Next Article in Journal
Influence of Homogenization on Phase Transformations during Isothermal Aging of Inconel 718 Superalloys Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing and Suction Casting
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrothermal Pretreatment of KOH for the Preparation of PAC and Its Adsorption on TC
Previous Article in Special Issue
High-Entropy Materials in SOFC Technology: Theoretical Foundations for Their Creation, Features of Synthesis, and Recent Achievements
 
 
Correction published on 19 September 2023, see Materials 2023, 16(18), 6278.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Overview of Approaches to Increase the Electrochemical Activity of Conventional Perovskite Air Electrodes

by
Elena Filonova
1,* and
Elena Pikalova
2,3
1
Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry, Institute of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg 620002, Russia
2
Laboratory of Kinetics, Institute of High Temperature Electrochemistry, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg 620137, Russia
3
Department of Environmental Economics, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg 620002, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(14), 4967; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16144967
Submission received: 11 June 2023 / Revised: 7 July 2023 / Accepted: 10 July 2023 / Published: 12 July 2023 / Corrected: 19 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Semiconductor / Electrolyte Interfaces Research)

Abstract

:
The progressive research trends in the development of low-cost, commercially competitive solid oxide fuel cells with reduced operating temperatures are closely linked to the search for new functional materials as well as technologies to improve the properties of established materials traditionally used in high-temperature devices. Significant efforts are being made to improve air electrodes, which significantly contribute to the degradation of cell performance due to low oxygen reduction reaction kinetics at reduced temperatures. The present review summarizes the basic information on the methods to improve the electrochemical performance of conventional air electrodes with perovskite structure, such as lanthanum strontium manganite (LSM) and lanthanum strontium cobaltite ferrite (LSCF), to make them suitable for application in second generation electrochemical cells operating at medium and low temperatures. In addition, the information presented in this review may serve as a background for further implementation of developed electrode modification technologies involving novel, recently investigated electrode materials.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The development of renewable energy resources, including hybrid power systems [1,2,3,4], is one of the ways for sustainable progress towards decarbonization [5,6,7]. Hybrid energy systems combining solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) with heat generators, energy storage devices, internal combustion engines, and solar cells have been intensively designed and manufactured today [4,8,9,10,11]. The progressive trend in the development of SOFCs is to lower the operating temperature, which brings undoubted advantages on the way to the commercialization of these power sources, such as the use of cheaper materials, faster start-up, and increased lifetime due to the reduction of degradation processes. However, challenges arise at low operating temperatures related to the slowing down of electrode reaction kinetics and the increasing ohmic resistance of the electrolyte membrane, resulting in a reduction in the SOFC performance [12,13]. To maintain the electrochemical performance of SOFCs operating at low (LT) and intermediate (IT) temperatures at a satisfactory level, the material optimization has been considered for all construction parts of the SOFC, such as cathodes [14,15,16,17,18,19], anodes [14,19,20,21] and electrolytes [19,22,23,24]. The cathode has been shown to be the major contributor to the electrochemical degradation of the cell [25]. The characterization and performance of the wide range of cathodes can be found in recent reviews [13,26,27,28,29].
An analysis of the literature data on the electrical, thermal, mechanical, and electrochemical properties of the conventional perovskite-type cathode materials shows that lanthanum strontium manganite (La,Sr)MnO3 (LSM) fulfils all the requirements for its use in high-temperature SOFCs [26,27]. However, as the temperature decreases, the use of LSM materials, which are predominantly electronic conductors with a low level of ionic conductivity, becomes unsatisfactory due to their low electrochemical activity for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) [30,31]. On the other hand, cobalt-based perovskite materials, including lanthanum strontium cobaltite ferrite (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 − δ (LSCF), are characterized by superior catalytic activity [32] due to high values of both electronic and ionic conductivity [33]. However, these materials exhibit increased thermal and chemical expansion, which is detrimental to the long-term operation of SOFCs [33,34]. The poor long-term durability of high-temperature electrochemical cells is often caused by the performance degradation phenomenon of the air electrode [35,36,37]. It has been found that the electrochemical performance degradation of the LSM- and LSCF-based air electrodes may include microstructural coarsening [33,38,39], the electrolyte/cathode interface reactions [33,40,41,42], sulfur [43,44,45] and chromium poisoning [44,46,47,48,49], carbon deposition [50,51], and Sr surface segregation [33,35,36,52].
The perceived drawbacks of lanthanum strontium-based cathodes have driven research trends towards alternative solutions to improve their electrochemical performance and durability. A search of the Scopus database using the combination of the keywords “LSM”, “SOFC*” and “LSCF”, “SOFC*” (with further application of the limits of “cathode*”, “cathode materials”, “composite cathode*”, “cathode polarization”, “cathode performance”, “electrode*”, “oxygen electrode”, “electrochemical electrodes”) yielded 1141 and 1208 documents respectively for the period of 1996 for LSM and 1998 for LSCF to June of 2023. Figure 1 and Figure 2, generated with the software package VOSviewer version 1.6.19 [53], considering a minimum number of occurrences equal to five author keywords, visualize the maps with topic clusters related to LSM and LSCF as cathode materials for SOFCs, respectively.
