Bridging nano- and microscale X-ray tomography for battery research by leveraging artificial intelligence
Source abstract
Abstract
X-ray computed tomography (CT) is a non-destructive imaging technique in which contrast originates from the materials' absorption coefficient. The recent development of laboratory nanoscale CT (nano-CT) systems has pushed the spatial resolution for battery material imaging to voxel sizes of 50 nm, a limit previously achievable only with synchrotron facilities. Given the non-destructive nature of CT, in situ and operando studies have emerged as powerful methods to quantify morphological parameters, such as tortuosity factor, porosity, surface area and volume expansion, during battery operation or cycling. Combined with artificial intelligence and machine learning analysis techniques, nano-CT has enabled the development of predictive models to analyse the impact of the electrode microstructure on cell performances or the influence of material heterogeneities on electrochemical responses. In this Review, we discuss the role of X-ray CT and nano-CT experimentation in the battery field, discuss the incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine learning analyses and provide a perspective on how the combination of multiscale CT imaging techniques can expand the development of predictive multiscale battery behavioural models.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advancements in Battery Materials · Advanced Battery Technologies Research · Machine Learning in Materials Science
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Seeram, E. Computed tomography: a technical review. Radiol. Technol. 89, 279CT–302CT (2018).
2. Pietsch, P. & Wood, V. X-ray tomography for lithium ion battery research: a practical guide. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 47, 451–479 (2017).10.1146/annurev-matsci-070616-123957 ↗
3. Extend the Limits of Your Exploration: ZEISS Xradia 610 and 620 Versa (ZEISS, accessed 10 December 2020); https://asset-downloads.zeiss.com/catalogs/download/mic/8fb6e06e-de4e-46dc-a9c9-883396ca1628/EN_product-information_610-620-Versa_rel1-3.pdf
4. Röntgen, W. C. On a new kind of rays. Science 3, 227–231 (1896).10.1126/science.3.59.227 ↗
5. Knutsson, F. Röntgen and the Nobel Prize: with notes from his correspondence with Svante Arrhenius. Acta Radiol. Diagn. 8, 449–460 (1969).10.1177/028418516900800601 ↗
6. Radon, J. Über die Bestimmung von Funktionen durch ihre Integralwerte längs gewisser Mannigfaltigkeiten. Akad. Wiss. 69, 262–277 (1917).
7. Rubin, G. D. Computed tomography: revolutionizing the practice of medicine for 40 years. Radiology 273, S45–S74 (2014).10.1148/radiol.14141356 ↗
8. Christoph, R. & Neumann, H. J. X-ray Tomography in Industrial Metrology: Precise, Economical and Universal (Süddeutscher, 2011).
9. Villarraga-Gómez, H., Herazo, E. L. & Smith, S. T. X-ray computed tomography: from medical imaging to dimensional metrology. Precis. Eng. 60, 544–569 (2019).10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.06.007 ↗
10. Heenan, T. M. M., Tan, C., Hack, J., Brett, D. J. L. & Shearing, P. R. Developments in X-ray tomography characterization for electrochemical devices. Mater. Today 31, 69–85 (2019).10.1016/j.mattod.2019.05.019 ↗
11. Zenyuk, I. V. Bridging X-ray computed tomography and computational modeling for electrochemical energy-conversion and -storage. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 13, 78–85 (2019).10.1016/j.coelec.2018.10.016 ↗
12. Gayon-Lombardo, A., Mosser, L., Brandon, N. P. & Cooper, S. J. Pores for thought: generative adversarial networks for stochastic reconstruction of 3D multi-phase electrode microstructures with periodic boundaries. npj Comput. Mater. 6, 82 (2020).10.1038/s41524-020-0340-7 ↗
13. Petrich, L. et al. Crack detection in lithium-ion cells using machine learning. Comput. Mater. Sci. 136, 297–305 (2017).10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.05.012 ↗
14. Jiang, Z. et al. Machine-learning-revealed statistics of the particle–carbon/binder detachment in lithium-ion battery cathodes. Nat. Commun. 11, 2310 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-16233-5 ↗
15. Chiro, G. D. & Brooks, R. A. The 1979 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 4, 241–245 (1980).10.1097/00004728-198004000-00023 ↗
16. Beckmann, E. C. CT scanning the early days. Br. J. Radiol. 79, 5–8 (2006).10.1259/bjr/29444122 ↗
