A promising cathode material for rechargeable batteries is LiMn2O4, which exhibits higher operating voltage, reduced toxicity and lower costs as compared to commonly used LiCoO2 cathodes. However, LiMn2O4 suffers from limited cycle life, as excessive capacity fading occurs during battery cycling due to dissolution of Mn into the acidic electrolyte. Here, we show that by structural engineering of stable, epitaxial LiMn2O4 thin films the electrochemical properties can be enhanced as compared to polycrystalline samples. Control of the specific crystal orientation of the LiMn2O4 thin films resulted in dramatic differences in surface morphology with pyramidal, rooftop or flat features for respectively (100), (110), and (111) orientations. All three types of LiMn2O4 films expose predominantly ⟨111⟩ crystal facets, which is the lowest energy state surface for this spinel structure. The (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 films exhibited the highest capacities and (dis)charging rates up to 33C, and good cyclability over a thousand cycles, demonstrating enhanced cycle life without excessive capacity fading as compared to previous polycrystalline studies.
A promising cathode material for rechargeable batteries is LiMn2O4, which exhibits higher operating voltage, reduced toxicity and lower costs as compared to commonly used LiCoO2 cathodes. However, LiMn2O4 suffers from limited cycle life, as excessive capacity fading occurs during battery cycling due to dissolution of Mn into the acidic electrolyte. Here, we show that by structural engineering of stable, epitaxial LiMn2O4 thin films the electrochemical properties can be enhanced as compared to polycrystalline samples. Control of the specific crystal orientation of the LiMn2O4 thin films resulted in dramatic differences in surface morphology with pyramidal, rooftop or flat features for respectively (100), (110), and (111) orientations. All three types of LiMn2O4 films expose predominantly ⟨111⟩ crystal facets, which is the lowest energy state surface for this spinel structure. The (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 films exhibited the highest capacities and (dis)charging rates up to 33C, and good cyclability over a thousand cycles, demonstrating enhanced cycle life without excessive capacity fading as compared to previous polycrystalline studies.
Since their introduction in the
1990s, lithium-ion batteries have become the main power source for
portable electronics and power tools applications. As society transitions
toward electric and zero emission mobility, next-generation electric
cars require lithium batteries with superior energy and power density,
without compromising safety and environmental concerns.[1,2] The cycle life and lifetime are dependent on the nature of the interfaces
between the electrodes and electrolyte, whereas safety is a function
of the stability of the electrode materials and their interfaces with
electrolyte.[3−5] Existing batteries, using conventional layered oxide
cathodes, are not only reaching their power and energy density limits,
but their application in electric mobility and large applications
is also limited by their inadequate cycle life and inherently poor
safety features.[6] On the other hand, spinel
LiMn2O4, has emerged as a promising cathode
material for next-generation lithium batteries[7,8] because
of its relatively high operating voltage (4.1 V vs Li) and comparable
energy density (theoretically 148 mAh/g, typical 120 mAh/g) combined
with low cost and absence of direct environmental or safety hazards.
In spinel LiMn2O4 (space group Fd3̅ m),
Li and Mn occupy tetrahedral (8a) and octahedral (16d) sites in the
intervening cubic close-packed array of oxygen atoms (32e sites) (Figure a). The edge-shared
octahedral Mn2O4 host framework provides structural
stability and interconnects face-shared tetrahedral lithium (8a) sites
and empty octahedral (16c) sites (Figure b). These interconnected pathways allow the
three-dimensional diffusion of lithium ions within the Mn2O4 framework, making LiMn2O4 suitable
for high power application. The lithium (de)intercalation at (8a)
tetrahedral sites results into the characteristic ∼4 V voltage
plateau without distorting the spinel symmetry. Interestingly, this
Mn2O4 framework can further host lithium into
empty octahedral (16c) sites, resulting in a 3 V voltage plateau,
almost doubling its capacity (theoretical capacity of Li2Mn2O4 is 285 mAh/g) while undergoing a cubic
to tetragonal phase transition. Furthermore, the operating voltage
of LiMn2O4 can be increased to ∼5 V by
partially substituting Mn with Ni in the Mn2O4 framework.[9]
Figure 1
(a) Schematics of the
spinel LiMn2O4 crystal structure, and (b) the
structural network for lithium diffusion within the LiMn2O4 crystal. (c) Out-of-plane XRD measurements of 110 nm
LiMn2O4 epitaxial thin films on 50 nm SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with different crystal
orientations: (100), (110), and (111). Nb-SrTiO3 substrate
peaks are indicated by □, and SrRuO3 are indicated
by *, whereas minor contributions of Mn2O3 phase
are given by •.
