Acidity-Mediated Metal Oxide Heterointerfaces: Roles of Substrates and Surface Modification

Gyu Rac Lee; Han Gil Seo; Harry L. Tuller; Jinwook Kim; Thomas Defferriere; Yeon Sik Jung

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Acidity-Mediated Metal Oxide Heterointerfaces: Roles of Substrates and Surface Modification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the relative acidity of a contacting oxide—whether a surface infiltrant or an insulating substrate—sets the space-charge potential at the heterointerface with praseodymium-doped ceria, and that this alone can change…

desk verdict A well-made nanowire platform turns a previously modest acidity effect into orders-of-magnitude conductivity changes; the substrate finding is new, the GDC3 control is convincing, and the remaining weaknesses are addressable rather than fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14488 v1 pith:UHMARF4C submitted 2025-05-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Gyu Rac Lee , Thomas Defferriere , Jinwook Kim , Han Gil Seo , Yeon Sik Jung , Harry L. Tuller This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall

keywords spacechargeSmithaciditymixedionic-electronicconductorceriananowirearraysheterointerfacegrainboundaryengineeringsurfaceinfiltrationsubstrate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that the relative acidity of a metal oxide in contact with a nanostructured mixed ionic-electronic conductor is a practical predictor of heterointerface space charge: acidic partners such as SiO2 and Al2O3 deplete near-interface electrons and raise resistance, while basic partners such as Li2O and MgO accumulate electrons and lower resistance. The authors build a model platform of $\mathrm{Pr}_{0.2}\mathrm{Ce}_{0.8}\mathrm{O}_{2-\delta}$ nanowire arrays with an unusually high surface-to-volume ratio, making surface conduction a large share of the total. On that platform, Li2O infiltration raises in-plane conductivity by roughly three orders of magnitude relative to bare nanowires, SiO2 slightly lowers it, and the choice of Al2O3 versus MgO substrate alone changes conductivity by about an order of magnitude. The same acidity rule, applied to purely oxygen-ion-conducting Gd-doped ceria nanowires, produces the opposite conductivity trend, consistent with space-charge action on positively charged oxygen vacancies rather than electrons. The paper also argues that cation in-diffusion from substrate or infiltrant into grain boundaries contributes a second, chemically tunable space-charge term, which is why grain-boundary conduction must be included alongside heterointerface conduction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\mathrm{Pr}_{0.2}\mathrm{Ce}_{0.8}\mathrm{O}_{2-\delta}$ nanowire array (PCONA), a polycrystalline array of roughly 50-nm-wide, 50-nm-thick nanowires with a high surface-to-volume ratio produced by solvent-assisted nanotransfer printing and pulsed laser deposition. The load-bearing physical quantity is the relative Smith acidity between the contacting oxide and the host: an acidity difference sets the sign of the heterointerface space-charge potential, and the Gouy-Chapman or depletion-approximation model redistributes $\mathrm{Pr}^{3+}$/ $\mathrm{Pr}^{4+}$ small polarons, whose hopping mobility, proportional to site availability $[\mathrm{Pr}^{3+}](1-[\mathrm{Pr}^{3+}]/[\mathrm{Pr}_{\mathrm{tot}}])$, makes conduction strongly anisotropic—enhanced parallel to accumulated interfaces and blocked across depleted boundaries. Grain boundaries add a second space-charge layer whose potential is chemically tunable by in-diffusion of Al (interstitial, raises potential) or Mg (substitutional, lowers potential).

