Neutral and metallic vs. charged and semiconducting surface layer in acceptor doped CeO<sub>2</sub>

Ilan Riess

doi:10.1007/s12613-023-2789-0

Volume 31 Issue 4

Apr. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials > 2024 > 31(4): 795-802

Ilan Riess, Neutral and metallic vs. charged and semiconducting surface layer in acceptor doped CeO₂, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 31(2024), No. 4, pp. 795-802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12613-023-2789-0

Cite this article as:

Ilan Riess, Neutral and metallic vs. charged and semiconducting surface layer in acceptor doped CeO2, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 31(2024), No. 4, pp. 795-802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12613-023-2789-0

Citation:

PDF( 1372 KB)

Research Article

Neutral and metallic vs. charged and semiconducting surface layer in acceptor doped CeO₂

Ilan Riess

+ Author Affiliations

Corresponding author:
Ilan Riess E-mail: riess@tecchnion.ac.il
Received: 27 June 2023; Revised: 19 October 2023; Accepted: 17 November 2023; Available online: 21 November 2023

Abstract

Abstract

The monomolecular surface layer of acceptor doped CeO₂ may become neutral and metallic or charged and semiconducting. This is revealed in the theoretical analysis of the oxygen pressure dependence of the surface defects concentration in acceptor doped ceria with two different dopant types and operated under different oxygen pressures. Recently published experimental data for highly reduced Sm_0.2Ce_0.8O_1.9–x (SDC) containing a fixed valence dopant Sm³⁺ are very different from those published for Pr_0.1Ce_0.9O_2–x (PCO) with the variable valence dopant Pr⁴⁺/Pr³⁺ being reduced under milder conditions. The theoretical analysis of these experimental results fits very well the experimental results of SDC and PCO. It leads to the following predictions: the highly reduced surface of SDC is metallic and neutral, the metallic surface electron density of state is g_s = 0.9 × 10³⁸ J^–1·m^–2 (1.4 × 10¹⁵ eV^–1·cm^–2), the electron effective mass is m_eff,s = 3.3m_e, and the phase diagram of the reduced surface has the α (fcc) structure as in the bulk. In PCO a double layer is predicted to be formed between the surface and the bulk with the surface being negatively charged and semiconducting. The surface of PCO maintains high Pr³⁺ defect concentration as well as relative high oxygen vacancy concentration at oxygen pressures higher than in the bulk. The reasons for the difference between a metallic and semiconducting surface layer of acceptor doped CeO₂ are reviewed, as well as the key theoretical considerations applied in coping with this problem. For that we make use of the experimental data and theoretical analysis available for acceptor doped ceria.
- CeO₂;
- surface defects;
- metallic surface;
- oxide reduction;
- Sm doped CeO₂;
- Pr doped CeO₂

FullText(HTML)

Supplements(0)

References(17)

References

[1]	I. Riess, Point defect concentrations in surface layers of binary oxides, Solid State Ionics, 329(2019), p. 95. doi: 10.1016/j.ssi.2018.10.007
[2]	W.C. Chueh, A.H. McDaniel, M.E. Grass, et al., Highly enhanced concentration and stability of reactive Ce³⁺ on doped CeO₂ surface revealed in operando, Chem. Mater., 24(2012), No. 10, p. 1876. doi: 10.1021/cm300574v
[3]	Q.Y. Lu, G. Vardar, M. Jansen, et al., Surface defect chemistry and electronic structure of Pr_0.1Ce_0.9O_{2– δ} revealed in operando, Chem. Mater., 30(2018), No. 8, p. 2600. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b05129
[4]	I. Riess, Analysis of point defect concentrations in highly reduced, monomolecular surface layer of doped ceria, Solid State Ionics, 373(2021), art. No. 115791. doi: 10.1016/j.ssi.2021.115791
[5]	I. Riess, Analysis of the unique dependence on oxygen pressure of Pr³⁺ concentration in the surface of Pr doped ceria, Solid State Ionics, 380(2022), art. No. 115899. doi: 10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115899
[6]	J. Jamnik, J. Maier, and S. Pejovnik, Interfaces in solid ionic conductors: Equilibrium and small signal picture, Solid State Ionics, 75(1995), p. 51. doi: 10.1016/0167-2738(94)00184-T
[7]	N.W. Ashcropt and N.D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Cengage Learning, Stamford, 1976, p. 626.
[8]	J.T. Devreese and F.M. Peeters, Electron–phonon interaction in two-dimensional systems: Polaron effects and screening, [in] J.T. Devreese and F.M. Peeters, The Physics of the Two-dimensional Electron Gas, Springer, Berlin, 1987, p. 131.
[9]	R. Schmitt, A. Nenning, O. Kraynis, et al., A review of defect structure and chemistry in ceria and its solid solutions, Chem. Soc. Rev., 49(2020), No. 2, p. 554. doi: 10.1039/C9CS00588A
[10]	K. Barnham and D.D. Vvedensky, Low-dimensional Semiconductor Structures : Fundamentals and Device Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001, p. 58.
[11]	J.A. López-Villanueva, F. Gámiz, I. Melchor, and J.A. Jiménez-Tejada, Density of states of a two-dimensional electron gas including nonparabolicity, J. Appl. Phys., 75(1994), No. 8, p. 4267. doi: 10.1063/1.355967
[12]	M. Ricken, J. Nölting, and I. Riess, Specific heat and phase diagram of nonstoichiometric ceria (CeO_{2− x}), J. Solid State Chem., 54(1984), No. 1, p. 89. doi: 10.1016/0022-4596(84)90135-X
[13]	N. Stelzer, J. Nölting, and I. Riess, Phase diagram of nonstoichiometric 10mol% Gd₂O₃-doped cerium oxide determined from specific heat measurements, J. Solid State Chem., 117(1995), No. 2, p. 392. doi: 10.1006/jssc.1995.1290
[14]	J. Maier, Physical Chemistry of Ionic Materials : Ions and Electrons in Solids, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2004, p. 217.
[15]	C. Chatzichristodoulou and P.V. Hendriksen, Oxygen nonstoichiometry and defect chemistry modeling of Ce_0.8Pr_0.2O_{2– δ}, J. Electrochem. Soc., 157(2010), No. 4, art. No. B481. doi: 10.1149/1.3288241
[16]	H. Rickert, Electrochemistry of Solids : An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, p. 119.
[17]	P.M. Morse, Thermal physics, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1969.