4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Proton conducting alkaline earth zirconates and titanates for high drain electrochemical applications

期刊

SOLID STATE IONICS
卷 145, 期 1-4, 页码 295-306

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2738(01)00953-5

关键词

zirconate; titatanate; proton conductivity; acceptor-dopant; protonic defect; SOFC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mobility and stability of protonic defects in acceptor-doped perovskite-type oxides (ABO(3)) in the system SrTiO3-SrZrO3-BaZrO3-BaTiO3 have been examined experimentally and by computational simulations. These materials have the potential to combine high proton conductivity and thermodynamic stability. While any structural and chemical perturbation originating from the B-site occupation (poor chemical matching of the acceptor-dopant or Zr/Ti-mixing) leads to a significant reduction of the mobility of protonic defects, Sr/Ba-mixing on the A-site appears to be less critical. The stability of protonic defects is found to essentially scale with the basicity of the lattice oxygen, which is influenced by both A- and B-site occupations. The highest proton conductivities are observed for acceptor-doped BaZrO3. Despite its significantly higher ionic radius compared to Zr4+, Y3+ is found to be optimal as an acceptor dopant for BaZrO3. Mulliken population analysis shows that Y does not change the oxide's basicity (i.e. it chemically matches on the Zr-site of BaZrO3). The highest proton conductivities have been observed for high Y-dopant concentrations (15-20 mol%). For temperatures below about 700 degreesC, the observed proton conductivities clearly exceed the oxide ion conductivities of the best oxide ion conductors. The high conductivity and thermodynamic stability make these materials interesting alternatives for oxide ion conductors such as Y-stabilized zirconia, which are currently used as separator material for high drain electrochemical applications, such as solid oxide fuel cells. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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