4.7 Article

Investigation on samarium and yttrium co-doping barium zirconate proton conductors for protonic ceramic fuel cells

期刊

CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 45, 期 15, 页码 19289-19296

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.06.179

关键词

Protonic ceramic fuel cells; Barium zirconate; Co-doping; Sinterability; Electrical conductivity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51408582]
  2. Incubation Program of Universities' Preponderant Discipline of Shandong Province [03010304]
  3. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation [ZR2019PEE029]
  4. Key Research and Development Program of Shandong Province [2017GGX20122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trivalent rare-earth cation (R3+) and Y3+ co-doped BaCeO3 materials show an enhanced proton conductivity than single Y doped BaCeO3 material. For the same purpose, Sm3+ and Y3+ as paired ions are incorporated into BaZrO3 perovskite structure. The crystal structure, electrical conductivity and sinterability of Sm3+ and Y3+ co-doped BaZr0.8Y0.2-xSmxO3-delta (BZYS, x = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2) materials are investigated for the potential electrolyte application of protonic ceramic fuel cells. Powder XRD diffraction shows BZYS with the cubic perovskite structure and a decrease of lattice constants with increasing Sm3+ content indicates Sm3+ doped into perovskite B site. Although the sinterability enhances by Sm3+ introduction, the grain interior conductivity, specific grain boundary conductivity and total conductivity all cannot be improved. This proves that, unlike BaCeO3 proton conductors, Sm3+ and Y3+ co-doping strategy cannot improve the charge transport properties of BaZrO3 proton conductors, which is the main contribution of this paper. Through comprehensively considering sinterability and electrical conductivity, the BZYS5 (BaZr0.8Y0.15Sm0.05O3-delta) is considered as the potential electrolyte material and the corresponding protonic ceramic fuel cell shows the peak power density of 180 mW cm(-2) at 700 degrees C.

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