4.7 Article

Assessment of cobalt-free ferrite-based perovskite Ln0.5Sr0.5Fe0.9Mo0.1O3-δ (Ln = lanthanide) as cathodes for IT-SOFCs

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 2682-2690

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.11.035

关键词

Conductivity; Thermal expansion; Electrochemical performance; Stability; Cobalt-free ceramic cathode

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21403101]
  2. Foundation of Education Department of Liaoning Province [L2012135, L2016013, L2017LQN037]
  3. Foundation of the Science and Technology Department of Liaoning Province [201602475, 20170520381]
  4. LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program [XLYC1807179]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cobalt-free perovskite Ln(0.5)Sr(0.5)Fe(0.9)Mo(0.1)O(3-delta) was prepared via a sol-gel process, with LaSFM being assessed as the preferred ceramic cathode for IT-SOFC based on its excellent performance.
Cobalt-free perovskites Ln(0.5)Sr(0.5)Fe(0.9)Mo(0.1)O(3-delta) (Ln = lanthanide; LnSFM) were prepared via a sol-gel process. Pure rhombohedral phases were still not obtained for the samples (Ln = Sm and Gd) even sintered at 1300 degrees C. Thus, only the LaSFM, PrSFM and NdSFM compositions were assessed as IT-SOFC cathodes in terms of their thermal, electrical and electrochemical properties. Thermal expansion of the LnSFM was well compatible with that of Sm0.2Ce0.8O1.9 (SDC) electrolyte. Both conductivity and electrochemical performances of the LnSFM followed the same sequence of La > Nd > Pr. For the LaSFM, NdSFM and PrSFM cathodes, peak conductivities reached 73, 63 and 59 S.cm(-1) at 650 degrees C; polarization resistances attained 0.211, 0.446 and 0.469 omega.cm(2) at 700 degrees C; peak power densities of the LnSFM cells with 300-mu m-thick SDC electrolyte achieved 269, 261 and 233 mW.cm(-2) at 700 degrees C without cell degradation for operating 100 h. By comprehensive comparison, the LaSFM is assessed as a preferred cobalt-free ceramic cathode for IT-SOFC.

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

4.7
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