(a) Schematics of the
spinel LiMn2O4 crystal structure, and (b) the
structural network for lithium diffusion within the LiMn2O4 crystal. (c) Out-of-plane XRD measurements of 110 nm
LiMn2O4 epitaxial thin films on 50 nm SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with different crystal
orientations: (100), (110), and (111). Nb-SrTiO3 substrate
peaks are indicated by □, and SrRuO3 are indicated
by *, whereas minor contributions of Mn2O3 phase
are given by •.Despite these advantageous properties, LiMn2O4 cathodes suffer from fading capacity and poor cycle life
performance.[10] The origin of this capacity
loss was attributed to two factors: first, the onset of Jahn–Teller
distortion in deeply discharged electrodes,[1,11,12] and second, the dissolution of Mn ions from
the Mn2O4 framework.[13] The Jahn–Teller distortion, accompanied by the cubic to tetragonal
phase transition, irreversibly damages the structural integrity of
the spinel framework during deep cycling down to ∼3 V and causes
permanent capacity loss. However, this Jahn–Teller distortion
can be avoided by limiting the charging and discharging to the ∼4
V plateau. Whereas, Mn dissolution causing continuous loss of active
material and consequently blocking of 3D lithium diffusion pathways,
impedes the overall cell performance and remains the key limitation
for using LiMn2O4 cathodes.[2] Previous studies have suggested that acidification of electrolyte,
caused by reaction of hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) salt
in electrolyte with H2O, coupled with oxygen loss at the
cathode surface, to be the origin of Mn dissolution.[3,4,13] The underlying mechanism can
be understood via a disproportional reaction of Mn3+ generating
soluble Mn2+: 4H+ + 2Li (Mn3+Mn4+)O4→ 3λ-Mn4+O2 + Mn2+ + 2Li+ + 2H2O. Various strategies
have been suggested to mitigate the Mn dissolution of LiMn2O4, such as aliovalent doping, surface coating, nanostructuring,
mixed phase synthesis.[3,5−10,14−20] Although these strategies have indisputably shown significant enhancement
in LiMn2O4 performance, it remains far from
the desired level for usage in applications. Studies have shown that
the specific crystal facet in contact with the electrolyte plays an
important role in the electrochemical reactions occurring at the cathode
surface for single crystalline nanowires,[21] truncated structures[22] and thin films.[23] It was concluded that, as the ⟨111⟩
crystal facet possesses the lowest surface energy and the most dense
Mn atom arrangement, it can form a stable solid electrolyte interphase
(SEI) layer and mitigate Mn dissolution, thus improving cycling stability.
However, the (100)- and (110)-oriented facets were regarded to be
better aligned to the lithium diffusion channels, thus able to increase
discharge capacities and to facilitate high rate capabilities.[24]Therefore, perfect control on the interfacial
properties between the electrodes and electrolyte is needed but remains
a great challenge. Detailed understanding of the electrochemical behavior
of specific crystal facets of battery materials can only be obtained
when a single type of crystal orientation interfacing the electrolyte
can be synthesized. This crucial requirement can be achieved by epitaxial
thin film technology, in which the flat surface and restricted lattice
plane of the thin film cathode simplify the reaction mechanism at
such highly ordered cathode-electrolyte interface. Most studies on
LiMn2O4 thin films have investigated polycrystalline
samples, while only limited experimental research has been performed
on single crystalline thin films.[23,25−30] Characterization of such epitaxial thin films has previously been
focused on the structural properties, and only few reports have shown
electrochemical properties by clear redox peaks in the cyclic voltammetry,
and discharge capacities of ∼125 mAh/g with clear plateau regions
in the charge–discharge curves.[27,29,30] Detailed insight into the relation between the specific
crystal orientation toward the adjacent electrolyte and its electrochemical
behavior has been lacking, which has hampered the successful development
of high-quality LiMn2O4 cathode with high cyclability.
