Reconsidering the Origins of Forsbergh Birefringence Patterns

In 1949, P. W. Forsbergh Jr. reported spontaneous spatial ordering in the birefringence patterns seen in flux-grown BaTiO3 crystals [1], under the transmission polarized light microscope [2]. Stunningly regular square-net arrays were often only found within a finite temperature window and could be induced on both heating and cooling, suggesting genuine thermodynamic stability. At the time, Forsbergh rationalized the patterns to have resulted from the impingement of ferroelastic domains, creating a complex tessellation of variously shaped domain packets. However, evidence for the intricate microstructural arrangement proposed by Forsbergh has never been found. Moreover, no robust thermodynamic argument has been presented to explain the region of thermal stability, its occurrence just below the Curie Temperature and the apparent increase in entropy associated with the loss of the Forsbergh pattern on cooling. As a result, despite decades of research on ferroelectrics, this ordering phenomenon and its thermodynamic origin have remained a mystery. In this paper, we re-examine the microstructure of flux-grown BaTiO3 crystals, which show Forsbergh birefringence patterns. Given an absence of any obvious arrays of domain polyhedra, or even regular shapes of domain packets, we suggest an alternative origin for the Forsbergh pattern, in which sheets of orthogonally oriented ferroelastic stripe domains simply overlay one another. We show explicitly that the Forsbergh birefringence pattern occurs if the periodicity of the stripe domains is above a critical value. Moreover, by considering well-established semiempirical models, we show that the significant domain coarsening needed to generate the Forsbergh birefringence is fully expected in a finite window below the Curie Temperature. We hence present a much more straightforward rationalization of the Forsbergh pattern than that originally proposed, in which exotic thermodynamic arguments are unnecessary.

Electrochemical Investigations into Blended Electrolytes Containing Ionic Liquids and a Glyme Solvent for Li-O­2 batteries

The Li-O2 battery may theoretically possess practical gravimetric energy densities several times greater than the current state-of-the-art Li-ion batteries.1 This magnitude of development is a requisite for true realization of electric vehicles capable of competing with the traditional combustion engine. However, significant challenges must be addressed before practical application may be considered. These include low efficiencies, low rate capabilities and the parasitic decomposition reactions of electrolyte/electrode materials resulting in very poor rechargeability.2-4 Ionic liquids, ILs, typically display several properties, extremely low vapor pressure and high electrochemical and thermal stability, which make them particularly interesting for Li-O2 battery electrolytes. However, the typically sluggish transport properties generally inhibit rate performance and cells suffer similar inefficiencies during cycling.5,6

In addition to the design of new ILs with tailored properties, formulating blended electrolytes using molecular solvents with ILs has been considered to improve their performance.7,8 In this work, we will discuss the physical properties vs. the electrochemical performance of a range of formulated electrolytes based on tetraglyme, a benchmark Li-O2 battery electrolyte solvent, and several ILs. The selected ILs are based on the bis{(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl}imide anion and alkyl/ether functionalized cyclic alkylammonium cations, which exhibit very good stability and moderate viscosity.9 O2 electrochemistry will be investigated in these media using macro and microdisk voltammetry and O2 solubility/diffusivity is quantified as a function of the electrolyte formulation. Furthermore, galvanostatic cycling of selected electrolytes in Li-O2 cells will be discussed to probe their practical electrochemical performance. Finally, the physical characterization of the blended electrolytes will be reported in parallel to further determine structure (or formulation) vs. property relationships and to, therefore, assess the importance of certain electrolyte properties (viscosity, O2supply capability, donor number) on their performance.

This work was funded by the EPSRC (EP/L505262/1) and Innovate UK for the Practical Lithium-Air Batteries project (project number: 101577).

1. P. G. Bruce, S. A. Freunberger, L. J. Hardwick and J.-M. Tarascon, Nat. Mater., 11, 19 (2012).

2. S. A. Freunberger, Y. Chen, N. E. Drewett, L. J. Hardwick, F. Barde and P. G. Bruce, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 50, 8609 (2011).

3. B. D. McCloskey, A. Speidel, R. Scheffler, D. C. Miller, V. Viswanathan, J. S. Hummelshøj, J. K. Nørskov and A. C. Luntz, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 3, 997 (2012).

4. D. G. Kwabi, T. P. Batcho, C. V. Amanchukwu, N. Ortiz-Vitoriano, P. Hammond, C. V. Thompson and Y. Shao-Horn, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 5, 2850 (2014).

5. Z. H. Cui, W. G. Fan and X. X. Guo, J. Power Sources, 235, 251 (2013).

6. F. Soavi, S. Monaco and M. Mastragostino, J. Power Sources, 224, 115 (2013).

7. L. Cecchetto, M. Salomon, B. Scrosati and F. Croce, J. Power Sources, 213, 233 (2012).

8. A. Khan and C. Zhao, Electrochem. Commun., 49, 1 (2014).

9. Z. J. Chen, T. Xue and J.-M. Lee, RSC Adv., 2, 10564 (2012).