From the graphical data shown in Figure 1, the author keywords of the documents considered as LSM can be divided into four clusters: the red cluster, focused on the degradation of the cells; the blue cluster, focused on the composite electrodes; the green cluster, focused on the cathode microstructure; and the yellow cluster, focused on the electrode modification using infiltration. Thus, the red cluster generalizes the drawbacks of the LSM cathode, while the other three clusters reflect the strategies to overcome them. From the graphical data shown in Figure 2, the author keywords of the documents considered as LSCF can be divided into four clusters, some of which are different from those for LSM. In the case of LSCF, the red, blue, and the green clusters generalize the LSCF performance under the operating conditions of fuel cells, electrolysis cells, and microtubular SOFCs, respectively. The yellow cluster generalizes the interfacial characterization. It is interesting to note that each cluster for LSCF includes the topic of drawbacks and their possible solutions. Thus, the above-mentioned trends justify that the improvement of the activity of LSM and LSCF electrodes remains prominent, and it is important to summarize the thematic studies, provided that the performance of LSM and LSCF has been improved.
It is worth noting that the recent review by Chen et al. [54] presents the progress in surface modification techniques to improve the cathode performance, including methods such as solution infiltration, atomic layer deposition, and one-pot synthesis, but it does not directly address LSM and LSCF. In terms of LSM-related reviews, the recent review by Carda et al. [31], which highlights the mechanism of ORR on the LSM electrode, and the review by Jiang S.P. [30] on the development of the LSM cathodes, published in 2008, should be noted. Jiang’s review, which has 585 citations in the Scopus database as of June of 2023, can be found as the strongest item (excluding Jiang’s original research article [55]) in the bibliographic coupling link strength on the LSM network map, which is restricted to documents with at least 90 citations (Figure 3). In the case of LSCF, the reviews by Wang et al. [44], Jiang S.P. [33], and Safian et al. [36] (in chronological order) should be mentioned. The paper by Jiang [33], published in 2019, presents a comprehensive review of LSCF and has 223 citations in the Scopus dataset as of June of 2023. Figure 4 shows the network map of the bibliographic coupling in the Scopus dataset of documents citing the work [33] with their citations, considering a minimum number of citations of each citing document equal to five. The highest metrics of both the review by Jiang [33] and its citing documents show that the LSCF study topic is still highly relevant today. Meanwhile, the reviews [33,36,44], although considering LSCF, did not directly address the cathode enhancement strategies.
Therefore, in the present topical review we report on the most promising techniques to improve the electrochemical performance of conventional air electrodes for solid oxide fuel cells and also electrolysis cells based on the lanthanum strontium manganite La1 − xSrxMnO3 − δ with x = 0.2; 0.3; 0.4 as the commonly used compositions, and the lanthanum strontium cobaltite ferrite with the composition La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ mainly, as the most prominent representative of the (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 − δ series and the most widely used cathode material for the intermediate-temperature (IT) solid oxide fuel cells (IT-SOFCs). The present work highlights for the first time the selection of optimal electrode compositions, as well as electrode fabrication and electrode activation methods.

2. Key Functional Properties of LSM and LSCF Electrode Materials: Advantages and Drawbacks

The lanthanum strontium manganite La1 − xSrxMnO3 − δ (LSM), as a representative of complex oxides with a perovskite ABO3 structure with rhombohedral distortions in the compositional range of 0.2 ≤ x < 0.4 [56,57,58], is known to be used as a material for the fabrication of air electrodes for electrochemical devices operating at low- [59] and intermediate temperatures [30]. On the one hand, this is due to the high level of electronic conductivity σe for LSM (corresponding to 200 S cm−1, 250 S cm−1, and 320 S cm−1 for La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ (LSM20), La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 − δ (LSM30), and La0.6Sr0.4MnO3 − δ (LSM40), respectively, at 800 °C and at Po2 = 1 bar [60]). Secondly, due to the closest values of the coefficient of linear thermal expansion (CTE) of the LSM (e.g., for LSM20—11.4 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 50–1000 °C, [61]; for LSM30—12.2 × 10−6 K−1 and 13.2 × 10−6 K−1 in the ranges of 200–650 °C and 650–900 °C, respectively, [62]; LSM40—12.7 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 50–1000 °C, [61];) to those for the solid electrolytes perspective for operating in IT-SOFCs and low-temperature SOFCs (LT-SOFCs) [15,22,24,63,64,65]. The CTE values can be mentioned for doped ceria (e.g., for Ce0.8Sm0.2O2 − δ (SDC)—12.0 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 25–1000 °C, [66]; for Ce0.8Gd0.2O2 − δ (GDC)—12.2 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 50–900 °C, [67]), (Sr,Mg)-doped LaGaO3 (in general LSGM, e.g., for La0.8Sr0.2Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ—12.1 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 25–1000 °C, [68]), Sc2O3-stabilized ZrO2 (SSZ) (for 8SSZ—10.4 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 30–1000 °C, [69]). In addition, LSM electrodes offer such an important advantage as the improved stability during operation under SOFC and solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) conditions compared to Fe- [48] and Co- [70,71] containing electrodes.
It should be noted that the oxygen diffusion and interfacial heteroexchange parameters for LSM, which is predominantly an electron conductor, are lower than those of materials possessing high mixed oxygen ion and electron conductivity (MIECs), such as cobalt-based perovskites. For example, the oxygen self-diffusion coefficient (D*) and the oxygen surface exchange coefficient (k) for LSM20 at 800 °C were found to be 4.00 × 10−15 cm2 s−1 and 5.62 × 10−9 cm s−1, respectively, compared to D* = 9.87 × 10−10 cm2 s−1 and k = 6.31 × 10−7 cm s−1 for the La0.8Sr0.2CoO3 − δ MIEC material [72]. The values of the ionic conductivity, σi, for LSM are in a range of 10−4–10−7 S cm−1 at 800–1000 °C and decrease significantly in the intermediate temperature range of 600–800 °C [30].
Recently Jiang summarized the literature data regarding the characterization of the oxide materials from the lanthanum strontium cobaltite ferrite (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 − δ series, and showed that the composition La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ (the acronym LSCF will be used from now on), as a representative of MIECs, is the most prominent cathode material used in IT-SOFCs [33]. LSCF, which has a perovskite structure with rhombohedral distortions [73,74], exhibits excellent electrical properties properties with ionic and electron partial conductivity values reaching approximately 1 × 10−2 S cm−1 and 1 × 102 S cm−1, respectively, at 800 °C [75]. It demonstrates a moderate CTE value equal to 17.5 × 10−6 K−1 in the range of 30–1000 °C [76]. The oxygen self-diffusion and surface exchange coefficients for LSFC amount 5 × 10−7 cm2 S−1 [77] and 6 × 10−6 cm S−1 [78] at 800 °C. It should be noted that due to MIEC conductivity nature and the superior oxygen diffusion properties of LSCF compared to LSM, this material is preferred for use in electrochemical devices operated at lower temperatures, whereas LSM materials are still in high demand for high-temperature applications due to their CTE values being more compatible with electrolyte materials and higher total conductivity values.
The main drawbacks of conventional perovskite electrodes, which lead to the degradation of solid oxide cells during long-term operation, are the segregation of Sr at the electrode surface with the formation of the SrO layer for the LSM- [35,52] and LSCF-based [36,79,80,81,82] cells, and the high interaction of LSM [41,52,83,84,85,86] and LSCF [41,87,88,89,90] with Zr-containing electrolytes to form the SrZrO3 (SZO) and La2Zr2O7 (LZO) phases. In addition, due to the presence of CO2 in the air, the SrCO3 carbonate phase was formed on the surfaces of the LSM- [91,92,93] and LSCF- [94,95,96] electrodes. The formation of the same insulating phases limits the oxygen exchange at the electrode–electrolyte interface and reduces the electrocatalytic activity of the LSM [97,98,99,100] and LSCF [79,100,101,102,103,104,105] air electrodes for the ORR, followed by an increase in both the electrode ohmic and polarization resistances. Similar long-term operation tests have shown that the degradation of cells based on LSM [81] or LSCF [106,107] operating in electrolysis mode was higher than that in fuel cell mode, and when comparing two perovskite electrodes, the long-term durability of LSCF was one step ahead of that of LSM [106,108].
Automated methods developed for the detection of Sr nucleation seeds on the electrode surface [109,110], for the identification of the interlayer width between the perovskite and YSZ layers [111,112], and for the computational design and numerical simulation of the perovskite-based composite electrodes [113,114,115,116] allowed for the suggestion of possible degradation mechanisms and an understanding of the electrode behavior at both the atomic and macroscopic scales. The deposition of protective and non-catalytic layers on the electrode surface has been proposed as a solution to the problems of segregation [117,118,119], contaminant poisoning [120,121,122,123], and sluggish oxygen kinetics [124,125,126,127,128]. The organization of ceria-based buffer layers at the perovskite electrode/YSZ electrolyte interface and the replacement of the zirconium electrolyte in the composite electrode with other ionic conductors, methods widely used for other perovskite electrodes [129,130,131,132,133,134,135], may also help to reduce interactions and increase the activity and long-term stability of LSM [136,137,138] and LSCF [138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147] electrodes. The high reactivity of the (La, Sr)-containing electrodes with the conventional YSZ electrolyte facilitated extensive investigations of the LSM-based cathodes formed on the SDC [148,149,150,151], GDC [152], SSZ [151,153], LSGM [149], BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 − δ (BZY20) [154], La9.5Si6O26.25 [155], and La27.44W4.56O55.68 (LWO56) [156] electrolytes as an alternative. The LSCF-based cathodes were formed on the SSZ [157], SDC [158,159], Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 − δ (GDC10) [160,161,162], GDC [126,163,164,165,166,167] Y0.1Ce0.9O1.95 [168], Nd0.2Ce0.8O3 − δ [169], SSZ [170], LSGM [171,172], GDC with LSGM [173], SDC with LSGM [174], BZY20 [175], BaZr0.9Y0.1O3 − δ [176], BaZr0.8Yb0.2O3 − δ (BZYb) [177], BaCe0.7Zr0.1Y0.1Yb0.1O3 − δ (BCZYYb) [178,179,180,181,182], BaCe0.7Zr0.1Y0.2O3 − δ (BCZY) [183,184,185], and BaCe0.7Zr0.15Y0.15O3 − δ (BCZY15) [186] electrolytes.
The chemical compatibility of the LSM and LSCF electrodes with oxygen-ion and proton-conducting electrolytes and the interdiffusion across the cathode/interlayer/electrolyte interfaces have been extensively observed in the recent reviews of Zhang et al. [41], Khan et al. [42] and Hanif et al. [187]. To briefly summarize the data presented in [41], it could be mentioned that LSM20, in contrast to LSCF, showed good chemical compatibility with La27W4NbO55 − δ up to 1400 °C [188] and with La10Si55Al0.5O26.75 at 1300 °C [189], whereas the La-deficient LSM40 did not react with La0.9Sr0.1Ga0.8Mg0.2O2.85 (LSGM9182) at 1300 °C [190]. Secondary phases were found to form after sintering of LSM20 with SDC and BaCe0.9Y0.1O3 − δ at 1150 °C [191], La-deficient LSM20 with BZY20 and BaCe0.8Y0.2O3 − δ (BCY20) at 1100 °C [192], LSCF with BZY20 and BCY20 at 1100 °C [192]. The conclusions in [41] justified that LSCF had better chemical compatibility with LSGM and CeO2-based electrolytes due to the formation of small amounts of impurity phases with LSGM9182 at 1300 °C and negligible interdiffusion with SDC at 1150 °C.
It should be noted that the use of LSM electrodes in contact with the BaCeO3-based electrolytes is limited due to their active chemical interaction [193]. However, due to its high electronic conductivity and CTE compatibility, LSM can be successfully used as a collector for perspective layer electrodes for proton-conducting fuel cells operating in the IT range [194,195,196,197].

3. Conventional and Advanced Techniques to Fabricate Electrode Layers

The choice of electrode deposition method and electrode configuration usually depends on the cell design (tubular/planar configuration), which in turn determines the current characteristics of the electrode. Traditional ceramic methods of the oxygen electrode deposition in planar cells on the supporting fuel electrode, which are technologically simple and easily scalable, are slurry coating [198,199,200,201] (LSM), Refs. [202,203,204] (LSCF), screen printing [205,206,207,208,209] (LSM), Refs. [110,158,183,210,211] (LSCF), tape casting [212,213,214,215] (LSM), Refs. [174,180,216,217] (LSCF), spraying [212,218,219,220,221] (LSM), Refs. [170,173,222,223,224] (LSCF). Figure 5 shows schematics of these deposition methods.
In addition, freeze casting [229] (LSM), Refs. [230,231] (LSCF), dip coating [232,233] (LSM), Refs. [234,235,236,237,238] (LSCF), and extrusion [239,240,241] (LSM), Refs. [241,242,243,244] (LSCF) have been used to fabricate LSM- and LSCF-based electrodes in microtubular cells. Electrophoretic deposition [245,246] has been applied to form electrode thin films [247,248,249,250] (LSM), Refs. [251,252,253,254] (LSCF), and to fabricate LSM-based layered electrodes [255,256].
To maintain a high sintering temperature, e.g., to improve adhesion and/or to form air electrodes in the co-sintering process with NiO-based cermets with lower sinterability, different pore formers have been used to control the microstructure of the air electrode: carbon black [257,258,259,260,261] (LSM), Refs. [262,263,264,265] (LSCF); various types of starch [154,205,266,267,268,269] (LSM), Refs. [251,262,270,271,272] (LSCF).
To improve the catalytic activity of perovskite electrodes, special techniques for depositing nanoscale layers have been used, which are different from those used for the electrodes based on micro-sized electrode materials. In general, these are mainly the low-temperature methods to maintain the high surface area of the nanosized materials. Among the variety of methods available to improve the conventional perovskite electrodes by extending the triple-phase boundary (TPB), it is worth mentioning spray pyrolysis in its different modifications highlighted in the review [273], and used for LSM in [218,219,274,275,276,277], and for LSCF in [223,278,279,280,281]; electrospinning represented in reviews [282,283,284], and used for LSM in [285,286], and for LSCF in [286,287,288,289,290,291,292] template method used for LSM in [293], and for LSCF in [294,295,296,297]; infiltration method considered in the reviews [298,299,300,301,302], and used for LSM in [26,54,148,154,232,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312], and for LSCF in [118,182,288,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344]; solution combustion used for LSM in [345,346], and for LSCF in [346,347]. As a promising technique for the design of solid electrochemical cells, additive manufacturing (3D printing) has demonstrated its advantages for the fabrication of the scalable three-dimensional microstructures [348,349,350,351] using the LSM-based electrodes [352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359] and surface-modified LSCF electrodes [337,360,361].
Electrode activation methods are schematically summarized in Figure 6. They include the use of composite materials, materials with mixed electronic and ionic conductivity, the introduction of an active interlayer at the electrode–electrolyte interface (e.g., a highly conductive ionic conductor), the exfoliation of active nanoparticles on the electrode surface, infiltration, the use of nanomaterials. Due to the predominantly electronic nature of LSM materials, the selection and application of appropriate activation methods are necessary, especially for the electrodes used in electrochemical devices operating at decreased temperatures (below 800 °C).

4. Methods to Improve the Electrochemical Performance of the Conventional Electrodes

4.1. Optimization of the Oxide Composition

The interaction of LSM with Zr-containing electrolytes, as it was mentioned above, results in the formation of low conducting LZO and, at high strontium content, SZO phases at the electrode sintering stage at temperatures above 1000–1200 °C, depending on the material dispersity [85]. It has also been found that Mn readily dissolves in YSZ, leaving chemically active La2O3 at the LSM/YSZ interface, which reacts with ZrO2 to form LZO [114]. To reduce the interaction of LSM with Zr-containing electrolytes, the use of (LS)xM, a cation deficient in the A position, has been proposed [129]. It was found that the creation of the A-site deficiency suppressed the formation of the parasitic LZO phase due to the decrease in the La chemical potential. However, it should be noted that increasing the deficiency beyond a certain limit led to the release of the MnOx phase in (LS)xM, resulting in the intensification of interphase reactions. Thus, recent studies on the interaction of (La0.75Sr0.25)xMnO3 − δ (x = 1.0, 0.97, 0.95, 0.9 and 0.85) with the SSZ electrolyte showed that the optimum deficiency level was 0.95 [153]. The composite electrode (LS)0.95M containing 50 mol% SSZ was characterized by the lowest values of polarization resistance Rp (sometimes called Rη, ASR in the works of different groups) and serial resistance Rs in the series studied, despite the high temperatures of the electrode formation. Therefore, the values of Rp and Rs for the electrodes sintered at 1200 and 1300 °C were equal to 1.21 and 1.94 Ω cm2 and 0.82 and 1.60 Ω cm2 at 950 °C, respectively.
The excess of Mn in La0.85Sr0.15MnyO3 − δ (LSMy, y = 1.1) was found to prevent the formation of chemically active La2O3 and thus, the formation of LZO. In [362], it was shown that the use of LSM1.1 instead of LSM in a composite electrode with 20 wt% YSZ resulted in a reduction of Rp from 1.6 to 0.6 Ω cm2 at 1000 °C. It has been shown that the modification of the YSZ electrolyte with Mn also results in a reduction of the LSM/YSZ interaction [363,364].
In the case of LSCF, the A-site cation-deficient materials with the (LS)xCF and LxSCF composition have been developed and widely used [175,365,366] due to their improved electrical conductivity and reduced CTE values [367]. Meanwhile, based on the results of the long-term stability study of the YSZ electrolyte-supported SOFC with the (LS)0.98SF cathode, Simner et al. [79] concluded that the high rate of the cell degradation (about 30% during 500 h) was mainly caused by Sr segregation at the cathode–electrolyte and cathode/collector layer interfaces, without any significant microstructural and chemical changes. Bucher et al. [366] also confirmed that L0.96SCF underwent strong Si-induced degradation at 600 °C in both wet and air atmospheres.
As a possible solution to the problem of the Sr segregation and contaminant poisoning in the perovskite electrodes, the use of high entropy oxides (HEOs) containing at least five co-dopants in an equimolar ratio in the A-position could be considered [19]. Recently, HEOs based on LSM have been reported, such as La0.2Pr0.2Nd0.2Sm0.2Sr0.2MnO3 [368] and La0.2Nd0.2Sm0.2Ca0.2Sr0.2MnO3 [369]. It was shown that the distortions in the LSM perovskite structure caused by the multi-doping in the A-site led to the highly disordered stress field around the Sr ions, which resulted in limiting the transport and migration of the Sr ions, and suppressed the Sr segregation phenomenon [368,369]. Dabrowa et al. [370] synthesized a nanosized homogeneous high entropy oxide (HEO) based on LSCF, such as La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Cr0.2Fe0.2Mn0.2Ni0.2O3 − δ. The resulting HEO was characterized by lower CTE, increased electronic conductivity, and enhanced stability to Cr contamination compared to the base oxide [370].
Xu et al. [371] synthesized the orthorhombic phase La0.2Nd0.2Gd0.2Sr0.2Ba0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ (HE–LSCF) and investigated the electrochemical activity of the HE–LSCF on the SDC substrate in the symmetrical cells. The Rp value for the HE–LSCF cathode was measured to be 0.57 Ω cm2 at 700 °C compared to 0.71 Ω cm2 for the conventional LSCF cathode. The kinetics of the oxygen reduction reaction in the HE–LSCF cathode, related to the processes of oxygen dissociation and interfacial charge transfer, was attributed by the authors to the middle-frequency process. The polarization results obtained for the cells aged at 800 °C for 200 h showed that the HE–LSCF cathode was characterized by higher stability compared to the pristine LSCF cathode. The Rp values were 0.75 and 1.27 Ω cm2 at 700 °C for the high-entropy LSCF cathode and the conventional LSCF cathode, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) data confirmed that the surface of the HE–LSCF cathode had a homogeneous distribution of all elements in the A-position with no Sr segregation both before and after cell ageing in contrast to the pristine LSCF cathode. The authors reported that the Sr segregation was successfully suppressed in the HE–LSCF cathode.
In summary, although the formation of the (La,Sr)-deficient sites, which aims at both increasing the electrical conductivity and suppressing Sr segregation is the most widely used technique for selecting the optimal composition of the LSM and LSCF electrodes, the creation of highly disordered oxides with sluggish cation diffusion can be quite perspective direction in the composition modification of the conventional perovskite materials.

4.2. Enhancement of the Ionic-Conducting Electrode Component

To increase the electrochemical activity of LSM air electrodes, their compositions with ionic conductors were applied, e.g., with solid electrolytes (YSZ [205,303,352,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383], YSZ with GDC10 [374], SSZ [149,384,385,386,387,388,389,390], GDC10 [391], GDC [152,198], SDC [148,149,387,392,393], doped Bi2O3 [151,394,395,396,397,398,399], BaZr0.85Y0.15O3 − δ (BZY15) [154], LWO56 [156], LSGM [400,401]), or MIEC materials (Co- [150,402] and Fe-based perovskites [403,404,405]). The optimum electrolyte content in the composite electrode depends on the specific surface area ratio of the components and is in the range of 30–50 wt% in most cases. Calculations using Comsol software showed that the maximum active TPB of 9.53 µm μm−3 was achieved for electrodes containing 35 vol% of the electrode material, 35 vol% of the electrolyte and 30 vol% of pores [396].
Wang et al. [373] found that the enhancement of the electrochemical activity of the LSM–YSZ composites was due to the spatial enlargement of the triple-phase boundary (TPB) area, which increased the active sites for the oxygen adsorption and charge transfer processes. Lee et al. [383] reported on dissociative adsorption as the main rate-determining step of the ORR on the LSM–YSZ composite cathodes. It was found that the replacement of YSZ with GDC in the LSM–based composite electrodes developed in [152] resulted in much lower current interfacial resistances compared to the conventional LSM–YSZ electrodes on the corresponding electrolytes.
A detailed study of the influence of ionic conductivity on the properties of the LSM20-based composite electrodes was carried out by Yaroslavtsev et al. in [149], using high ionic conductivity materials SSZ, SDC and La0.88Sr0.12Ga0.82Mg0.18O2.85 (LSGM8282) as the electrolyte component, whose content in the composite electrodes was 50 wt%. The thickness of the electrodes, obtained by screen-printing of a powder suspension with polyvinyl butyral (PVB) binder with the addition of ethyl alcohol, was 50 µm. A collector layer of LSM40 composition was used for the composite electrode to ensure stable current collection. Sintering of the 50LSM20–50SSZ micro-sized electrode layers was carried out at 1200 and 1250 °C, 1 h. Figure 7a shows the characteristics of the electrodes after sintering and after activation with praseodymium oxide (m) in symmetrical cells based on the Sm-doped ceria electrolyte of the composition often used to organize buffer layers at the air electrode–electrolyte interface in ZrO2 and LaGaO3-based cells). The 50LSM20–50SDC composite electrode was found to have the best performance, with the 50LSM20–50SSZ electrode with LSM40 collector coming close. The polarization conductivities of the modified 50LSM20–50SDC and 50LSM20–50SSZ/LSM40 electrodes were 114 and 100 S cm−2 at 800 °C, corresponding to Rp of 0.009 and 0.01 Ω cm2.
Furthermore, Yaroslavtsev et al. have proposed to modify the properties of 50LSM20–50SDC and 50LSM20–50SSZ electrodes by activation through the LSM40 collector layer containing Y-doped bismuth oxide Bi1.5Y0.5O3 − δ (YDB) [151]. It was shown that when the collector layer was sintered at 1000 °C, the polarization resistance of the electrodes decreased due to the diffusion of bismuth-containing melt phases into the functional composite layer (Figure 7b). The optimum additive content in the collector layer for both electrodes was therefore set at the level of 5 wt% (Figure 7c,d). When the YDB content was increased beyond this value, a decrease in the cathode performance was observed due to the sintering and reduction in porosity of the collector layer. The Rp values of 0.1 and 0.2 Ω cm2 at 800 °C were obtained for the 50LSM20–50SDC and 50LSM20–50SSZ electrodes, which were optimized in terms of sintering temperature and amount of the additive. The composite electrodes, activated through the collector, exhibited higher Rp values compared to the praseodymium oxide-activated electrodes; however, they demonstrated a significantly lower degradation rate.
Mosiałek et al. [150] investigated the performance of the composite cathodes containing LSM20 and the MIEC material of YFe0.5Co0.5O3 (YFC) formed on the SDC electrolyte by screenprinting. It was found that the addition of 5 wt% YFC to LSM resulted in a decrease of the polarization resistance Rp from 2.7 to 1.9 Ω cm2 at 800 °C. This fact was attributed to the facilitation of the charge transfer process.
LSM composite electrodes can be prepared by various techniques: by mechanically mixing the components in a mill [114,396], by forming composites with a core–shell structure (by depositing one material on top of another) [206], by infiltrating one component of the composite electrode into the pre-sintered porous matrix of the other component [198,377], and by preparing vertically oriented high-entropy nanocomposites [393].
In [206], the 60(LS)0.95M25–40YSZ composite powder was obtained by the synthesizing of LSM on submicron YSZ particles using in situ glycine-nitrate combustion method. The electrode with a core–shell structure was formed on the surface of the YSZ electrolyte by screen printing (Cell A). The organic binder consisted of 5 wt% ethyl cellulose dissolved in 95 wt% terpineol, and the weight ratio of electrode powder to the binder in the stencil was 2:3. The applied electrode was sintered at 1180 °C for 2 h. For comparison, the second electrode was formed under the same conditions from a mechanical mixture of YSZ and LSM, synthesized by the glycine-nitrate combustion method (Cell B). The YSZ electrolyte formation in the half-cells on the NiO–YSZ support cathode for the single-cell test was also carried out by screen printing with sintering at 1400 °C for 2 h, with a film thickness of about 10 μm. The authors observed a reduction in the electrolysis cell performance when using an anode produced by conventional mixing. Current densities of 0.520 A cm−2 and 0.431 A cm−2 at 900 °C and 0.333 A cm−2 and 0.231 A cm−2 at 850 °C at 1.50 V were obtained for Cell A and Cell B, respectively.
It should be noted that the dispersity of the materials used has a great influence on the performance of composite electrodes obtained by mechanical mixing. It is therefore important to obtain LSM powders with nanosized particles. According to the data reported in [406], La0.5Sr0.5MnO3 − δ (LSM50) with homogeneous morphology and nanoparticles of 20 nm, prepared by the Pechini method, has been characterized as a material that provides improved electrode activity compared to those obtained with LSM50 powders synthesized by citrate and alkoxide techniques. The application of nanosized (86 nm) low-agglomerated powder (La0.75Sr0.25)0.95MnO3 − δ ((LS)0.95M25), obtained by pyrolysis of acetate acrylic polymer, in the composite with YSZ reduced the electrode polarization to less than 0.1 Ω cm2 at 800 °C [378]. A 20 µm thick 50(LS)0.95M25–50YSZ composite was formed in a NiO–YSZ|YSZ half-cell by spraying an ethanol-based suspension followed by drying and sintering at 1000 °C for 2 h (Figure 8a).
The application of infiltration leads to both an increase in the activity of the composite electrode and a solution to the problem of electrode delamination, which is particularly pronounced under conditions of anodic polarization. For example, the 45LSM20–55YSZ nanostructured electrodes, obtained in [377] by infiltration of La0.8Sr0.2Mn(NO3)x with addition of citric acid into the porous YSZ ceramic matrix (Figure 8b), followed by a two-step temperature treatment at 600 °C and then at 900 or 1100 °C, showed Rp values of 0.21 and 0.74 Ω cm2 at 800 °C, respectively. The YSZ matrix for the composite electrode was formed in [377] on the YSZ electrolyte surface by slurry coating followed by sintering at 1200 °C for 2 h. In [198], the 75LSM20–25GDC composite was prepared by infiltrating the solution of Gd0.2Ce0.8(NO3)x into a 20–30 µm-thick porous LSM matrix (Figure 8c) formed by slurry deposition followed by presintering at 1100 °C for 2 h. The polarization resistance of the bare LSM electrode measured at 8.2 Ω cm2 at 800 °C was reduced to 0.39 and 0.09 Ω cm2 after infiltration with 0.5 and 1.5 mg cm−2 GDC, respectively. The electrodes, developed by Chen et al. [198,377], showed high stability under polarization with an anodic current of 500 mA cm−2 at 800 °C in air for 100 h. However, it should be noted that the area of the infiltrated electrodes is generally small (<1 cm2) because it is difficult to obtain a homogeneous distribution of the component in the matrix over a large area in a non-mechanized infiltration process.
For the preparation of the LSCF-based electrodes, compositions with ionic conductors were used, such as YSZ [411,412], YSZ with GDC10 [413], GDC10 [160,336,407,414,415,416,417,418] GDC [110,120,171,417,418,419,420,421], NdxGd0.15Ce0.85 − xO2 − δ (NGCOx) [166], SDC [114,127,162,184,185,416,422,423,424,425,426], Ce0.8Zr0.2O2 − δ [427], BZYb [177], BCZYYb [178,181], BCZY [185], BCZY15 [186], La2Ce2O7 (LCO) [185], LSGM [428,429], as well as with the MIEC materials Bi0.3Sr0.7Co0.3Fe0.7O3 − δ [172], La0.94Ni0.6Fe0.4O3 (LNF94) [340], Ba0.5Sr0.5Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ [430], SrCo0.2Fe0.6Ni0.2O3 − δ [431]. As in the case of the LSM-based composites, the LSCF-based composite electrodes can be prepared by conventional mixing [166,185,407], infiltration [340,416,417,418,421,425,426], and by creating core–shell structures [340,424].