A detailed study by Hirayama et al. concluded from surface X-ray diffraction
measurements that a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) was present
on both (111) and (110) surfaces, although the (110) surface was less
stable and indicated a higher Mn dissolution.[26] So far the electrochemical performance was only reported for LiMn2O4 thin films grown on (111)-oriented SrTiO3 substrates,[27,30] where an additional Li3PO4 coating was added to prevent a phase transition of
the surface region and to suppress Mn dissolution and desorption of
oxygen from the surface.Here, we show that by structural engineering
of stable, epitaxial LiMn2O4 thin films the
electrochemical properties can be controlled and enhanced as compared
to polycrystalline samples. By changing the crystal orientation of
the underlying single crystalline substrate ((100), (110) and (111))
we can control the specific orientation of the LiMn2O4 thin film and, therefore, the cathode surface toward the
adjacent electrolyte. All three types of LiMn2O4 films exhibit surfaces exposing predominantly ⟨111⟩
crystal facets, the lowest energy state surface for this spinel structure,
which results in dramatic differences in surface morphology with pyramidal,
rooftop or flat features for respectively (100), (110), and (111)
LiMn2O4 films. Interestingly, the (100)-oriented
films exhibited the highest capacities, (dis)charging rates up to
33C, and good cyclability over a thousand cycles, demonstrating enhanced
cycle life without excessive capacity fading as compared to polycrystalline
studies.[20]Epitaxial engineering
is used in this study to control the crystal orientation of LiMn2O4 thin films, which enables a unique insight into
the relation between electrochemistry and crystal directionality,
not obtainable in single crystals or polycrystalline samples. LiMn2O4 thin films were grown by pulsed laser deposition
(PLD) on various single crystal Nb-doped (0.5 wt %) SrTiO3 (Nb:STO) substrates with different crystal orientations ((100),
(110) and (111)). All LiMn2O4 (LMO) thin films
were deposited under the same conditions and have a thickness of ∼110
nm. A 50 nm SrRuO3 (SRO) layer was deposited as an intermediate
layer to enhance the electrical transport between the LMO cathode
and the conducting Nb:STO substrate.[27]The structural quality of the LMO films was investigated by X-ray
diffraction (XRD) analysis, as shown in Figure c. The three types of LMO films grown on
Nb:STO substrates with different orientations exhibit coherent growth
in which the out-of-plane crystal orientation of the films is aligned
with the orientation of the substrate. The LMO(111) and LMO(110) films
show the presence of highly crystalline epitaxial layers, with a lattice
parameter of ∼8.25 Å, without any impurity phase, in good
agreement with previous studies of LMO growth on STO(111) and STO(110)
substrates.[23,27] This suggests that the PLD process
parameters (e.g., temperature, pressure, laser energy density, target
composition) were optimized successfully to correct for any loss of
volatile lithium during ablation, nucleation or growth. Interestingly,
the LMO films with (100)-orientation show minor contributions of a
secondary phase, although all three LMO films were grown during the
same deposition procedure. The extra peaks suggest the presence of
a small amount of Mn2O3,[31] which will have a negligible effect on the electrochemical
performance of the (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 thin
films, as the anodic reduction and cathodic oxidation reactions in
Mn2O3 take place below ∼1.3 V.[31,32] This is far below the potential window in our measurements of 3.6–4.5
V. In our case the coexistence of this lithium deficient phase could
be due to the enhanced lithium volatility at the (100) surface of
LiMn2O4.[18]The alignment of the out-of-plane crystal orientation for all types
of LMO films, suggests an epitaxial relation between the crystal structures
of the deposited LMO films and the underlying Nb:STO substrates, although
large differences exist between spinel LMO (a = 8.25
Å) and perovskite STO (a = 3.90 Å). The
observed preferred orientation of the LMO films was confirmed by detailed
analysis of the in-plane orientation by XRD (not shown) and the surface
morphology through atomic force microscopy (AFM), see Figure . The surface of the LMO(100)
film exhibits square-like structures with significant height differences
(RMS ≈ 45 nm), which is in good agreement with previously observed
octahedron spinel structures.[22,33] Such pyramidal spinel
structures consist of ⟨111⟩ crystal facets
on all four sides with an occasional presence of a truncated top of
the pyramid exhibiting a (100) crystal facet. The LMO(110) film forms
a layer with rooftop-like structures and a lower surface roughness
(RMS ≈ 5 nm), caused by the anisotropic nature of the (110)-plane
which favors diffusion of atoms along the [1̅10] direction as
compared to the [001] direction.[34] This
results in elongated ⟨111⟩ crystal facets
exposed on the surface, which are all aligned in the same direction.