What would settle it

Fabricate the identical nanowire geometry from an electrically insulating oxide such as undoped MgO or SiO2, infiltrate it with Li2O under the same 0.2 M drop-and-dry protocol, and measure in-plane AC impedance: if the apparent conductivity rises by orders of magnitude, the observed enhancement is shunting through the Li2O coating, whereas if it remains far below the PCO values, the space-charge interpretation survives. A complementary check is a four-probe versus two-probe measurement on the same infiltrated PCONA to rule out contact artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Smith acidity of a contacting oxide is a valid descriptor for the space-charge potential at an oxide heterointerface, and that this potential directly controls near-surface electronic transport in a nanostructured mixed ionic-electronic conductor. Specifically, infiltration with basic Li2O accumulates electrons at the surface of the praseodymium-doped ceria and raises in-plane conductivity by three orders of magnitude over 450–650 °C, while acidic SiO2 depletes electrons and slightly lowers conductivity; serial Li infiltration after Si restores and exceeds the degraded conductivity by roughly 100-fold through formation of basic lithium silicates. The paper further reports the first demonstration that the acidity of an insulating support—Al2O3 (acidic) versus MgO (basic)—changes the same nanowire conductivity by about an order of magnitude, and that in an oxygen-vacancy conductor (Gd-doped ceria) the substrate effect reverses sign, as the space-charge layer acts on ionic carriers. The mechanism is presented as a combination of heterointerface space charge and grain-boundary space charge, the latter modified by Al or Mg in-diffusion along grain boundaries during annealing, with small polaron hopping on Pr sites imposing a conductivity peak at intermediate carrier accumulation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the infiltrated Li2O and SiO2 layers are electrically negligible in the measured geometry; if a continuous Li2O coating shunts current along the nanowires, the three-orders-of-magnitude enhancement could be conduction through the coating rather than space-charge-enhanced conduction inside the PCO.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Conductivity of the nanowire arrays varies by about three orders of magnitude between Li2O (basic) and SiO2 (acidic) surface infiltration over the 450–650 °C range.
The choice of insulating substrate alone—Al2O3 versus MgO—changes in-plane conductivity by roughly an order of magnitude, meaning insulating substrates should no longer be treated as electrically inert supports.
Serial infiltration of Li after Si recovers and exceeds the degraded conductivity by about 100-fold, consistent with the intermediate basicity of lithium silicates and pointing to a reactivation route for degraded electrodes.
In an oxygen-ion conductor (3 mol% Gd-doped ceria nanowires), the same substrate acidity trend reverses, confirming that the space-charge mechanism acts on ionic carriers in the opposite direction to electronic carriers.
The activation-energy and conductivity trends require combining heterointerface space charge with grain-boundary space charge modified by cation in-diffusion, so both must be considered in nanocrystalline thin-film oxides.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If acidity is the governing descriptor, published thin-film conductivity measurements on Al2O3 versus MgO substrates may carry a systematic offset, and re-examining those baselines could reveal hidden substrate effects without altering film chemistry or microstructure.
The same selection rule could apply to semiconductor device contacts and gas-sensor films, where substrate acidity is usually ignored at lower temperatures; testing conductivity of a known n-type oxide on acidic versus basic substrates at room temperature would extend the rule beyond high-temperature MIECs.
Since the model predicts a local conductivity maximum at intermediate carrier accumulation, the framework implies that extreme basicity could eventually suppress conduction by overwhelming the small polaron site availability; measuring conductivity versus a continuous acidity series from SiO2 to Li2O would map that peak.
The grain-boundary in-diffusion mechanism suggests annealing temperature and time are independent dials for grain-boundary space-charge engineering, so the same nanowire platform could be used to quantitatively extract grain-boundary space-charge potentials in mixed conductors.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper deserves a serious referee. The new result is the substrate-acidity effect and the large conductivity modulation on a carefully engineered nanowire platform. The authors' previous work saw only 10-25% changes on porous films; here they get three orders of magnitude on 50 nm nanowires, plus a reversed trend in an ionic conductor (GDC3) that is exactly what the space-charge model predicts. That GDC3 experiment is the strongest part of the paper: it is an independent, falsifiable test that was not used to fit any constants. The serial infiltration recovery also adds confidence.

The soft spots are real but manageable. The biggest is the absence of error bars or replicates on the key conductivity comparisons. For a claim about a 10^3 effect, the reader needs to know whether the spread is a factor of 1.5 or a factor of 5. The GB in-diffusion mechanism is invoked to explain several observations but is not directly measured here; the authors are honest about this, but it leaves the mechanism partly circumstantial. The model is qualitative and does not predict magnitudes.

One concern raised in our internal stress-test is parallel conduction through the conformal Li2O shell. That does not survive contact with the paper's own numbers. Supplementary Table 2 gives Li2O conductivity ~1e-5 S/cm at 600C. The measured Li-infiltrated conductivity is three orders above the uninfiltrated sample, so even a thick Li2O shell would need an implausibly large cross-section to carry that current. The authors should still report the absolute conductivity values and the estimated shell geometry to close the loop, but this is a presentation gap, not a load-bearing flaw.

