Elucidating Lithium Transport Mechanisms in Disordered LiF from Machine-Learning Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Source abstract
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Lithium fluoride (LiF) is a ubiquitous component of solid- and cathode–electrolyte interphases, yet its functional role remains unclear under the structural and chemical heterogeneity typical of cycling batteries. Here, we systematically quantify how structural disorder, off-stoichiometry, and strain govern Li-ion transport in LiF. Using a machine-learning potential to enable extensive molecular-dynamics sampling, we compare crystalline and amorphous LiF, Li 0.95 F, and LiF 0.95, and evaluate the impact of small homogeneous deformations. Defect-free crystalline LiF is effectively ion-blocking at 300−500 K, whereas amorphization generates free-volume–assisted percolation pathways that facilitates Li-ion diffusion. At elevated temperatures, thermodynamically driven crystallization disrupts these pathways, leading to non-Arrhenius behavior. In crystalline phases, Li deficiency activates vacancy-mediated diffusion, while in amorphous LiF, transport is governed primarily by network connectivity. Strain is found to have only a marginal effect on Li mobility in both crystalline and amorphous structures.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Battery Materials and Technologies · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Advancements in Battery Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratory for Energy Applications for the Future (LEAF), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Materials Science Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
San Francisco State University
Funding
Vehicle Technologies Office
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/adma.20210057410.1002/adma.202100574 ↗
2. 10.1038/s41560-024-01639-y10.1038/s41560-024-01639-y ↗
3. 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.05.07210.1016/j.electacta.2010.05.072 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.joule.2019.08.01810.1016/j.joule.2019.08.018 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ensm.2025.10436810.1016/j.ensm.2025.104368 ↗
6. 10.1038/s41557-019-0304-z10.1038/s41557-019-0304-z ↗
7. 10.1002/aenm.20210004610.1002/aenm.202100046 ↗
8. 10.1002/smll.20230542910.1002/smll.202305429 ↗
9. 10.1002/adfm.20110179810.1002/adfm.201101798 ↗
10. 10.1038/s41586-025-09498-710.1038/s41586-025-09498-7 ↗
11. 10.5281/zenodo.1698020010.5281/zenodo.16980200 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.10817110.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171 ↗
13. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.14590110.1103/PhysRevLett.112.145901 ↗
14. 10.1073/pnas.191101711610.1073/pnas.1911017116 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ssi.2021.11572610.1016/j.ssi.2021.115726 ↗
16. 10.1007/BF0055010010.1007/BF00550100 ↗
17. 10.1021/acsami.5b0290410.1021/acsami.5b02904 ↗
18. 10.1073/pnas.150578811210.1073/pnas.1505788112 ↗