↓ Skip to main content

Optimization of ionic conductivity in solid electrolytes through dopant-dependent defect cluster analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimization of ionic conductivity in solid electrolytes through dopant-dependent defect cluster analysis
Published in
Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions, May 2012
DOI 10.1039/c2cp40845g
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi-Peng Li, Toshiyuki Mori, Jin Zou, John Drennan

Abstract

Atomistic simulation based on an energy minimization technique has been carried out to investigate defect clusters of R(2)O(3) (R = La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Dy, Y, Yb) solid solutions in fluorite CeO(2). Defect clusters composed of up to six oxygen vacancies and twelve accompanied dopant cations have been simulated and compared. The binding energy of defect clusters increases as a function of the cluster size. A highly symmetric dumbbell structure can be formed by six oxygen vacancies, which is considered as a basic building block for larger defect clusters. This is also believed to be a universal vacancy structure in an oxygen-deficient fluorite lattice. Nevertheless, the accurate positions of associated dopants depend on the dopant radius. As a consequence, the correlation between dopant size and oxygen-ion conductivity has been elucidated based on the ordered defect cluster model. This study sheds light on the choice of dopants from a physical perspective, and suggests the possibility of searching for optimal solid electrolyte materials through atomistic simulations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 12 36%
Chemistry 5 15%
Chemical Engineering 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Energy 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2012.
All research outputs
#17,568,405
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions
#7,702
of 17,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,610
of 177,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions
#50
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.