Controlling grain boundary segregation to tune the conductivity of ceramic proton conductors
Comments
Thank you very much for sharing your research. I have several comments regarding it: 1. You stated that ‘while the bulk conductivity remains relatively constant’, but Fig. 1e shows that the bulk conductivity also varies, by ~5 – 7 times. Perhaps it would be better to give possible reasons for these variations. 2. The mean grain size as a function of sintering temperature or annealing time would be welcome. 3. “size after the highest thermal treatment (+1600 °C) is still at 320 ± 172nm” what is an accuracy of the deviation presented? 320± 170 nm can be a better choice. 4. Fig. 3 g is amazing 5. We have been dealing with Y-doped Ba(Zr,Ce)O3 for a long time (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.12.024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063783415020250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.09.021). Under inappropriate sintering regimes for these materials, Y2O3 as a micro-scale phase was very often formed in triple junctions. However, when we completely replaced Y3+ with Yb3+, no Yb2O3 was observed in any of the experiments. This might indicate that Y and Yb have different segregation energies. Could you please give more details on this aspect (segregation energy differences of Y and Yb)? 6. If Y2O3 was formed in some experiments, this phase can be easily detected via EBSD. Have you tried to find it?
Response,
Moritz Kindelmann
: Oct 17, 2024, 15:05
Deat Dmitry, thank you for your feedback! Saw it a little late because I did not regularly check the preprint page. Just some replies from my side to the comments you made: 1. Its true that the bulk conductivity deviates a bit, which is not discussed in detail. We think this is probably caused by the tricky fitting procedure, especially on samples that have a very high GB resistivitiy. This adds a lot of error to the fit of the bulk contribution, possibily leading to the observed variations. 2. This could be some interesting additional data. however for 5h dwell the grain size does not change between 1000-1600C. Perhaps longer dwells at very high temp. might lead to some grain growth but we did not check this yet. 3.Thats true ;) 4. Thanks a lot. APT was done by my colleague Ivan Povstugar, and he did an amazing job! 5. To be honest, we did not find any Y2O3 secondary phases while investigating the BZCY721 samples that have different thermal histories, neither with SEM, EBSD or STEM. We are aware that this has been observed in literature, but we could not observe any secondary phases here. There are several reasons why this might be the case: We work with only 10%Y on the B-site, being well below the solubility limit (I myself observed secondary phases in BZY20 and also BZCY20 samples). Additionally, we were careful to prevent Ba evaporation during high temperature annealing by placing the samples in a powderbed. This might prevent a shift to A-site deficiency, which can also induce some Y2O3 secondary phase precipitation. I hope this could answeresome of your questions. Thanks a lot for the open and public feedback! It is highly appreciated. Best, Moritz