 8(16), 10617–10626.

[91] H. Huo, N. Zhao, J. Sun, F. Du, Y. Li and X. Guo, J. Power Sources, 2017, 372, 1–7.

[92] S. Yu, R. D. Schmidt, R. Garcia-Mendez, E. G. Herbert, N. J. Dudney, J. B. Wolfenstine, J. Sakamoto and D. J. Siegel, Chem. Mater., 2016, 28(1), 197–206.

[93] Y. Wang, W. D. Richards, S. P. Ong, L. J. Miara, J. C. Kim, Y. Mo and G. Ceder, Nat. Mater., 2015, 14(10), 1026–1031.

[94] S. Wenzel, D. A. Weber, T. Leichtweiss, M. R. Busche, J. Sann and J. Janek, Solid State Ion., 2016, 286, 24–33.

[95] B. Wu, S. Wang, D. Z. Deng, J. Yang and J. Xiao, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4(40), 15266–15280.

[96] L. Xu, S. Tang, Y. Cheng, K. Wang, J. Liang, C. Liu, Y.-C. Cao, F. Wei and J. Zhang, Joule, 2018, 2(10), 1991–2015.

[97] J. Janek and W. G. Zeier, Nat. Energy, 2023, 8(3), 230–240.

[98] Z. F. Yow, Y. L. Oh, W. Gu, R. P. Rao and S. Adams, Solid State Ion., 2016, 292, 122–129.

[99] L. Millia, V. Dall'Asta, C. Ferrara, V. Berbenni, E. Quartarone, F. M. Perna, V. Capriati and P. Mustarelli, Solid State Ion., 2018, 323, 44–48.

[100] W. Zhou, S. Wang, Y. Li, S. Xin, A. Manthiram and J. B. Goodenough, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2016, 138(30), 9385–9388.

[101] W. Luo, Y. Gong, Y. Zhu, Y. Li, Y. Yao, Y. Zhang, K. K. Fu, G. Pastel, C.-F. Lin, Y. Mo, E. D. Wachsman and L. Hu, Adv. Mater., 2017, 29(22), 1606042.

[102] P. Albertus, S. Babinec, S. Litzelman and A. Newman, Nat. Energy, 2018, 3(1), 16–21.

[103] E. J. Cheng, A. Sharafi and J. Sakamoto, Electrochim. Acta, 2017, 223, 85–91.

[104] Y. Kim, H. Jo, J. L. Allen, H. Choe, J. Wolfenstine and J. Sakamoto, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2016, 99(4), 1367–1374.

[105] H. Duan, H. Zheng, Y. Zhou, B. Xu and H. Liu, Solid State Ion., 2018, 318, 45–53.

[106] Y. Jin and P. J. McGinn, J. Power Sources, 2013, 239, 326–331.

[107] R. Kali and A. Mukhopadhyay, J. Power Sources, 2014, 247, 920–931.

[108] J. Liu, N. Pei, X. Yang, R. Li, H. Hua, P. Zhang and J. Zhao, Energy Mater., 2023, 3, 300024.

[109] W. Luo, Y. Gong, Y. Zhu, K. K. Fu, J. Dai, S. D. Lacey, C. Wang, B. Liu, X. Han, Y. Mo, E. D. Wachsman and L. Hu, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2016, 138(37), 12258–12262.

[110] C. Ma, Y. Cheng, K. Yin, J. Luo, A. Sharafi, J. Sakamoto, J. Li, K. L. More, N. J. Dudney and M. Chi, Nano Lett., 2016, 16(11), 7030–7036.

[111] F. P. McGrogan, T. Swamy, S. R. Bishop, E. Eggleton, L. Porz, X. Chen, Y.-M. Chiang and K. J. Van Vliet, Adv. Energy Mater., 2017, 7(12), 1602011.

[112] C. Wang, K. Fu, S. P. Kammampata, D. W. McOwen, A. J. Samson, L. Zhang, G. T. Hitz, A. M. Nolan, E. D. Wachsman, Y. Mo, V. Thangadurai and L. Hu, Chem. Rev., 2020, 120(10), 4257–4300.

[113] S. Ohta, S. Komagata, J. Seki, T. Saeki, S. Morishita and T. Asaoka, J. Power Sources, 2013, 238, 53–56.

[114] K. Park, B.-C. Yu, J.-W. Jung, Y. Li, W. Zhou, H. Gao, S. Son and J. B. Goodenough, Chem. Mater., 2016, 28(21), 8051–8059.