4.8 Article

Lattice expansion of LSCF-6428 cathodes measured by in situ XRD during SOFC operation

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 76-82

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.09.099

关键词

SOFC; In situ XRD; LSCF; Cathode; Segregation; Lattice strain

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy through the Solid-State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
  2. Battelle Memorial Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC06-76RL]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new capability has been developed for analyzing solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). This paper describes the initial results of in situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the cathode on an operating anode-supported solid oxide fuel cell. It has been demonstrated that XRD measurements of the cathode can be performed simultaneously with electrochemical measurements of cell performance or electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). While improvements to the technique are still to be made, the XRD pattern of a lanthanum strontium cobalt ferrite (LSCF) cathode with the composition La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3-delta (LSCF-6428) was found to continually but gradually change over the course of more than 60 h of operation in air under typical SOFC operating conditions. It was determined that the most significant change was a gradual increase in the cubic lattice parameters of the LSCF from 3.92502 angstrom (as determined from the integration of the first 20 h of XRD patterns) to 3.92650 angstrom (from the integration of the last 20 h). This analysis also revealed that there were several peaks from unidentified minor phases that increased in intensity over this timeframe. After a temporary loss of airflow early in the test, the cell generated between 225 and 250 mW cm(-2) for the remainder of the test. A large low frequency arc in the impedance spectra suggests the cell performance was gas diffusion limited and that there is room for improvement in air delivery to the cell. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据