17. Hounsfield, G. N. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): part 1. Description of system. Br. J. Radiol. 46, 1016–1022 (1973).10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016 ↗
18. Boerckel, J. D., Mason, D. E., McDermott, A. M. & Alsberg, E. Microcomputed tomography: approaches and applications in bioengineering. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 5, 144 (2014).10.1186/scrt534 ↗
19. Krüger, P. et al. Synchrotron X-ray tomography for investigations of water distribution in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. J. Power Sources 196, 5250–5255 (2011).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.09.042 ↗
20. Fazeli, M. et al. Pore network modeling to explore the effects of compression on multiphase transport in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell gas diffusion layers. J. Power Sources 335, 162–171 (2016).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.10.039 ↗
21. Alrwashdeh, S. S. et al. In operando quantification of three-dimensional water distribution in nanoporous carbon-based layers in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. ACS Nano 11, 5944–5949 (2017).10.1021/acsnano.7b01720 ↗
22. Rawson, S. D., Maksimcuka, J., Withers, P. J. & Cartmell, S. H. X-ray computed tomography in life sciences. BMC Biol. 18, 21 (2020).10.1186/s12915-020-0753-2 ↗
23. Elliott, J. C. & Dover, S. D. X-ray microtomography. J. Microsc. 126, 211–213 (1982).10.1111/j.1365-2818.1982.tb00376.x ↗
24. Kress, J. W. & Feldkamp, L. A. "X-ray tomography applied to NDE of ceramics. In Proc. ASME 1983 International Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibit. Volume 5: Ceramics; Structures and Dynamics; Controls, Diagnostics and Instrumentation; Education; Process Industries V005T11A003 (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1983); https://doi.org/10.1115/83-GT-20610.1115/83-GT-206 ↗
25. Stock, S. R. X-ray microtomography of materials. Int. Mater. Rev. 44, 141–164 (1999).10.1179/095066099101528261 ↗
26. Grodzins, L. Critical absorption tomography of small samples. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 206, 547–552 (1983).10.1016/0167-5087(83)90394-0 ↗
27. Grodzins, L. Optimum energies for X-ray transmission tomography of small samples. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 206, 541–545 (1983).10.1016/0167-5087(83)90393-9 ↗
28. Thompson, A. C. et al. Computed tomography using synchrotron radiation. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 222, 319–323 (1984).10.1016/0167-5087(84)90550-7 ↗
29. Heiken, J. P., Brink, J. A. & Vannier, M. W. Spiral (helical) CT. Radiology 189, 647–656 (1993).10.1148/radiology.189.3.8234684 ↗
30. Kalender, W. A., Seissler, W., Klotz, E. & Vock, P. in Classic Papers in Modern Diagnostic Radiology (eds Adrian, M. K. et al.) 1–68 (Springer, 2005).
31. Polacin, A., Kalender, W. A. & Marchal, G. Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT. Radiology 185, 29–35 (1992).10.1148/radiology.185.1.1523331 ↗
32. Rubin, G. D., Leung, A. N., Robertson, V. J. & Stark, P. Thoracic spiral CT: influence of subsecond gantry rotation on image quality. Radiology 208, 771–776 (1998).10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722858 ↗
33. Hu, H., He, H. D., Foley, W. D. & Fox, S. H. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215, 55–62 (2000).10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap3755 ↗
34. Ballabriga, R. et al. Photon counting detectors for X-ray imaging with emphasis on CT. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 5, 422–440 (2021).10.1109/TRPMS.2020.3002949 ↗
35. Kruth, J. P. et al. Computed tomography for dimensional metrology. CIRP Ann. 60, 821–842 (2011).10.1016/j.cirp.2011.05.006 ↗
36. Steinbock, L. & Dustmann, C.-H. Investigation of the inner structures of ZEBRA cells with a microtomograph. J. Electrochem. Soc. 148, A132 (2001).10.1149/1.1341240 ↗
37. Sinha, P. K., Halleck, P. & Wang, C.-Y. Quantification of liquid water saturation in a PEM fuel cell diffusion medium using X-ray microtomography. Electrochem. Solid State Lett. 9, A344 (2006).10.1149/1.2203307 ↗
38. Shearing, P. R., Howard, L. E., Jørgensen, P. S., Brandon, N. P. & Harris, S. J. Characterization of the 3-dimensional microstructure of a graphite negative electrode from a Li-ion battery. Electrochem. Commun. 12, 374–377 (2010).10.1016/j.elecom.2009.12.038 ↗
