4.7 Article

Room-temperature thermoelectric materials: Challenges and a new paradigm

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIOMICS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 427-436

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmat.2021.07.004

关键词

Thermoelectric materials; Mg3Sb2; Bi2Te3; Chemical bond engineering

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51872133]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFA0704900, 2018YFB0703600]
  3. Tencent Foundation through the XPLORER PRIZE
  4. Shenzhen DRC project [[2018]1433]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Room-temperature thermoelectric materials offer a promising solution for energy harvesting and power supply for IoTs. The Mg3Sb2 family has gained increasing attention as a potential alternative to the dominantly used Bi2Te3 materials. This review provides an overview of the development timeline, fabrication strategies, and a comparison between Mg3Sb2 and Bi2Te3 in terms of crystallinity and band structures. The challenges and future directions in designing room-temperature thermoelectric materials are also discussed.
Room-temperature thermoelectric materials provide promising solutions for energy harvesting from the environment, and deliver a maintenance-free power supply for the internet-of-things (IoTs). The currently available Bi2Te3 family discovered in the 1950s, still dominates industrial applications, however, it has serious disadvantages of brittleness and the resource shortage of tellurium (1 x 10(-3) ppm in the earth's crust). The novel Mg3Sb2 family has received increasing attention as a promising alternative for room-temperature thermoelectric materials. In this review, the development timeline and fabrication strategies of the Mg3Sb2 family are depicted. Moreover, an insightful comparison between the crystallinity and band structures of Mg3Sb2 and Bi2Te3 is drawn. An outlook is presented to discuss challenges and new paradigms in designing room-temperature thermoelectric materials. (C) 2022 The Chinese Ceramic Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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