Fast Lithium Ion Conduction in Garnet-Type Li7La3Zr2O12
2007 · paper · Materials
Reports the synthesis of Li7La3Zr2O12, a garnet-type oxide that conducts lithium ions. The authors suggest its high conductivity and stability against electrode materials make it a promising solid electrolyte for all-solid-state lithium batteries.
1 finding
Substance Table 1, thin pellet: σtotal is printed as "7.74×10−4" at 25 °C and "3.01×10−4" at 50 °C; the two entries are transposed (the 25 °C total exceeds the bulk value "5.11×10−4", and the text gives "3×10−4 S cm−1 at 25 °C").
- p. 2 Table 1, thin pellet, 25 °C row
5.11×10−4 7.74×10−4 0.41
- p. 2 Table 1, thin pellet, 50 °C row
1.45×10−3 3.01×10−4 0.47
- p. 2 right column, results text
The total conductivity (3×10−4 Scm−1 at 25°C)
- p. 2 left column, results text
The thin pellet shows a slightly higher bulk and total conductivity than the thick pellet sample.
Judge's note: Read Table 1 on the page 2 image: the values sit in the σtotal column in the rows as quoted, so this is not an extraction shift. The last column, Rgb/(Rb+Rgb) = 1 − σtotal/σbulk, reproduces for the other four rows (0.44, 0.48, 0.49 within rounding, 0.42). For the thin pellet at 25 and 50 °C it fails as printed (−0.51 and 0.79) and matches the printed 0.41 and 0.47 exactly when the two totals are exchanged. As printed, total conductivity would exceed bulk at 25 °C and fall between 25 and 50 °C, against the series circuit in Figure 1 and the Arrhenius plots. The running text (3×10−4 S cm−1 at 25 °C; thin pellet 'slightly higher' than the thick pellet's 2.44×10−4) agrees with the exchanged arrangement. No statement in the paper explains the printed values.
Second check: another model agreed · checked by hand
Report a problem with this finding
8 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording The text says the total conductivity ("3×10−4 S cm−1 at 25 °C") "is better than that of any other family of solid lithium ion conductors", yet page 3 quotes polycrystalline Li3N at "6.6×10−4 S cm−1 at 27 °C" and calls it "comparable".
- p. 2 right column, results text
is better than that of any other family of solid lithium ion conductors and all previously described lithium garnets
- p. 3 left column, discussion of Figure 3
(6.6×10−4 Scm−1 at 27°C) is comparable to that of Li7La3Zr2O12
- p. 2 right column, results text
(3×10−4 Scm−1 at 25°C)
- p. 2 Table 1, thick pellet 25 °C σtotal
2.44×10−4
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read both passages on the page 2 and page 3 images. The superlative on page 2 is unqualified and tied to the 25 °C value; the paper's own Li3N figure is about 2.2 times higher at nearly the same temperature (2.7 times the thick pellet's 2.44×10−4). Page 3 limits the advantage to 'higher temperature' and calls Li3N 'rather unstable', which softens but does not qualify the earlier sentence. A wording overstatement against the paper's own comparison, not a data error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 1 caption explains "the subscripts g, gb, and el refer to the grain, grain boundary, and electrode", but the circuit in the same sentence is "(RbQb)(RgbQgb)(Qel)", with subscript b; g is never used.
- p. 2 Figure 1 caption
subscripts g, gb, and el refer to the grain, grain boundary, and electrode
- p. 2 Figure 1 caption
(RbQb)(RgbQgb)(Qel)
- p. 2 Figure 1 caption
subscripts g, gb, and el refer to the grain, grain boundary, and
- p. 2 Figure 1 caption
the subscripts g, gb, and el refer to the grain, grain boundary, and electrode
Judge's note: Checked the caption on the page 2 image: the circuit subscripts are b, gb and el, and the key lists g, gb and el. The body text uses the same circuit with b, and Table 1 footnote [b] defines Rb as bulk resistance. Grain and bulk are the same contribution, so the meaning is recoverable; the defined symbol simply does not match the one used.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 footnote [a] has a closing parenthesis with no opening one: "thin pellet 0.18 cm in thickness and 0.98 cm in diameter)."
- p. 2 Table 1, footnote [a]
0.18 cm in thickness and 0.98 cm in diameter).
- p. 2 Table 1 footnote [a]
thin pellet 0.18 cm in thickness and 0.98 cm in diameter).
Judge's note: Read the footnote on the page 2 image: "[a] Thick pellet 1.02 cm in thickness and 0.92 cm in diameter; thin pellet 0.18 cm in thickness and 0.98 cm in diameter)." There is no opening parenthesis.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 last column header is printed "Rgb/Rb + Rgb" without parentheses; the tabulated values are Rgb/(Rb+Rgb).
- p. 2 Table 1, last column header
Rgb/Rb+Rgb
Judge's note: The page 2 image shows the header set on one line as Rgb/Rb + Rgb, not as a stacked fraction. The values (0.41 to 0.49) and the text ('grain-boundary contribution to the total resistance is less than 50%') show the grain-boundary share of total resistance is meant; e.g. thick pellet at 18 °C gives 0.44. Meaning is clear from context, so cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 3 legend reads "LiI+40 mol Al2O3" without the percent sign; the text gives "LiI + 40 mol% Al2O3".
- p. 3 Figure 3 legend
LiI+40 mol Al2O3
- p. 3 left column, text on Figure 3
40 mol% Al2O3
Judge's note: The legend is small in the page image, so I rendered Figure 3 from the PDF at 5x: the entry reads 'LiI+40 mol Al2O3' with no % sign. The text on page 3 has '40 mol %'. Cosmetic omission of the unit symbol in the legend.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference [2a] prints "H. Aono, H. Imanaka, G. Y. Adachi" while [2b] prints "G. Y. Adachi, N. Imanaka, H. Aono": Imanaka's initial differs between the two entries.
- p. 4 reference [2a]
H. Aono, H. Imanaka, G. Y. Adachi
- p. 4 reference [2b]
G. Y. Adachi, N. Imanaka, H. Aono
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the author is N. Imanaka, so [2a] is the entry in error. The inconsistency itself is in the PDF: the page 4 image shows 'H. Imanaka' in [2a] and 'N. Imanaka' in [2b] for the same three-author group. Which initial is right cannot be settled from the files.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference [3a] gives the last author as "W. Wakihara" ("Ikuta, W. Wakihara, Solid State Commun. 1993, 86, 689–693"); reviewers say the author is M. Wakihara.
- p. 4 reference [3a]
Ikuta, W. Wakihara, Solid State Commun. 1993, 86, 689
- p. 4 Reference [3] a)
Ikuta, W. Wakihara
- p. 4 Reference [3a]
Ikuta, W. Wakihara, Solid State Commun.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author list of Inaguma et al., Solid State Commun. 1993, 86, 689 (last author said to be M. Wakihara). The page 4 image does print 'W. Wakihara'. Nothing in the files confirms the correct initial, so this is a query for the authors.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference [10c] prints the co-author as "A. Jereze" ("R. Saez-Puche, A. Jereze, C. Pico"); reviewers say the surname is Jerez.
- p. 4 reference [10c]
R. Saez-Puche, A. Jereze, C. Pico
- p. 4 Reference [10c]
A. Jereze, C. Pico
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author list of Isasi et al., J. Alloys Compd. 1991, 177, 251 (co-author said to be A. Jerez). The page 4 image does print 'A. Jereze'. The correct spelling cannot be verified from the files.
Second check: none (judge only)