39. Hutzenlaub, T., Thiele, S., Zengerle, R. & Ziegler, C. Three-dimensional reconstruction of a LiCoO2 Li-ion battery cathode. Electrochem. Solid State Lett. 15, A33 (2011).10.1149/2.002203esl ↗
40. Yan, B., Lim, C., Yin, L. & Zhu, L. Three dimensional simulation of galvanostatic discharge of LiCoO2 cathode based on X-ray nano-CT images. J. Electrochem. Soc. 159, A1604 (2012).10.1149/2.024210jes ↗
41. Ebner, M., Marone, F., Stampanoni, M. & Wood, V. Visualization and quantification of electrochemical and mechanical degradation in Li ion batteries. Science 342, 716–720 (2013).10.1126/science.1241882 ↗
42. Loveridge, M. et al. Looking deeper into the Galaxy (Note 7). Batteries 4, 3 (2018).10.3390/batteries4010003 ↗
43. Carter, R., Huhman, B., Love, C. T. & Zenyuk, I. V. X-ray computed tomography comparison of individual and parallel assembled commercial lithium iron phosphate batteries at end of life after high rate cycling. J. Power Sources 381, 46–55 (2018).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.01.087 ↗
44. Maire, E. & Withers, P. J. Quantitative X-ray tomography. Int. Mater. Rev. 59, 1–43 (2014).10.1179/1743280413Y.0000000023 ↗
45. Gelb, J., Finegan, D. P., Brett, D. J. L. & Shearing, P. R. Multi-scale 3D investigations of a commercial 18650 Li-ion battery with correlative electron- and X-ray microscopy. J. Power Sources 357, 77–86 (2017).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.04.102 ↗
46. Finegan, D. P. et al. Investigating lithium-ion battery materials during overcharge-induced thermal runaway: an operando and multi-scale X-ray CT study. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 30912–30919 (2016).10.1039/C6CP04251A ↗
47. Gelb, J. et al. Energy tunability in laboratory 3D nano-XRM. Microsc. Microanal. 25, 388–389 (2019).10.1017/S1431927619002678 ↗
48. 2022 NSLS-II Strategic Plan (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2021).
49. Chenevier, D. & Joly, A. ESRF: inside the extremely brilliant source upgrade. Synchrotron Radiat. News 31, 32–35 (2018).10.1080/08940886.2018.1409562 ↗
50. Rack, A. Hard X-ray imaging at ESRF: exploiting contrast and coherence with the new EBS storage ring. Synchrotron Radiat. News 33, 20–28 (2020).10.1080/08940886.2020.1751519 ↗
51. Meirer, F. et al. Three-dimensional imaging of chemical phase transformations at the nanoscale with full-field transmission X-ray microscopy. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 18, 773–781 (2011).10.1107/S0909049511019364 ↗
52. Müller, S. et al. Multimodal nanoscale tomographic imaging for battery electrodes. Adv. Energy Mater. 10, 1904119 (2020).10.1002/aenm.201904119 ↗
53. Falch, K. V. et al. Zernike phase contrast in high-energy X-ray transmission microscopy based on refractive optics. Ultramicroscopy 184, 267–273 (2018).10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.10.001 ↗
54. Withers, P. J. X-ray nanotomography. Mater. Today 10, 26–34 (2007).10.1016/S1369-7021(07)70305-X ↗
55. Yin, L. et al. High performance printed AgO–Zn rechargeable battery for flexible electronics. Joule 5, 228–248 (2021).10.1016/j.joule.2020.11.008 ↗
56. Pietsch, P. et al. Quantifying microstructural dynamics and electrochemical activity of graphite and silicon–graphite lithium ion battery anodes. Nat. Commun. 7, 12909 (2016).10.1038/ncomms12909 ↗
57. Taiwo, O. O. et al. Microstructural degradation of silicon electrodes during lithiation observed via operando X-ray tomographic imaging. J. Power Sources 342, 904–912 (2017).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.12.070 ↗
58. Gonzalez, J. et al. Three dimensional studies of particle failure in silicon based composite electrodes for lithium ion batteries. J. Power Sources 269, 334–343 (2014).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.001 ↗
59. Vanpeene, V. et al. Dynamics of the morphological degradation of Si‐based anodes for Li‐ion batteries characterized by in situ synchrotron X‐ray tomography. Adv. Energy Mater. 9, 1803947 (2019).10.1002/aenm.201803947 ↗
60. Gent, W. E. et al. Persistent state-of-charge heterogeneity in relaxed, partially charged Li1−xNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 secondary particles. Adv. Mater. 28, 6631–6638 (2016).10.1002/adma.201601273 ↗
61. Holzner, C. et al. Zernike phase contrast in scanning microscopy with X-rays. Nat. Phys. 6, 883–887 (2010).10.1038/nphys1765 ↗
