4.7 Article

Guidelines for processing of porous barium zirconate-based ceramic electrolytes for electrochemical solid oxide cell applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 4998-5007

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.05.031

关键词

Cellular ceramics; Porosity; Emulsification; Taguchi method; Barium zirconate

资金

  1. FCT/MCTES [SFRH/BD/138773/2018, UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020, LA/P/0006/2020]
  2. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient use of barium-containing electrocatalysts for NOx decomposition in electrochemical solid oxide cells requires good chemical compatibility and porous electrolytes. This study focuses on processing guidelines for BaZr0.85Y0.15O3 ceramics with cellular porosity using emulsification. The results show that the porosity and permeability of the ceramics depend on the surfactant and paraffin content.
Efficient use of barium-containing electrocatalysts for NOx decomposition in electrochemical solid oxide cells requires good chemical compatibility of these materials with the electrolyte in a temperature range 300-600 degrees C and imply the use of porous electrolytes allowing significant gas flows across the cell. BaZr0.85Y0.15O3 electrolyte has good chemical compatibility with Ba-containing materials and potentially appropriate level of ionic conductivity. This work is focused on guidelines for processing BaZr0.85Y0.15O3 ceramics with cellular porosity (i.e., with spherical pores and with developed gas interconnections), using emulsification of paraffin in water-based ceramic suspension. Porosity of sintered at 1500 degrees C ceramics is practically open and varies in the range of 70-84%, with average pore sizes in the range similar to 3-30 mu m. The type of pore size distribution is close to log-normal. Microstructure, average cell size and level of gas permeability mainly depends on surfactant content, while total porosity is mostly determined by paraffin content.

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