Finally, the LMO(111) film forms a layer with triangle-like structures
exhibiting a very low surface roughness (RMS ≈ 1.5 nm). The
triangular shape corresponds to the (111) plane in a cubic structure,
for which two different types of in-plane triangle orientations can
be observed. Therefore, all three types of LMO films with different
out-of-plane orientations ((100), (110) and (111)) exhibit surfaces
exposing predominantly ⟨111⟩ crystal facets,
which confirms that this is the lowest energy state surface of the
spinel crystal structure.[22]
Figure 2
AFM (top) and SEM (middle)
analysis of the surface morphology of 110 nm LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with crystal orientations (100), (110) and (111). SEM
images are taken after extensive electrochemical cycling and subsequent
cleaning of the surfaces. Schematics (bottom) are shown of the expected
crystal facets for the different surface morphologies.
AFM (top) and SEM (middle)
analysis of the surface morphology of 110 nm LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with crystal orientations (100), (110) and (111). SEM
images are taken after extensive electrochemical cycling and subsequent
cleaning of the surfaces. Schematics (bottom) are shown of the expected
crystal facets for the different surface morphologies.To study the dependence of the lithium transport
on the specific crystal orientation of the LMO films, the lithium
intercalation characteristics of the LMO thin films were measured
by galvanostatic charge–discharge analysis of electrochemical
cells against lithium metal with a liquid electrolyte. Figure shows charge–discharge
curves for the LMO films with different orientations ((100), (110),
and (111)) for various currents, resulting in (dis)charge rates in
the range 0.7–33C. The characteristic voltage
plateaus for these epitaxial LMO thin films are in good agreement
with bulk LMO charge–discharge profiles.[7] The total discharge capacity for the slowest rate of 0.7C was the highest for the (100)-oriented LMO film (∼129
mAh/g), whereas the (110)- and (111)-oriented LMO films exhibit lower
discharge capacities of respectively ∼113 and ∼95 mAh/g.
The large surface area of the (100)-oriented LMO film, caused by pyramidal
surface morphology, is considered to cause enhanced lithium kinetics
as compared to the other crystal orientations. The crystal facets
on all films are predominantly ⟨111⟩, which eliminates
any possible effect from local variations in crystal facets. The enhanced
lithium kinetics for the (100)-oriented LMO films is also demonstrated
by the large capacities still achievable during (dis)charging when
using higher rates. The used relatively high currents stress the material
more and make the variations in lithium intercalation for the different
crystal orientations more pronounced. For currents of 20 μA
(∼13C), the discharge capacities for the (110)-
and (111)-oriented films drop to ∼50 mAh/g, whereas the (100)-oriented
film still exhibits double the capacity (∼100 mAh/g). The initial
drop in discharge capacity after the first charge–discharge
cycle may be attributed to anionic reaction occurring at upper voltage
cutoff combined with irreversible dissolution of surface lithium and
manganese.[16] Furthermore, it is interesting
to note that initially at low currents, all films show a slightly
higher charge capacity compared to the discharge. Although the exact
origin is still unclear, the difference in charge–discharge
capacities are within acceptable Coulombic efficiency limits.
Figure 3
Charge–discharge
analysis of 110 nm LiMn2O4 films with different
crystal orientations ((100), (110) and (111)) for various currents
(1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 μA). A potentiostatic period of 5 min
is used to ensure complete charge or discharge before the next step.
