Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Implications of the band gap problem on oxidation and hydration in acceptor-doped barium zirconate

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1503.06612 v1 pith:SHJAYZUD submitted 2015-03-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Implications of the band gap problem on oxidation and hydration in acceptor-doped barium zirconate

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords bandoxidationhydrationmodelingacceptor-dopedconcentrationsreactionresults
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Charge carrier concentrations in acceptor-doped proton-conducting perovskites are to a large extent determined by the hydration and oxidation of oxygen vacancies, which introduce protons and holes, respectively. First-principles modeling of these reactions involves calculation of formation energies of charged defects, which requires an accurate description of the band gap and the position of the band edges. Since density-functional theory (DFT) with local and semi-local exchange-correlation functionals (LDA and GGA) systematically fails to predict these quantities this can have serious implications on the modeling of defect reactions. In this study we investigate how the description of band gap and band edge positions affects the hydration and oxidation in acceptor-doped BaZrO$_3$. First-principles calculations are performed in combination with thermodynamic modeling in order to obtain equilibrium charge carrier concentrations at different temperatures and partial pressures. Three different methods have been considered: DFT with both semi-local (PBE) and hybrid (PBE0) exchange-correlation functionals, and many-body perturbation theory within the $G_0W_0$-approximation. All three methods yield similar results for the hydration reaction, which are consistent with experimental findings. For the oxidation reaction, on the other hand, there is a qualitative difference. PBE predicts the reaction to be exothermic while the two others predict an endothermic behavior. Results from thermodynamic modeling are compared with available experimental data, such as enthalpies, concentrations and conductivities, and only the results obtained with PBE0 and $G_0W_0$, with an endothermic oxidation behavior, give a satisfactory agreement with experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.