4.6 Article

Preparation of SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-δ perovskite-structured ceramic using the glycine-nitrate combustion technique

期刊

MATERIALS LETTERS
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 197-201

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2017.02.064

关键词

Glycine-nitrate combustion; Ceramics; Thermal analysis; Calcination; Crystallite

资金

  1. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (The National University of Malaysia, UKM)
  2. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Malaysia [03-01-02-SF1079]
  3. Ministry of Higher Education - Malaysia [FRGS/2/2013/TKO6/UKM/02/9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-delta perovskite-structured ceramic was produced using wet processing method namely glycine-nitrate combustion technique. The quality of powders produced through this wet processing method was strongly related to processing parameters and heat treatment. This study investigated the effect of calcination temperature and mixing time of nitrate solution on the formation of SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-delta Results revealed that calcination temperature and mixing time significantly affected the purity and average crystallite size of SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-delta. The crystallite grew to 31.48 nm when the calcination temperature was increased, whereas small crystallites (similar to 30 nm) were produced when the mixing time was prolonged. In terms of the purity of powders, XRD analysis indicated that secondary phases (Sr3Fe2O7 and TiO2) were retained when the calcination temperature was further increased to 1300 degrees C. As the mixing time was prolonged, secondary phases were removed. After 15 h of mixing, the lowest intensity of secondary peak was observed. The effects of mixing time on the production of pure and fine crystallites of SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-delta powders were more significant than those of calcination temperature. Thus, mixing time should be prolonged until the optimum duration is reached to produce pure SrFe0.5Ti0.5O3-delta perovskite-structured ceramic powders. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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