Charge–discharge
analysis of 110 nm LiMn2O4 films with different
crystal orientations ((100), (110) and (111)) for various currents
(1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 μA). A potentiostatic period of 5 min
is used to ensure complete charge or discharge before the next step.The rate dependence of the discharge
capacity is shown in more detail in Figure for the LMO films with different crystal
orientations. After the initial 20 charge–discharge cycles
with 3.3C the films are consecutively cycled at various
rates in the range 0.7–33C before finishing
the sequence with the final 40 cycles with 3.3C.
The results show the stability of the LMO films during substantial
cycling, as well as the enhanced performance of the (100)-oriented
film as compared to the other orientations. The cycle performance
of the (100), (110), and (111)-oriented LMO thin films was compared
after 140 cycles at various C-rates by their discharge capacities
of respectively 87, 78, and 76%, as well their Coulombic efficiencies
of respectively 97, 94, and 97%. Interestingly, at the highest rate
of 33C, the (100)-oriented film still exhibits a
capacity of about 84 mAh/g, whereas the capacities of the (110)- and
(111)-oriented films have been almost reduced to zero. The observed
variation in surface area between the differently oriented films (about
50% more surface area for (100)-oriented films as compared to (110)-
and (111)-oriented films, see Figure ), cannot explain this dramatic difference in lithium
kinetics. Therefore, it is suggested that the actual difference in
lithium intercalation along different crystal orientations within
the LiMn2O4 crystal structure is more pronounced
at higher rates when limitations in ionic (lithium) and electric transport
become more apparent.
Figure 4
Rate performance analysis of 110 nm LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with different crystal orientations ((100), (110), and
(111)) for various currents, and corresponding C rates.
Rate performance analysis of 110 nm LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates with different crystal orientations ((100), (110), and
(111)) for various currents, and corresponding C rates.Although the conventional understanding
of the Li diffusion in LiMn2O4 is three-dimensional
in which the Li ions hop over the 8a and 16c sites along the interconnected
pathways, these zigzagging chains form lithium diffusion channels
in specific directions.[35] Previous studies
have suggested that although the (111)-oriented facets exhibit the
lowest surface energy,[18,36] the (100)- and (110)-oriented
facets are better aligned to the lithium diffusion channels, thus
increasing discharge capacities and facilitating high rate capabilities.[24] Our results demonstrate that very stable LiMn2O4 thin films with ⟨111⟩ surface
facets exhibit much higher rate capabilities for the (100)-direction
as compared to the (110)-direction. Theoretical modeling would provide
detailed insight into the diffusion mechanism in which the ease of
lithium diffusion through the bottleneck is studied. This oxygen triangle
is formed at the contact face between the tetrahedron about 8a and
the octahedron about 16c and depends on the displacement of the O
atoms, which can vary in differently oriented epitaxial thin films.The cycle life of such high-performance (100)-oriented LMO films
was investigated for several cells during prolonged battery cycling
at similar conditions, see Figure . The electrochemical behavior of all four cells exhibited
good uniformity with initial capacities of about 120–130 mAh/g,
which still provided capacities of about 90 mAh/g after a thousand
cycles. The stability of the voltage plateaus over the full thousand
cycles is shown in Figure a, b, and indicates the unchanged internal resistance during
the complete prolonged cycling. Figure c displays the enhanced cycle life performance for
(100)-oriented LMO films with significantly high capacity and Coulombic
efficiency over thousand cycles as compared to previous studies on
bulk and polycrystallineLMO for which the capacity drops below 80%
within 50 cycles.[10,20] The very stable cycle performance
with very minimal changes in the internal resistance, as can be seen
for the (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 thin films in
the constant voltage plateaus in the charge–discharge curves
(Figure a) and constant
peak positions in the cyclic voltammetry (Figure b), was confirmed by electrochemical impedance
spectroscopy (EIS) experiments during extensive cycling (data not
shown).
Figure 5
Cycle life analysis of four 110 nm (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates. The evolution of (a) charge–discharge
and (b) cyclic voltammetry behaviors are shown during prolonged cycling.
(c) Discharge capacity (circles) and Coulombic efficiency (squares)
are given for a thousand cycles. During the measurements a current
of 5 μA was used, which provided a (dis)charge rate of 3.3 C.
