4.6 Article

Stretching Epitaxial La0.6Sr0.4CoO3-δ for Fast Oxygen Reduction

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 121, 期 46, 页码 25651-25658

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06374

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Science and Engineering Division
  2. Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
  3. Scientific User Facilities Division, U.S. DOE
  4. National Science Foundation (NSF) Software Infrastructure for Sustained Innovation (SI2) [1148011]
  5. NSF [OCI-1053575]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The slow kinetics of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) is one of the key challenges in developing high performance energy devices, such as solid oxide fuel cells. Straining a film by growing on a lattice-mismatched substrate has been a conventional approach to enhance the ORR activity. However, due to the limited choice of electrolyte substrates to alter the degree of strain, a systematic study in various materials has been a challenge. Here, we explore the strain modulation of the ORB. kinetics by growing epitaxial La0.6Sr0.4CoO3-delta (LSCO) films on yttria-stabilized zirconia substrates with the film thickness below and above the critical thickness for strain relaxation. Two orders of magnitude higher ORB. kinetics is achieved in an ultrathin film with similar to 0.8% tensile strain as compared to unstrained films. Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry depth profiling confirms that the Sr surface segregation is not responsible for the enhanced ORR in strained films. We attribute this enhancement of ORR kinetics to the increase in oxygen vacancy concentration in the tensile-strained LSCO film owing to the reduced activation barrier for oxygen surface exchange kinetics. Density functional theory calculations reveal an upshift of the oxygen 2p-band center relative to the Fermi level by tensile strain, indicating the origin of the enhanced ORR kinetics.

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

4.6
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