Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-z7ghp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T07:16:47.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanisms of Enhanced Ionic Conduction at Interfaces in Ceramics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

D. Lubben  and
F. A. Modine
D. Lubben
Affiliation:
Solid State Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6030
F. A. Modine
Affiliation:
Solid State Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6030
Get access

Abstract

A large enhancement in the ionic conductivity of certain compounds occurs when the compound is produced as a composite material containing a finely-dispersed non-conductor such as SiO2 or Al2O3 This effect has been reported on for more than 20 years, and it is well established that the enhancement is associated with the presence of interfaces. The popular explanation has been based on a model which contends that the enhancement is due to a space-charge layer which forms to compensate a net charge layer at an interface. A different model proposes that extended defects such as dislocations and grain boundaries, either resulting from or stabilized by the interface, are responsible for the enhancement. This paper describes recent experiments which strongly support the latter model. The ionic conductivities of LiI and CaF2 thin films grown on sapphire(0001) substrates were monitored in-situ during deposition as a function of film thickness and deposition conditions. LiI films grown at 27°C exhibited a region of enhanced conduction within 100 nm of the substrate and a lesser enhancement as the film thickness was increased further. This conduction enhancement was not stable but annealed out with a characteristic log(time) dependence. The observed annealing behavior was fit with a model based on dislocation motion which implies that the increase in conduction near the interface is due to extended defects generated during the growth process. LiI films grown at higher temperatures (100°C) in order to reduce the grown-in defects showed no interfacial conduction enhancement. X-ray diffraction measurements suggest that these high-temperature LiI films nucleate as faceted epitaxial islands with a stable misfit dislocation density defined by the epitaxial relationship between the substrate and film. CaF2 films grown at 200°C showed a behavior similar to the 27°C LiI films, with a region of thermally unstable enhanced conduction that occurs within 10 nm of the substrate. Amorphous Al2O3 films deposited over the CaF2 layers created no additional enhancement but did increase the stability of the conduction, consistent with an extended defect model. Simultaneous deposition of CaF2 and Al2O3 produced films consisting of very-fine-grained CaF2 and particles of amorphous Al2O23 (5-10 nm grain and particle size) and a high defect density which was stable even well above the growth temperature. Measured conduction in the composite at 200°C was approximately 360 times that of bulk CaF2.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 357: Symposium C – Structure and Properties of Interfaces in Ceramics , 1994 , 377
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Liang, C. C., J. Electrochem. Soc. 120, 1289 (1973).Google Scholar
2. Dudney, N. J., Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 19, 103 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Jow, T. and Wagner, J. B. Jr., J. Electrocem. Soc. 126, 1963 (1979).Google Scholar
4. Phipps, J. B., Johnson, D. L., and Whitmore, D. H., Sol. State Ionics 5, 393 (1981).Google Scholar
5. Shahi, K. and Wagner, J. B. Jr., J. Electrochem. Soc. 128, 6 (1981).Google Scholar
6. Shahi, K. and Wagner, J. B. Jr., Sol. State Ionics 7, 119 (1982).Google Scholar
7. Nakamura, O. and Goodenough, J. B., Sol. State Ionics 7, 119 (1982).Google Scholar
8. Poulsen, F. W., Andersen, N. H., Kindl, B., and Schoonman, J., Sol. State lonics 9&10, 119 (1983).Google Scholar
9. Wen, T. L., Huggins, R. A., Rabenau, A., and Weppner, W., Rev. Chini. Min. 20, 643 (1983).Google Scholar
10. Chang, M. R.-W., Shahi, K., and Wagner, J. B. Jr., J. Electrochem. Soc. 131, 1213 (1984).Google Scholar
11. Dudney, N. J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68, 538 (1985).Google Scholar
12. Fujitsu, S., Miyayama, M., Koumoto, K., Yanagida, H., and Kanazawa, T., J. Mater. Sci. 20, 2103 (1985).Google Scholar
13. Dudney, N. J., J. Am. Cer. Soc. 70, 65 (1987).Google Scholar
14. Dudney, N. J., Sol. State Ionics 28–30, 1065 (1988).Google Scholar
15. Lauer, U. and Maier, J., Sol. State Ionics 51, 209 (1992).Google Scholar
16. Saito, Y., Ato, K., Asai, T., Kageyama, H., and Nakamura, O., Sol. State Ionics 53–56, 728 (1992).Google Scholar
17. Reddy, S. Narender, Chary, A. Sadananda, and Chiranjivi, T., Sol. State Ionics 66, 131 (1993).Google Scholar
18. Modine, F. A. and Lubben, D., J. Appl. Phys. 74, 2658 (1993).Google Scholar
19. Maier, J., Phys. Stat. Sol. B123, K89 (1984).Google Scholar
20. Maier, J., Sol. State Ionics 23, 59 (1987).Google Scholar
21. Maier, J., Phys. Stat. Sol. A 112, 115 (1989).Google Scholar
22. Maier, J., Sol. State Ionics 70/71, 43 (1994).Google Scholar
23. Kliewer, K. L. and Kohler, J. S., Phys. Rev 140, 1226 (1965).Google Scholar
24. Kliewer, K. L. and Kohler, J. S., Phys. Rev 140, 1241 (1965).Google Scholar
25. Kliewer, K. L., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 27, 705 (1966).Google Scholar
26. Khandkar, A., Tare, V. B., and Wagner, J. B. Jr., Rev. Chim. Min. 23, 274 (1986).Google Scholar
27. Vaidehi, N., Akila, R, Shukla, A. K., and Jacob, K. T., Mat. Res. Bull. 21, 909 (1986).Google Scholar
28. Ure, R. W. Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 26, 1363 (1957).Google Scholar
29. Jackson, B. J. H. and Young, D. A., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 30, 1973 (1969).Google Scholar
30. Schlaiker, C. and Liang, C. C., J. Electrochem. Soc. 118, 1447 (1971).Google Scholar
31. Poulsen, F. W., Sol. State Ionics 2, 53 (1981).Google Scholar
32. Bollman, W., Görlich, P., Hauk, W., and Mothes, H., Phys. Status Solidi A 2, 157 (1970); W. Bollman and H. Henniger, A 11, 367 (1972).Google Scholar
33. Jacobs, P. W. M. and Ong, S. H., J. Phys. 12, C7 331 (1976).Google Scholar
34. Schreck, E., Liuger, K., and Dransfield, K., Z. Phys. B 62, 331 (1986).Google Scholar
35. Johnston, W. G., Phys. Rev. 98, 1777 (1955).Google Scholar
36. Mott, N. F., Philos. Mag. 43, 1151 (1952).Google Scholar
37. Mott, N. F., Philos. Mag. 44, 742 (1953).Google Scholar
38. Karo, A. M., J. Chem. Phys. 31, 1489 (1959).Google Scholar
39. Kingery, W. D., Bowen, H. K., and Ulman, D. R., Introduction to Ceramics, 2nd Edition, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976), p. 729.Google Scholar
40. Schowalter, L. J. and Fathauer, R. W., Crit. Rev. Sol. State Mater. Sci. 15, 367 (1989).Google Scholar
41. Wassermann, B., Martin, T. P. and Maier, J., Sol. State Ionics 28–30, 1514 (1988).Google Scholar
42. Wassermann, B., Hönle, W., and Martin, T. P., Sol. State Comm. 65, 561 (1988).Google Scholar