4.6 Article

Evaluation of La0.3Ca0.7Fe1-yCryO3-δ (y=0.1-0.3) cathodes for intermediate temperature solid oxide fuel cells

期刊

MATERIALS RESEARCH BULLETIN
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 104-110

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.materresbull.2017.02.021

关键词

Oxides; Electrical properties; Electrochemical properties; Thermal expansion

资金

  1. Nature Science Foundation of China [51572204]
  2. International Cooperation Programs of Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau [2014030709020315]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WUT: 2016-111-036]
  4. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF2013R1A1A2062172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perovskite-type (ABO(3)) complex oxides of La0.3Ca0.3Fe5-yCryO3-delta (y = 0.1-0.3) system were prepared via a glycine-nitrate process. In view of utilization as cathode for intermediate temperature solid oxide fuel cells, the structure, electrical conducting, thermal expansion and electrochemical properties of the oxides were investigated in comparison with their strontium counterparts (La0.3Sr0.7Fe1-yCryO3-delta, y = 0.1-0.3). Differences in the properties between the two systems were interpreted in relation with their structural characteristics. The results corroborate the effectiveness of modulating A-site dimension in modifying the overall properties of iron chromium-based perovskite-type cathode materials. The calcium compositions with y = 0.2 and y = 0.3, respectively, exhibit the optimal overall properties, superior to their strontium counterparts. The good overall properties of the two compositions, including suitable thermal expansion coefficients (11-12 x 10(-6) K-1 between 40 and 1000 degrees C), low polarization resistances (similar to 0.12 Omega cm(2) at 800 degrees C) and acceptable electrical conductivity (similar to 40 S cm(-1) at 800 degrees C), demonstrate their potential in cathode utilization. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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