## 3 Results and Discussion
### Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)  
The thermal stability of the PSLS nanoparticles was determined by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). This analysis was carried out with a TGA/SDTA851e thermal analyzer (Mettler Toledo). A sample (5-7 mg) was placed in an aluminum pan, and then heated from 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 10 min and cooled rapidly to 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C for another 10 min. The samples were then heated from 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 500 \({}^{\circ}\)C at the rate of 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C/min [12]. All measurements were done under air flow through the system. The TGA curves of the PSLS nanoparticles displayed two mass loss steps (Figure 8). The initial mass loss below 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C was due to the gradual evaporation of absorbed moisture. The second mass loss in the range of 450 to 480 \({}^{\circ}\)C was a result of the decomposition of the polystyrene matrix. Our results show that the thermal stability of in the order PSTFPhLi \(>\) PSDTTOLi \(>\) PSTFSILI. PSTFSILI displayed more moisture sensitivity (11% weight loss before 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C) due to its structural similarity \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Components Weight [mg]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Abbreviation of**} \\ \hline
**PSTFSILI** & **PEO** & **PEGDM** & **LiTFSI** & **Formulation** \\ \hline
25 & 75 & 100 & 25 & DTTO–PPL = 1:3:4:1 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 50 & DTTO–PPL = 1:3:4:2 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 75 & DTTO–PPL = 1:3:4:3 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 12.5 & DTTO–PPL = 2:3:4:1 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 25 & DTTO–PPL = 2:3:4:2 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 37.5 & DTTO–PPL = 2:3:4:3 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 8.3 & DTTO–PPL = 3:3:4:1 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 16.7 & DTTO–PPL = 3:3:4:2 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 25 & DTTO–PPL = 3:3:4:3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Formulations of the SPE films with various weight ratios of PSDTTOLi and LiTFSI. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Components Weight [mg]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Abbreviation of**} \\ \hline
**PSTFSILI** & **PEO** & **PEGDM** & **LiTFSI** & **the Formulation** \\ \hline
0 & 75 & 100 & 50 & PPL = 3:4:2 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 25 & TFSI–PPL = 1:3:4:1 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 50 & TFSI–PPL = 1:3:4:2 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 75 & TFSI–PPL = 1:3:4:3 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 12.5 & TFSI–PPL = 2:3:4:1 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 25 & TFSI–PPL = 2:3:4:2 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 37.5 & TFSI–PPL = 2:3:4:3 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 8.3 & TFSI–PPL = 3:3:4:1 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 16.7 & TFSI–PPL = 3:3:4:2 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 25 & TFSI–PPL = 3:3:4:3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Formulations of the SPE films with various weight ratios of PSTFSILI and LiTFSI. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Components Weight [mg]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Abbreviation of**} \\ \hline
**PSTFSILI** & **PEO** & **PEGDM** & **LiTFSI** & **the Formulation** \\ \hline
25 & 75 & 100 & 25 & PhSI–PPL = 1:3:4:1 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 50 & PhSI–PPL = 1:3:4:2 \\
25 & 75 & 100 & 75 & PhSI–PPL = 1:3:4:3 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 12.5 & PhSI–PPL = 2:3:4:1 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 25 & PhSI–PPL = 2:3:4:2 \\
25 & 37.5 & 50 & 37.5 & TFSI–PPL = 2:3:4:3 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 8.3 & PhSI–PPL = 3:3:4:1 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 16.7 & PSI–PPL = 3:3:4:2 \\
25 & 25 & 37.5 & 25 & PhSI–PPL = 3:3:4:3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Formulations of the SPE films with various weight ratios of PSPHSILi and LiTFSI. with LiTFSI, which was found to be hygroscopic (Table 5).