The paper's framework (Smith acidity as a predictor of space charge at heterointerfaces) is established, and the authors correctly note that the prior evidence was largely from surface exchange kinetics, not DC conductivity. This study fills that gap with a purpose-built platform. The writing is clear, the claims match the data, and the limitations are stated. It is the kind of paper likely to be cited for the substrate effect alone.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The reviewer should push for error bars, a direct or at least semiquantitative estimate of the infiltrant's geometric contribution, and a clearer separation of the heterointerface and GB contributions. With those, the case would be much stronger. But the core observation—that substrate acidity can shift film conductivity by an order of magnitude—is likely to stand.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a nanostructured platform of Pr0.2Ce0.8O2-delta nanowire arrays (PCONA) to test whether the relative Smith acidity of contacting oxides, either as surface infiltrates or as supporting substrates, controls the space-charge-mediated electronic conductivity of a mixed ionic-electronic conductor. The authors report that infiltration with basic Li2O increases the in-plane conductivity of PCONA by about three orders of magnitude, whereas acidic SiO2 infiltration slightly decreases it, and that serial Li infiltration after Si largely recovers the conductivity. They further report that PCONA fabricated on basic MgO substrates is roughly ten times more conductive than PCONA on acidic Al2O3 substrates, and that the opposite trend is observed for purely ionic-conducting Gd-doped ceria nanowire arrays, consistent with space-charge effects on the majority carrier type. The paper proposes that both heterointerface space-charge potentials and grain-boundary space-charge potentials modified by cation in-diffusion are responsible for the observed conductivity changes.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides a practical, descriptor-based route to predict and tune the electrical properties of nanostructured oxide films through the acidity of surface coatings or substrates. The main strength is the use of two material systems with opposite majority carriers (electronic in PCO, ionic in GDC3), giving a falsifiable test of the proposed acidity-space-charge mechanism: the same substrate choice produces opposing conductivity changes, and this was not used to fit parameters. The serial infiltration experiment also shows that conductivity degradation can be reversed, which has practical implications for electrode engineering. However, the central quantitative claim of a 10^3 enhancement from Li2O infiltration rests on the unverified assumption that the infiltrated Li2O layer is electrically inert in the measured geometry. The paper does not provide a geometric correction or a dedicated control for parallel conduction through the continuous Li2O coating, and the available Supplementary Table 2 conductivity value for Li2O (about 10^-5 S/cm at 600 C) makes this omission load-bearing.

major comments (4)

[Methods, 'Surface infiltration'; Supplementary Table 2; Fig. 2c] The claim that infiltrant conductivities are negligible compared to that of the PCO nanowires is not supported by the data presented. Supplementary Table 2 lists Li2O conductivity of about 1e-5 S/cm at 600 C, but the uninfiltrated PCONA conductivity at that temperature is not given in the same table or in Fig. 2c. Since the Li2O coating is complete and conformal (Supplementary Fig. 2) over nanowires with a width of only about 50 nm, a continuous Li2O shell with cross-sectional area comparable to that of the PCO core could carry a significant or even dominant fraction of the measured current, especially because the uninfiltrated PCONA conductance is low. The observed three-orders-of-magnitude increase and the 100-fold increase after serial Li infiltration are both consistent with shunting through the Li2O phase. To support the central claim, the authors need to provide either a quantitative geometric correction showing that the PCONA conductance dominates, or a control experiment in which the identical Li2O coating is applied to an insulating nanowire-patterned substrate, or a direct comparison of the measured conductance with the expected Li2O shell conductance.
[Fig. 2c and Discussion I] The unchanged activation energy (0.85 eV) after Li infiltration is cited as evidence that the same transport mechanism is maintained, but the activation energy of the Li2O coating in this geometry is not reported. If the Li2O film has an activation energy close to 0.85 eV in the 450-650 C range, the impedance data would be equally consistent with a parallel ionic conduction path. The authors should either measure or estimate the activation energy and conductance of the Li2O shell under the measurement conditions, or acknowledge that the activation-energy argument does not by itself rule out shunting.
[Discussion III] The effective Smith acidity of Li2SiO3 and Li4SiO4 composites is introduced with a simple composition-weighted average (a = (2 a_Li2O + a_SiO2)/3 or (4 a_Li2O + a_SiO2)/5) without justification or validation. This is an additional, paper-specific assumption used to explain the serial infiltration result. Because the serial infiltration result is qualitative and the same data could be explained by partial coverage or by the residual SiO2 blocking the Li2O effect, this assumption should be clearly labeled as speculative, or better, supported by reference data or by measurements of the actual composite composition from the XPS spectra.
[Discussions II and Supplementary Note 2] The explanation for the reduced activation energy and conductivity of PCONA on Al2O3 relies on the in-diffusion of Al3+ into grain boundaries, but the paper states that no direct measurements of grain-boundary characteristics are reported for PCONA. The scenario is inferred from previous work on GDC thin films and from the 400 C vs 700 C annealing comparison. While this is a plausible hypothesis, it is not directly evidenced in the present system. The manuscript should more clearly distinguish between measured phenomena and inferred grain-boundary mechanisms, or provide complementary evidence such as EDX line scans across the film or grain-boundary potential measurements.

minor comments (5)

[Methods, 'Surface infiltration'] The precursor is described as 'Li(NO3)3', which is not a valid formula; lithium nitrate is LiNO3. Please correct this typo.
[Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: 'PCO20' is used for the target and film composition while 'PCONA' and 'PCO NA' are used interchangeably for the nanowire arrays. Please standardize the notation.
[Supplementary Note 2] Equations (3) and (4) define sigma||,sc and rho_perp,sc but the integration limits and the meaning of L_D are explained only in the text; adding a short sentence defining the physical meaning of each symbol in the equation would improve readability.
[Discussion III] The equations for effective acidity are given in prose; numbering them and defining the variables (e.g., a_Li2O, a_SiO2) explicitly would help the reader.
[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'validate in purely ionic-conducting nanostructured ceria as well as PCONA' is ambiguous because the validation is on GDC3, not on pure ceria. Please specify '3 mol% Gd-doped ceria (GDC3)' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the acidity inputs are externally defined, the conductivity data are new measurements, and the central claims are supported by independent falsifiable tests rather than by construction or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not contain a step in which the target result is assumed by construction. The Smith acidity values for Li2O, SiO2, MgO, and Al2O3 are independent literature inputs, and the measured PCONA conductivities are new experimental data; the sign of the observed conductivity changes is consistent with the qualitative space-charge prediction, but no parameter is fitted to force that consistency. The GDC3 experiment provides an independent counter-trend with the opposite carrier type, and that result was not used to fit any constant in the PCONA analysis. Serial Li-after-Si infiltration is a dynamic recovery test, and the effective-acidity mixing rule for lithium silicates is presented after the fact as a rationalization rather than as a fitted input used to generate the measured 100-fold recovery. Self-citations to prior work by the authors establish the starting acidity descriptor and a grain-boundary in-diffusion mechanism, but the paper also provides direct comparative evidence, including epitaxial versus polycrystalline PCO20 films and differently annealed PCONA, and cites independent defect-chemistry literature for the GB defect picture. The assumption that Li2O and SiO2 infiltrant conductances are negligible is an experimental-design concern and a possible alternative explanation for the magnitude of the Li2O effect, but it is not circular: the measured conductivity is not defined in terms of the acidity input, and no equation in the paper reduces to another by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is invoked to forbid alternative explanations. Therefore the central claim has independent empirical content and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Smith acidity descriptor, a space-charge model applied beyond its dilute-limit validity, and an unmeasured GB in-diffusion mechanism. The effective-acidity mixing rule is an ad hoc interpolation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Effective Smith acidity of Li-Si composites = (2 a_Li2O + a_SiO2)/3 or (4 a_Li2O + a_SiO2)/5
Introduced in Discussion III to explain the 100-fold serial-infiltration recovery; no independent measurement or derivation of the mixing rule is given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Smith acidity scale for binary oxides is a valid descriptor of space charge potential at oxide heterointerfaces.
Used throughout; established by prior work (refs 21,36) but assumed as the organizing principle for this study.
domain assumption The Gouy-Chapman/Poisson-Boltzmann space-charge model applies to PCO heterointerfaces and GBs even though the dilute-limit assumption is violated.
Supplementary Note 2 acknowledges 'one of the major assumptions in deriving the Gouy-Chapman model no longer holds' yet uses the equations qualitatively.
domain assumption Cation in-diffusion from substrate (Al3+ interstitial, Mg2+ substitutional at GBs) occurs and modifies GB space charge potentials.
Invoked in Discussion II and Supplementary Note 2; no direct GB chemical or potential measurements in this study, based on prior work (ref 43).
ad hoc to paper The effective acidity of a mixed oxide is the composition-weighted average of its binary oxide acidities.
Equation in Discussion III defines a_Li2SiO3 and a_Li4SiO4 as weighted averages; no derivation or literature support given.
domain assumption Li2O and SiO2 infiltrants are electrically negligible compared to PCO in the measurement geometry.
Stated in Results; Li2O conductivity is quoted as 1e-5 S/cm at 600 C, which may not be negligible if the infiltrant forms a continuous parallel path.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Acidity-Mediated Metal Oxide Heterointerfaces: Roles of Substrates and Surface Modification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHMARF4C

@misc{pith2026250514488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Acidity-Mediated Metal Oxide Heterointerfaces: Roles of Substrates and Surface Modification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHMARF4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14488}
}

abstract

Although strong modulation of interfacial electron concentrations by the relative acidity of surface additives has been suggested, direct observation of corresponding changes in surface conductivity, crucial for understanding the role of local space charge, has been lacking. Here, we introduce a model platform comprising well-aligned mixed ionic-electronic conducting $\mathrm{Pr}_{0.2}\mathrm{Ce}_{0.8}\mathrm{O}_{2-\delta}$ nanowire arrays ($\mathrm{PCO}_{\mathrm{NA}}$) to show that acidity-modulated heterointerfaces predict electron depletion or accumulation, resulting in tunable electrical properties. We confirm three orders of magnitude increased $\mathrm{PCO}_{\mathrm{NA}}$ conductivity with basic $\mathrm{Li}_{2}\mathrm{O}$ infiltration. Moreover, the relative acidity of the insulating substrate supporting the $\mathrm{PCO}_{\mathrm{NA}}$ strongly influences its electronic properties as well. This strategy is further validated in purely ionic-conducting nanostructured ceria as well as $\mathrm{PCO}_{\mathrm{NA}}$. We suggest that observed conductivity changes stem not only from acidity-mediated space charge potentials at heterointerfaces but also from grain boundaries, chemically-modulated by cation in-diffusion. These findings have broad implications for how substrate and surface treatment choices can alter the conductive properties of nanostructured functional oxides.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

& Yao, H

Takada, R. & Yao, H. Praseodymium-Doped Cerium Oxide (PrxCe1-xO2−δ) Nanoparticles with High Water Dispersibility: The Nature of Pr -Related Optical Transitions Studied by MCD Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 129, 5461–5471 (2025)

work page 2025
[2]

Koo, B. et al. Sr Segregation in Perovskite Oxides: Why It Happens and How It Exists. Joule 2, 1476–1499 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

G., Ahn, S., Tuller, H

Kim, H., Seo, H. G., Ahn, S., Tuller, H. L. & Jung, W. C. Unveiling critical role of metal oxide infiltration in controlling the surface oxygen exchange activity and polarization of SrTi1−xFexO3−δ perovskite oxide electrodes. J. Mater. Chem. A 13, 9708-9714 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

& Tuller, H

Jung, W. & Tuller, H. L. Investigation of surface Sr segregation in model thin film solid oxide fuel cell perovskite electrodes. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5370–5378 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

Seo, H. G. et al. High-Performance and Durable Fuel Cells using Co/Sr -Free Fluorite-Based Mixed Conducting (Pr,Ce)O2-δ Cathode. Adv. Energy Mater. 12, 2202101 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

R., Stefanik, T

Bishop, S. R., Stefanik, T. S. & Tuller, H. L. Defects and transport in PrxCe1−xO2−δ: Composition trends. J. Mater. Res. 27, 2009–2016 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Han, H. J. et al. Unconventional grain growth suppression in oxygen -rich metal oxide nanoribbons. Sci. Adv. 7, eabh2012 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Shibata, N. et al. Direct imaging of reconstructed atoms on TiO2 (110) surfaces. Science 322, 570–573 (2008)

work page 2008

Show all 19 references

[9]

Physical aspects of the pulsed laser deposition technique: The stoichiometric transfer of material from target to film

Schou, J. Physical aspects of the pulsed laser deposition technique: The stoichiometric transfer of material from target to film. Appl. Surf. Sci. 255, 5191–5198 (2009)

2009
[10]

& Perry, N

Zhang, S., Fang, Z., Chi, M. & Perry, N. H. Facile Interfacial Reduction Suppresses Redox Chemical Expansion and Promotes the Polaronic to Ionic Transition in Mixed Conducting (Pr,Ce)O2−δ Nanoparticles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 17, 880-898 (2024)

2024
[11]

& Waser, R

Guo, X. & Waser, R. Electrical properties of the grain boundaries of oxygen ion conductors: Acceptor-doped zirconia and ceria. Prog. Mater. Sci. 51, 151–210 (2006)

2006
[12]

Tong, X., Mebane, D. S. & De Souza, R. A. Analyzing the Grain Boundary Resistance of Oxide Ion Conducting Electrolytes: Poisson-Cahn vs Poisson-Boltzmann theories. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 103, 5–22 (2020)

2020
[13]

Defferriere, T. et al. Grain Boundary Space Charge Engineering of Solid Oxide Electrolytes: Model Thin Film Study. arXiv:2504.10684. (2025). 51

2025 arXiv
[14]

Xu, X. et al. Local Multimodal Electro-Chemical-Structural Characterization of Solid-Electrolyte Grain Boundaries. Adv. Energy Mater. 11, 2003309 (2021)

2021
[15]

Minervini, L., Zacate, M. O. & Grimes, R. W. Defect cluster formation in M 2O3-doped CeO2. Solid State Ion. 116, 339–349 (1999)

1999
[16]

Xu, X. et al. Variability and origins of grain boundary electric potential detected by electron holography and atom-probe tomography. Nat. Mater. 19, 887–893 (2020)

2020
[17]

Harrington, G. F. et al. Tailoring Nonstoichiometry and Mixed Ionic Electronic Conductivity in Pr0.1Ce0.9O2-δ/SrTiO3 Heterostructures. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11, 34841–34853 (2019)

2019
[18]

& Maier, J

Lorger, S., Usiskin, R. & Maier, J. Transport and Charge Carrier Chemistry in Lithium Oxide. J. Electrochem. Soc. 166, A2215–A2220 (2019)

2019
[19]

K., Prasad, M

Srivastava, J. K., Prasad, M. & Wagner, J. B. Electrical Conductivity of Silicon Dioxide Thermally Grown on Silicon. J. Electrochem. Soc. 132, 955–963 (1985)

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Yao, H

Takada, R. & Yao, H. Praseodymium-Doped Cerium Oxide (PrxCe1-xO2−δ) Nanoparticles with High Water Dispersibility: The Nature of Pr -Related Optical Transitions Studied by MCD Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 129, 5461–5471 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Koo, B. et al. Sr Segregation in Perovskite Oxides: Why It Happens and How It Exists. Joule 2, 1476–1499 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

G., Ahn, S., Tuller, H

Kim, H., Seo, H. G., Ahn, S., Tuller, H. L. & Jung, W. C. Unveiling critical role of metal oxide infiltration in controlling the surface oxygen exchange activity and polarization of SrTi1−xFexO3−δ perovskite oxide electrodes. J. Mater. Chem. A 13, 9708-9714 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

& Tuller, H

Jung, W. & Tuller, H. L. Investigation of surface Sr segregation in model thin film solid oxide fuel cell perovskite electrodes. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5370–5378 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Seo, H. G. et al. High-Performance and Durable Fuel Cells using Co/Sr -Free Fluorite-Based Mixed Conducting (Pr,Ce)O2-δ Cathode. Adv. Energy Mater. 12, 2202101 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

R., Stefanik, T

Bishop, S. R., Stefanik, T. S. & Tuller, H. L. Defects and transport in PrxCe1−xO2−δ: Composition trends. J. Mater. Res. 27, 2009–2016 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Han, H. J. et al. Unconventional grain growth suppression in oxygen -rich metal oxide nanoribbons. Sci. Adv. 7, eabh2012 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Shibata, N. et al. Direct imaging of reconstructed atoms on TiO2 (110) surfaces. Science 322, 570–573 (2008)

work page 2008