62. Komini Babu, S., Mohamed, A. I., Whitacre, J. F. & Litster, S. Multiple imaging mode X-ray computed tomography for distinguishing active and inactive phases in lithium-ion battery cathodes. J. Power Sources 283, 314–319 (2015).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.02.086 ↗
63. Chen-Wiegart, Y. K., Liu, Z., Faber, K. T., Barnett, S. A. & Wang, J. 3D analysis of a LiCoO2–Li(Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3)O2 Li-ion battery positive electrode using X-ray nano-tomography. Electrochem. Commun. 28, 127–130 (2013).10.1016/j.elecom.2012.12.021 ↗
64. Heenan, T. M. M. et al. Resolving Li‐ion battery electrode particles using rapid lab‐based X‐ray nano‐computed tomography for high‐throughput quantification. Adv. Sci. 7, 2000362 (2020).10.1002/advs.202000362 ↗
65. Frisco, S., Kumar, A., Whitacre, J. F. & Litster, S. Understanding Li-ion battery anode degradation and pore morphological changes through nano-resolution X-ray computed tomography. J. Electrochem. Soc. 163, A2636–A2640 (2016).10.1149/2.0681613jes ↗
66. Su, Z. et al. X-ray nanocomputed tomography in Zernike phase contrast for studying 3D morphology of Li–O2 battery electrode. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 3, 4093–4102 (2020).10.1021/acsaem.9b02236 ↗
67. Ngandjong, A. C. et al. Investigating electrode calendering and its impact on electrochemical performance by means of a new discrete element method model: towards a digital twin of Li-Ion battery manufacturing. J. Power Sources 485, 229320 (2021).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.229320 ↗
68. Torayev, A. et al. Stochasticity of pores interconnectivity in Li–O2 batteries and its impact on the variations in electrochemical performance. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 791–797 (2018).10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b03315 ↗
69. Torayev, A., Magusin, P. C. M. M., Grey, C. P., Merlet, C. & Franco, A. A. Importance of incorporating explicit 3D-resolved electrode mesostructures in Li–O2 battery models. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 1, 6433–6441 (2018).10.1021/acsaem.8b01392 ↗
70. Ding, N. et al. Influence of carbon pore size on the discharge capacity of Li–O 2 batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 2, 12433–12441 (2014).10.1039/C4TA01745E ↗
71. Epstein, N. On tortuosity and the tortuosity factor in flow and diffusion through porous media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 777–779 (1989).10.1016/0009-2509(89)85053-5 ↗
72. Tjaden, B., Brett, D. J. L. & Shearing, P. R. Tortuosity in electrochemical devices: a review of calculation approaches. Int. Mater. Rev. 63, 47–67 (2018).10.1080/09506608.2016.1249995 ↗
73. Lu, X. et al. 3D microstructure design of lithium-ion battery electrodes assisted by X-ray nano-computed tomography and modelling. Nat. Commun. 11, 2079 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-15811-x ↗
74. Usseglio-Viretta, F. L. E. et al. Quantitative relationships between pore tortuosity, pore topology, and solid particle morphology using a novel discrete particle size algorithm. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 100513 (2020).10.1149/1945-7111/ab913b ↗
75. Ebner, M., Chung, D.-W., García, R. E. & Wood, V. Tortuosity anisotropy in lithium-ion battery electrodes. Adv. Energy Mater. 4, 1301278 (2014).10.1002/aenm.201301278 ↗
76. Submicron X-ray Imaging: Maintain High Resolution Even at Large Working Distances: ZEISS Xradia Versa 510 (ZEISS, accessed 27 September 2020); https://asset-downloads.zeiss.com/catalogs/download/mic/59f564ec-a757-4f23-9607-b4ae6d91c05e/EN_product-info_Xradia-510-Versa_rel-1.2.pdf
77. Varslot, T., Kingston, A., Myers, G. & Sheppard, A. High-resolution helical cone-beam micro-CT with theoretically-exact reconstruction from experimental data. Med. Phys. 38, 5459–5476 (2011).10.1118/1.3633900 ↗
78. Li, T. et al. Three-dimensional reconstruction and analysis of all-solid Li-ion battery electrode using synchrotron transmission X-ray microscopy tomography. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 16927–16931 (2018).10.1021/acsami.7b18962 ↗
79. Ghorbani Kashkooli, A. et al. Synchrotron X-ray nano computed tomography based simulation of stress evolution in LiMn2O4 electrodes. Electrochim. Acta 247, 1103–1116 (2017).10.1016/j.electacta.2017.07.089 ↗
80. ZEISS Xradia 810 Ultra—Nanoscale X-ray Imaging: Explore at the Speed of Science (ZEISS, accessed 10 December 2020); https://asset-downloads.zeiss.com/catalogs/download/mic/c5e5bd17-4f66-42df-a4b3-18ecd933024e/EN_product-info_Xradia-810-Ultra_rel3.0.pdf
81. Frisco, S. et al. Internal morphologies of cycled Li–metal electrodes investigated by nano-scale resolution X-ray computed tomography. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 18748–18757 (2017).10.1021/acsami.7b03003 ↗
82. Yermukhambetova, A. et al. Exploring 3D microstructural evolution in Li–sulfur battery electrodes using in-situ X-ray tomography. Sci. Rep. 6, 35291 (2016).10.1038/srep35291 ↗
83. Yufit, V. et al. Investigation of lithium-ion polymer battery cell failure using X-ray computed tomography. Electrochem. Commun. 13, 608–610 (2011).10.1016/j.elecom.2011.03.022 ↗
84. Taiwo, O. O. et al. Investigating the evolving microstructure of lithium metal electrodes in 3D using X-ray computed tomography. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 22111–22120 (2017).10.1039/C7CP02872E ↗
85. Ito, Y., Wei, X., Desai, D., Steingart, D. & Banerjee, S. An indicator of zinc morphology transition in flowing alkaline electrolyte. J. Power Sources 211, 119–128 (2012).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.03.056 ↗
86. Ko, J. S. et al. Robust 3D Zn sponges enable high-power, energy-dense alkaline batteries. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2, 212–216 (2019).10.1021/acsaem.8b01946 ↗
87. Mitsch, T. et al. Preparation and characterization of Li-ion graphite anodes using synchrotron tomography. Materials 7, 4455–4472 (2014).10.3390/ma7064455 ↗
88. Arlt, T., Schröder, D., Krewer, U. & Manke, I. In operando monitoring of the state of charge and species distribution in zinc air batteries using X-ray tomography and model-based simulations. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 22273–22280 (2014).10.1039/C4CP02878C ↗
89. Yu, Y.-S. et al. Three-dimensional localization of nanoscale battery reactions using soft X-ray tomography. Nat. Commun. 9, 921 (2018).10.1038/s41467-018-03401-x ↗
90. Tonin, G. et al. Operando investigation of the lithium/sulfur battery system by coupled X-ray absorption tomography and X-ray diffraction computed tomography. J. Power Sources 468, 228287 (2020).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228287 ↗
91. Lewis, J. A. et al. Linking void and interphase evolution to electrochemistry in solid-state batteries using operando X-ray tomography. Nat. Mater. 20, 503–510 (2021).10.1038/s41563-020-00903-2 ↗
92. Wang, J., Chen-Wiegart, Y. K. & Wang, J. In situ three-dimensional synchrotron X-ray nanotomography of the (de)lithiation processes in tin anodes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 4460–4464 (2014).10.1002/anie.201310402 ↗
93. Vanpeene, V. et al. Monitoring the morphological changes of Si-based electrodes by X-ray computed tomography: a 4D-multiscale approach. Nano Energy 74, 104848 (2020).10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.104848 ↗
94. Christensen, M. K., Mathiesen, J. K., Simonsen, S. B. & Norby, P. Transformation and migration in secondary zinc–air batteries studied by in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction and X-ray tomography. J. Mater. Chem. A 7, 6459–6466 (2019).10.1039/C8TA11554K ↗
95. Choi, P., Parimalam, B. S., Su, L., Reeja-Jayan, B. & Litster, S. Operando particle-scale characterization of silicon anode degradation during cycling by ultrahigh-resolution X-ray microscopy and computed tomography. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4, 1657–1665 (2021).10.1021/acsaem.0c02823 ↗
96. Jervis, R. et al. In situ compression and X-ray computed tomography of flow battery electrodes. J. Energy Chem. 27, 1353–1361 (2018).10.1016/j.jechem.2018.03.022 ↗
97. Doux, J. et al. Stack pressure considerations for room‐temperature all‐solid‐state lithium metal batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 10, 1903253 (2020).10.1002/aenm.201903253 ↗
98. Franke-lang, R., Arlt, T., Manke, I. & Kowal, J. X-ray tomography as a powerful method for zinc–air battery research. J. Power Sources 370, 45–51 (2017).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.10.010 ↗
99. Tippens, J. et al. Visualizing chemomechanical degradation of a solid-state battery electrolyte. ACS Energy Lett. 4, 1475–1483 (2019).10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00816 ↗
100. Scharf, J. et al. Investigating degradation modes in Zn–AgO aqueous batteries with in situ X‐ray micro computed tomography. Adv. Energy Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202101327 (2021).10.1002/aenm.202101327 ↗