, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 5105–5115 | Cite as

Cobalt-doped Ca12Al14O33 mayenite oxide ion conductors: phases, defects, and electrical properties

  • Huaibo Yi
  • Yun Lv
  • Victoria MattickEmail author
  • Jungu XuEmail author
Original Paper


Mayenite Ca12Al14O33, as a good oxygen ion conductor with conductivity slightly lower than stabilized ZrO2, has been investigated through doping strategy over the last few decades, but with little success in further improving its oxide ionic conductivity. Here, cobalt-doped Ca12Al14-xCoxO33+δ (0 ≤ x ≤ 1.6) materials were prepared by traditional solid-state reaction method, and then studied by complementary techniques, including X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscope coupled with energy dispersion spectrum (EDS) analysis, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and static lattice atomistic simulations. The results showed that these doped materials had much lower Co contents in the crystal structure than their nominal compositions, which was consistent with the high calculated defect formation energy (~ 6.25 eV). The minor divalent Co ions in the crystal structure would reduce the amount of mobile oxide ions and accordingly slightly decreased the bulk conductivities, while most of the Co ions existed in the form of Co2O3 and segregated along grain boundaries in the ceramic samples, which could apparently increase the grain boundary conductions of Ca12Al14O33.


Oxide ion conductor Ca12Al14O33 mayenite Rietveld refinement Static lattice atomistic simulation 


