4.7 Article

Thermo-electrical and structural properties of Gd2O3 and Lu2O3 double-doped Bi2O3

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 614-622

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.052

关键词

SOFC; delta-Bi2O3; Activation energy; Ceramic electrolytes

资金

  1. Erciyes University's Research Fund [FBA-11-3525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gd2O3 and Lu2O3 double-doped Bi2O3 compounds were prepared by solid-state synthesis techniques. Eight micro crystalline samples were synthesized with compositions of (Bi2O3)(1-x-y)(Gd2O3)(x)(Lu2O3)(y), where x = 0.05, 0.1 and y = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2. The structure of the ceramic materials was characterized by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) and Thermo Gravimetry/Differential Thermal Analysis (TG/DTA). The morphology of the materials of the system was displayed by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Also, the electrical conductivity of the samples was determined by the DC four-point probe technique (4PPT) in air at temperatures ranging from room temperature to 1100 degrees C. It was observed that two samples, (Bi2O3)(1.-x-y)(Gd2O3)(x)(Lu2O3)(y) x = 0.05-0.1, y = 0.05 have mixture phases including delta-phase before additional heat treatments, and that the phases of all of the samples changed to the stable fluorite type face centered cubic delta-Bi2O3 phase which has a high conductivity property after electrical conductivity measurements. The DTA results also showed that all samples have delta-Bi2O3 phases. The highest electrical conductivity was seen for the sample of the (Bi2O3)(0.85)(Gd2O3)(0.1)(Lu2O3)(0.05) system as 9.20 x 10(-2) (ohm.cm)(-1) at 650 degrees C. The lowest activation energy was also calculated for the sample of the (Bi2O3)(0.8)(-Gd2O3)(0.1)(Lu2O3)(0.1) system as 0.5104 eV. The results indicated that the stable delta-Bi2O3 phase samples can be used as electrolyte materials in solid oxide fuel cells. (C) 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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