Cycle life analysis of four 110 nm (100)-oriented LiMn2O4 thin films on SrRuO3-coated Nb-SrTiO3 substrates. The evolution of (a) charge–discharge
and (b) cyclic voltammetry behaviors are shown during prolonged cycling.
(c) Discharge capacity (circles) and Coulombic efficiency (squares)
are given for a thousand cycles. During the measurements a current
of 5 μA was used, which provided a (dis)charge rate of 3.3 C.In conclusion, structural
engineering enables improved control over the electrochemical properties
of LiMn2O4 thin films, which is unique for epitaxial
thin films and cannot be obtained in single-crystal or polycrystalline
samples. Control of the specific crystal orientation of the LMO thin
films resulted in dramatic differences in surface morphology with
pyramidal, rooftop or flat features for respectively (100), (110)
and (111) orientations. All three types of LMO films exhibit surfaces
exposing predominantly ⟨111⟩ crystal facets, which is
predicted to be the lowest energy crystallographic surface for this
spinel structure. The (100)-oriented LMO films exhibited the highest
capacities and (dis)charging rates up to 33C, and
good cyclability over a thousand cycles, demonstrating enhanced cycle
life without excessive capacity fading as compared to previous polycrystalline
studies.
Experimental Methods
The LiMn2O4 and SrRuO3 layers were grown by pulsed
laser deposition (PLD) at 600 °C on Nb-doped (0.5 wt %) single
crystalline SrTiO3 (100, 110 or 111) substrates from sintered
Li2Mn2O4 (100 wt % excess Li2O) and SrRuO3 targets, using a KrF excimer laser
operating at 248 nm at a repetition rate of 2 Hz. The Nb-SrTiO3 substrates were annealed at 950 °C for 1.5 h in an oxygen
flow of 150 mL/min. The oxygen pressure during growth was 0.13 mbar,
while the laser energy fluence was 2.3 J cm–2 for
the growth of both LiMn2O4 and SrRuO3. After deposition, the thin films were cooled to room temperature
in an oxygen pressure of 0.13 mbar at a rate of 10 °C min–1.The crystal structure, surface morphology,
and thickness of the thin films were investigated by X-ray diffraction
(PANalytical X’Pert PRO diffractometer), atomic force microscopy
(Bruker ICON Dimension Microscope), and scanning electron microscopy
(Zeiss Merlin HR-SEM), respectively.For electrochemical characterization
the films were transferred to an argon atmosphere glovebox (<0.1
ppm of H2O and O2) and placed on a hot plate
for ∼10 min at 125 °C to remove any water content. Subsequently,
they are positioned in an electrochemical EC-ref cell by EL-CELL and
combined with a glass fiber separator of 1 mm thickness, 0.6 mL electrolyte
with 1 M LiPF6 in 1:1 ethylene carbonate dimethyl carbonate
(EC:DMC) and lithium metal anode. The electrochemical measurements
were performed at 22 °C using a BioLogic VMP-300 system in a
two-electrode setup in which the samples were cycled galvanostatically
between 3.6 and 4.5 V with currents of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 μA,
corresponding to C rates of approximately 0.7, 1.3,
3.3, 6.6, 13, and 33C, respectively. A potentiostatic
period of 5 min is used to ensure complete charge or discharge before
the next step.
Authors: Haipeng Li; Collins Erinmwingbovo; Johannes Birkenstock; Marco Schowalter; Andreas Rosenauer; Fabio La Mantia; Lutz Mädler; Suman Pokhrel Journal: ACS Appl Energy Mater Date: 2021-04-27
Authors: Deepak P Singh; Yorick A Birkhölzer; Daniel M Cunha; Thijs Dubbelink; Sizhao Huang; Theodoor A Hendriks; Caroline Lievens; Mark Huijben Journal: ACS Appl Energy Mater Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Daniel M Cunha; Chris M Vos; Theodoor A Hendriks; Deepak P Singh; Mark Huijben Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Daniel M Cunha; Nicolas Gauquelin; Rui Xia; Johan Verbeeck; Mark Huijben Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 10.383