Funding information

This work was supported by the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (Nos. 2017GXNSFAA198203, Nos. 2015GXNSFBA139233), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 21601040), and Guangxi Ministry-Province Jointly-Constructed Cultivation Base for State Key Laboratory of Processing for non-Ferrous Metal and Featured Materials (Nos. 14KF-9).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Brandon N, Hagen A, Dawson R, Bucheli O (2017) Solid oxide fuel cells, electrolyzers and reactors: from development to delivery–EFCF2016. Fuel Cells 17(4):414–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Longo S, Cellura M, Guarino F, Ferraro M, Antonucci V, Squadrito G (2017) Life cycle assessment of solid oxide fuel cells and polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells: a review. In Hydrogen Economy. Academic Press, pp 139–169Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang Y, Knibbe R, Sunarso J, Zhong Y, Zhou W, Shao Z, Zhu Z (2017) Recent progress on advanced materials for solid-oxide fuel cells operating below 500 °C. Adv Mater 29(48):1700132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badwal SPS, Ciacchi FT (2000) Oxygen-ion conducting electrolyte materials for solid oxide fuel cells. Ionics 6(1–2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yokokawa H, Sakai N, Horita T, Yamaji K, Brito ME (2005) Electrolytes for solid-oxide fuel cells. MRS Bull 30(8):591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ishihara T (2006) Development of new fast oxide ion conductor and application for intermediate temperature solid oxide fuel cells. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 79(8):1155–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamamoto O, Arati Y, Takeda Y, Imanishi N, Mizutani Y, Kawai M, Nakamura Y (1995) Electrical conductivity of stabilized zirconia with ytterbia and scandia. Solid State Ionics 79(1):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bratton RJ (2010) Defect structure of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solutions. J Am Ceram Soc 52(4):213–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kendrick E, Slater P (2012) Battery and solid oxide fuel cell materials. Annu Rep Sect A (Inorg Chem) 108(1):424–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orera A, Slater PR (2010) New chemical systems for solid oxide fuel cells†. Chem Mater 22(3):675–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Packer RJ, Skinner SJ (2010) Remarkable oxide ion conductivity observed at low temperatures in a complex superstructured oxide. Adv Mater 22(14):1613–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacerda M, Irvine J, Glasser F, West A (1988) High oxide ion conductivity in Ca12Al14O33. Nature 332(6164):525–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boysen H, Kaiser-Bischoff I, Lerch M (2008) Anion diffusion processes in O-and N-mayenite investigated by neutron powder diffraction. Diff Fundam 8:2.1–2.8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosono H, Hayashi K, Kajihara K, Sushko PV, Shluger AL (2009) Oxygen ion conduction in 12CaO· 7Al2O3: O2− conduction mechanism and possibility of O fast conduction. Solid State Ionics 180(6–8):550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sushko PV, Shluger AL, Hayashi K, Hirano M, Hosono H (2006) Mechanisms of oxygen ion diffusion in a nanoporous complex oxide 12CaO∙ 7Al2O3. Phys Rev B 73(1):014101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kilo M, Swaroop S, Lerch M (2009) Oxygen uptake and diffusion in mayenite. In defect and diffusion forum. Vol. 289. Trans Tech Publications, pp 511–516Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teusner M, De Souza RA, Krause H, Ebbinghaus SG, Belghoul B, Martin M (2015) Oxygen diffusion in mayenite. J Phys Chem C 119(18):9721–9727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Irvine J, West A (1990) Ca12Al14O33 solid electrolytes doped with zinc and phosphorus. Solid State Ionics 40:896–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ebbinghaus SG, Krause H, Lee D-K, Janek J (2014) Single crystals of C12A7 (Ca12Al14O33) substituted with 1 mol% iron. Cryst Growth Des 14(5):2240–2245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maurelli S, Ruszak M, Witkowski S, Pietrzyk P, Chiesa M, Sojka Z (2010) Spectroscopic CW-EPR and HYSCORE investigations of Cu2+ and O2− species in copper doped nanoporous calcium aluminate (12CaO· 7Al2O3). Phys Chem Chem Phys 12(36):10933–10941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurashige K, Toda Y, Matstuishi S, Hayashi K, Hirano M, Hosono H (2006) Czochralski growth of 12CaO·7Al2O3 crystals. Cryst Growth Des 6(7):1602–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yi H, Lv Y, Wang Y, Fang X, Mattick V, Xu J (2019) Ga-doped Ca12Al14O33 mayenite oxide ion conductors: synthesis, defects, and electrical properties. RSC Adv 9(7):3809–3815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coelho A (2007) TOPAS-Academic V4. 1. Coelho Software, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gale JD (1997) GULP: a computer program for the symmetry-adapted simulation of solids. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 93(4):629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gale JD, Rohl AL (2003) The general utility lattice program (GULP). Mol Simul 29(5):291–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice WE, Hirschfelder JO (1954) Second virial coefficients of gases obeying a modified Buckingham (exp—six) potential. J Chem Phys 22(2):187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tosi MP (1964) Cohesion of ionic solids in the Born model. In solid state physics, vol 16. Academic Press, pp 1–120Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Denton AR, Ashcroft NW (1991) Vegard’s law. Phys Rev A 43(6):3161–3164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shannon RD (1976) Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr Sect A: Cryst Phys, Diffr, Theor Gen Crystallogr 32(5):751–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dilks A, Graham SC (1985) Quantitative mineralogical characterization of sandstones by back-scattered electron image analysis. J Sediment Res 55(3):347–355Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schenck C, Dillard J, Murray J (1983) Surface analysis and the adsorption of Co (II) on goethite. J Colloid Interface Sci 95(2):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McIntyre N, Cook M (1975) X-ray photoelectron studies on some oxides and hydroxides of cobalt, nickel, and copper. Anal Chem 47(13):2208–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mentré O, Kabbour H, Ehora G, Tricot GG, Daviero-Minaud S, Whangbo M-H (2010) Anion-vacancy-induced magneto− crystalline anisotropy in fluorine-doped hexagonal cobaltites. J Am Chem Soc 132(13):4865–4875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu J, Wang J, Tang X, Kuang X, Rosseinsky MJ (2017) La1+xBa1–xGa3O7+0.5x oxide ion conductor: cationic size effect on the interstitial oxide ion conductivity in gallate melilites. Inorg Chem 56(12):6897–6905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bayliss RD, Cook SN, Scanlon DO, Fearn S, Cabana J, Greaves C, Kilner JA, Skinner SJ (2014) Understanding the defect chemistry of alkali metal strontium silicate solid solutions: insights from experiment and theory. J Mater Chem A 2(42):17919–17924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Irvine JT, Sinclair DC, West AR (1990) Electroceramics: characterization by impedance spectroscopy. Adv Mater 2(3):132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gupta P, Padhee R, Mahapatra PK, Choudhary RNP (2018) Structural and electrical characteristics of Bi2YTiVO9 ceramic. Mater Res Express 5(4):045905. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gupta P, Padhee R, Mahapatra PK, Choudhary RNP, Das S (2018) Structural and electrical properties of Bi3TiVO9 ferroelectric ceramics. J Alloys Compd 731:1171–1180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Popova A, Raicheva S, Sokolova E, Christov M (1996) Frequency dispersion of the interfacial impedance at mild steel corrosion in acid media in the presence of benzimidazole derivatives. Langmuir 12(8):2083–2089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mcdonald JR (1987) Impedance spectroscopy: emphasizing solid materials and systems. Wiley, New York, p 16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MOE Key Laboratory of New Processing Technology for Nonferrous Metals and Materials, Guangxi Universities Key Laboratory of Non-ferrous Metal Oxide Electronic Functional Materials and Devices, College of Materials Science and EngineeringGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations