This Review is focused on ion-transport mechanisms and fundamental properties of solid-state electrolytes to be used in electrochemical energy-storage systems. Properties of the migrating species significantly affecting diffusion, including the valency and ionic radius, are discussed. The natures of the ligand and metal composing the skeleton of the host framework are analyzed and shown to have large impacts on the performance of solid-state electrolytes. A comprehensive identification of the candidate migrating species and structures is carried out. Not only the bulk properties of the conductors are explored, but the concept of tuning the conductivity through interfacial effects—specifically controlling grain boundaries and strain at the interfaces—is introduced. High-frequency dielectric constants and frequencies of low-energy optical phonons are shown as examples of properties that correlate with activation energy across many classes of ionic conductors. Experimental studies and theoretical results are...

/pdf/inorganic-solid-state-electrolytes-for-lithium-batteries-ix94bt2tm5.pdf

Inorganic Solid-State Electrolytes for Lithium Batteries: Mechanisms and Properties Governing Ion Conduction

Hydrogen bonding is an important interaction playing a key role in chemical, physical, and biochemical processes. One can mention numerous examples such as the role of hydrogen bonding in enzymatic catalysis, arrangement of molecules in crystals, crystal engineering, proton transfer reactions, and also its important role in life processes. Hence, its nature is often the subject of investigations and polemics. One of the first definitions of hydrogen bonding was formulated by Pauling who stated that “under certain conditions an atom of hydrogen is attracted by rather strong forces to two atoms, instead of only one, so that it may be considered to be acting as a bond between them. This is called the hydrogen bond”. Pauling also pointed out that the hydrogen atom is situated only between the most electronegative atoms and it usually interacts much stronger with one of them. The latter interaction is a typical covalent bond (A-H). The interaction between hydrogen and another electronegative atom is much weaker and mostly electrostatic in nature; it is a nonbonding interaction (H 3 3 3B). This system is often designated as AH 3 3 3B where the B-center (acceptor of proton) should possess at least one lone electron pair; A-H is called the protondonating bond. Pauling stated that sometimes the H 3 3 3B interaction possesses characteristics of the covalent bond. The [FHF] ion is an example where the proton is inserted between two negative fluorine ions, accurately in the middle of the F 3 3 3 F distance. Hence, both H 3 3 3 F interactions are equivalent. This is in line with an early conclusion of Lewis that “an atom of hydrogen may at times be attached to two electron pairs of two different atoms” and with the statement of Latimer and Rodebush that “the hydrogen nucleus held by two octets constitutes a weak bond”. The latter statements correspond to recent studies on proton bound homodimers, that is, systems where the proton is inserted between two closed-shell moieties and where it often interacts equivalently with both of them. Chan and co-workers analyzed recently what factors determine whether the protonbound homodimer has a symmetric or an asymmetric hydrogen bond. In the other study, it is discussed what conditions should be fulfilled for the proton situated accurately in the midpoint of the donor-acceptor distance. The high level calculations up to CCSD(T)/6-311þþ(3df,3pd)//CCSD/6-311þþ(3df,3pd) were performed on the [FHF] ion and systems with O-H 3 3 3O or N-H 3 3 3N hydrogen bonds. The latter study is supported by the experimental X-ray and neutron diffraction data because there are numerous crystal structures with short O-H 3 3 3O hydrogen bonds and the proton situated in the central position or nearly so. Also recently, homogeneous and heterogeneous short and strong hydrogen bonds (SSHBs) as well as the proton bound homodimers were analyzed theoretically at MP2/aug-ccpVDZ þ diffuse(2s,2p) level. Among various topics, the matter was raised if hydrogen bonding is an electrostatic or covalent interaction. The following question arises: what does the covalency of hydrogen bonding mean? The decomposition of the interaction energy is useful to analyze hydrogen bonding and particularly to answer the latter question. One of the first decomposition schemes introduced is one of Morokuma and Kitaura, where the interaction energy is calculated within the Hartree-Fock one-electron approximation and it is decomposed into the following components: the exchange energy, EEX (arising from repulsive forces), and the other components, which might be a result of attractive forces: the polarization energy, EPL, the charge transfer energy, ECT, and the electrostatic energy, EES. If a method is applied where the correlation of electrons is taken into account, then the correlation energy may be included. One of the most important attractive components of the correlation energy is the dispersive energy. Different H-bonded systems were analyzed early by Umeyama and Morokuma who stated that: “The energy components are strongly distance dependent. At a relatively small separation, ES, CT, and PL can all be important attractive components, competing against a large EX repulsion. At larger distances for the same complex the short-range attractions CT and PL are usually unimportant and ES is the only important attraction.” One can see that the “covalency of interaction”may be connected with short H 3 3 3B distances where terms other than the electrostatic attractive one are important.

What is the covalency of hydrogen bonding

During the last century, inorganic oxide compounds laid foundations for materials synthesis, characterization, and technology translation by adding new functions into devices previously dominated by main-group element semiconductor compounds. Today, compounds with multiple anions beyond the single-oxide ion, such as oxyhalides and oxyhydrides, offer a new materials platform from which superior functionality may arise. Here we review the recent progress, status, and future prospects and challenges facing the development and deployment of mixed-anion compounds, focusing mainly on oxide-derived materials. We devote attention to the crucial roles that multiple anions play during synthesis, characterization, and in the physical properties of these materials. We discuss the opportunities enabled by recent advances in synthetic approaches for design of both local and overall structure, state-of-the-art characterization techniques to distinguish unique structural and chemical states, and chemical/physical properties emerging from the synergy of multiple anions for catalysis, energy conversion, and electronic materials.

/pdf/expanding-frontiers-in-materials-chemistry-and-physics-with-13jniuul1k.pdf

Expanding frontiers in materials chemistry and physics with multiple anions

Published two-body bond-valence parameters for cation–oxygen bonds have been evaluated via the root mean-square deviation (RMSD) from the valence-sum rule for 128 cations, using 180 194 filtered bond lengths from 31 489 coordination polyhedra. Values of the RMSD range from 0.033–2.451 v.u. (1.1–40.9% per unit of charge) with a weighted mean of 0.174 v.u. (7.34% per unit of charge). The set of best published parameters has been determined for 128 ions and used as a benchmark for the determination of new bond-valence parameters in this paper. Two common methods for the derivation of bond-valence parameters have been evaluated: (1) fixing B and solving for Ro; (2) the graphical method. On a subset of 90 ions observed in more than one coordination, fixing B at 0.37 A leads to a mean weighted-RMSD of 0.139 v.u. (6.7% per unit of charge), while graphical derivation gives 0.161 v.u. (8.0% per unit of charge). The advantages and disadvantages of these (and other) methods of derivation have been considered, leading to the conclusion that current methods of derivation of bond-valence parameters are not satisfactory. A new method of derivation is introduced, the GRG (generalized reduced gradient) method, which leads to a mean weighted-RMSD of 0.128 v.u. (6.1% per unit of charge) over the same sample of 90 multiple-coordination ions. The evaluation of 19 two-parameter equations and 7 three-parameter equations to model the bond-valence–bond-length relation indicates that: (1) many equations can adequately describe the relation; (2) a plateau has been reached in the fit for two-parameter equations; (3) the equation of Brown & Altermatt (1985) is sufficiently good that use of any of the other equations tested is not warranted. Improved bond-valence parameters have been derived for 135 ions for the equation of Brown & Altermatt (1985) in terms of both the cation and anion bond-valence sums using the GRG method and our complete data set.

/pdf/comprehensive-derivation-of-bond-valence-parameters-for-ion-hzzk21izft.pdf

Comprehensive derivation of bond-valence parameters for ion pairs involving oxygen

The search of new borates with improved functional properties has attracted considerable attention. Herein, a new polar fluorooxoborate, NaB4 O6 F (NBF) was prepared by high-temperature solid-state reaction. NBF belongs to the AB4 O6 F family (A=alkali metal or ammonium), a series of compounds that undergoes significant cation-dependent structural changes. NBF is of particular interest owing to the special cation position. Temperature-dependent ionic conductivity measurements show that NBF is a solid ionic conductor, and it has the lowest active energy of 32.5 kJ mol-1 of fluorooxoborates. NBF also shows a second-harmonic generation (SHG) response of 0.9×KH2 PO4 and 0.2×β-BaB2 O4 , at 1064 and 532 nm, respectively, and it has a short UV cutoff edge below 180 nm. Based on bond valence (BV) concepts, symmetry analysis, and the first principles calculation, the unique [B4 O6 F]∞ layer can be regarded as the "multifunctional unit", which is responsible for the observed properties of NBF.

Polar Fluorooxoborate, NaB4O6F: A Promising Material for Ionic Conduction and Nonlinear Optics

In the paragraph following eq 28, the average bond valence was incorrectly referred to as V/R. It has been corrected to V/N. The paper originally posted to the web on September 3, 2009, and was reposted on September 24, 2009.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cr900053k

Ian David Brown

Papers

Recent developments in the methods and applications of the bond valence model.

Recent Developments in the Methods and Applications of the Bond Valence Model