4.7 Article

New crystal structure and characterization of lanthanum tungstate La6WO12 prepared by freeze-drying synthesis

期刊

DALTON TRANSACTIONS
卷 -, 期 46, 页码 10273-10283

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b916981b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [MAT2004-03856, MAT2006-11080-C02-02, NANOSELECT CSD2007-00041]
  2. NANOMAT [182090/510]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lanthanum tungstates with a La/W atomic ratio between 6 and 4.8 have been synthesized as polycrystalline materials using the freeze-drying wet-chemical precursor method. Our results show that a single phase material is obtained when the La/W ratio is between 5.3 and 5.7 (T = 1500 degrees C). Outside this compositional range, segregation of either La2O3 (La/W >= 5.8) or La6W2O15 (La/W <= 5.2) are found. We have solved the crystal structure for the composition with a La/W nominal atomic ratio of 5.6 by combining powder X-ray and powder neutron diffraction techniques. This structure substantially differs from that previously reported for Ln(6)WO(12) (Ln = Y, Ho). The main differences between the two structure types are the crystal symmetry, the different coordination environment of the cations and the formula unit. The formula unit can be written as La6.63W1.17O13.43 (Z = 4; calculated density = 6.395 g/cm(3)), well in accordance with the diffraction techniques, He-pycnometry and electron probe microanalysis. These materials can be described as a face centred cubic structure with space group F (4) over bar 3m. Lattice parameters vary between 11.173 and 11.188 angstrom, depending on composition. Dense ceramic materials are obtained at 1400 degrees C, and microanalyses measurements indicate that no significant tungsten evaporation occurs compared to the nominal values. Compositions with La2O3 segregation show similar conductivity values as the single phase ones, but those containing segregation of W-rich phases show a considerable drop in conductivity with increasing content of the secondary phase.

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