Ling et al. [407] evaluated the electrochemical activity of the pristine LSCF cathode and the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathodes at the operating temperatures of 500–700 °C. The Rp value of the LSCF porous electrode, sintered on the thin-film GDC10 electrolyte at 975 °C, was measured to be 1.20 Ω cm2 at 600 °C. The GDC10 additives to LSCF improved the electrode performance, reducing the polarization resistance down to 0.17 Ω cm2 at 600 °C for the LSCF–GDC composite cathode with the GDC10 content of 60 wt%. The higher GDC10 content resulted in an increase of polarization resistance, which was consistent with the ambipolar resistivity model of the porous composite cathode [409]. It has been shown that the polarization resistance increases in the composites with high electrolyte content because the electron-conducting pathways cannot be effectively formed [407]. Besides, both the ohmic resistance and the contact resistance were high for the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathode with the GDC10 content of 70 wt%. Therefore, it was concluded that the optimum GDC content to achieve the lowest polarization resistance of the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathode was 60 wt%. The performance of the single cell with the optimized LSCF–GDC composite as the cathode, GDC10 as the electrolyte, and Ni–GDC10 as the anode was characterized by the maximum power density (MPD) value of 422 mW cm−2 at 600 °C. The superior electrochemical performance of the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathode, observed in [407], compared to that obtained in [408,409,410] (as shown in Figure 8d) is consistent with the model that the optimum GDC10 volume fraction to achieve the minimum polarization resistance may be greater than 50 wt%, since the grain size of the LSCF powder is much smaller compared to that of the GDC powder.
A simple method for the preparation of nanosized composites has been proposed by Xi et al. [415]. The LSCF–GDC10 powders were obtained from La2O3, Sr(OH)2, Co3O4, Fe2O3, and GDC10 powders, mechanically treated in a high-speed attrition-type mill for 20 min. The resulting composite electrodes, sintered on the SSZ substrate at 900 °C, were characterized by the corresponding polarization resistance value of 0.38 Ω cm2 at 700 °C. The authors of [415] concluded that the mechanical treatment allowed the formation of nanosized particles in the LSCF–GDC10 composite as compared to the conventional mixing technique with the formation of micro-sized particles.
Samreen et al. [166] used the co-doped GDC for the fabrication of the LSCF–NGCOx composite electrodes (x was equal to 1, 3, 5, 7 wt%), obtained from the corresponding powder mixtures. According to the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data obtained on the symmetrical cells with the LSCF–NGCOx electrodes, sintered at 1100 °C on the GDC substrate, the lowest Rp equal to 0.31 Ω cm2 at 700 °C was observed for NGCO5. As shown in Figure 8e, the NGCO5-based electrode showed better performance not only compared to LSCF and other studied LSCF–NGCOx electrodes [166], but also compared to the LSCF–GDC10 electrodes [415]. Thus, the Nd co-doping of GDC can be considered as the promising way for the fabrication of the composite electrodes based on LSCF due to the improvement of the oxygen ion diffusion pathways and the optimization of the TPB sites.
In [120], the GDC-coated LSCF composite cathode prepared by the dip-coating technique was shown to have both the excellent electrochemical performance and the Cr poisoning tolerance. According to the EIS results, the 76LSCF–24GDC composite cathode was characterized by the polarization resistance value of 0.59 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, compared to 0.87 Ω cm2 at 700 °C for the bare LSCF. The 76LSCF–24GDC and LSCF cathodes showed the Rp values of 0.71 and 1.35 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, respectively. after the stability tests under the Cr poisoning conditions for 200 h. Zhang et al. [120] considered that the Cr poisoning of the composite cathode was reduced due to the diminishing of both Cr deposition on the electrode surface and the SrCrO4 formation.
Three different types of the LSCF-based composite cathodes for proton-conducting fuel cells (PCFCs) were obtained and investigated in [185]. The LSCF–SDC, LSCF–BCZY, LSCF–LCO electrode slurries were prepared from the LSCF and SDC, BCZY, and LCO powders, respectively, mixed in a 7:3 weight ratio using terpineol and ethyl cellulose as binders. The power densities of the anode-supported cells (ASC) with the LSCF–SDC, LSCF–BCZY, and LSCF–LCO cathodes, sintered on the BCZY electrolyte at 1000 °C, were measured to be 421, 432, 469 mW·cm−2 at 600 °C. The long-term operation tests of the single cell with the LSCF–LCO cathode showed the stability of the cell power of 420 mW cm−2 during 100 h at 600 °C without any obvious degradation. Gao et al. [185] suggested that the excellent performance of the LSCF–LCO cathode, compared to LSCF–SDC and LSCF–BCZY was due to the enhanced migration rates of proton and oxygen ions through the BCZY electrolyte, as shown in Figure 8f.
According to the conclusions of the work [421], the LSCF-based cathodes, obtained as a three-dimensional network of nanofibers had such advantages as high porosity, high percolation, continuous paths for charge migration, good thermal stability, and excellent framework for subsequent infiltration. The maximum power densities of the single cells with the NiO–YSZ as anode, YSZ as electrolyte, LSCF nanofiber cathode, prepared by electrospinning, and LSCF–GDC composite, prepared by the GDC infiltration, were measured to be 900 and 1070 W cm−2 at 1.9 A cm−2 at 750 °C, respectively. The polarization resistances of the LSCF and LSCF–GDC composite cathodes were equal to 0.26 and 0.21 Ω cm2 at 750 °C, respectively. In [417], the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathodes were formed from the LSCF nanofibers deposited on the GDC10 electrolyte, and the GDC10 was introduced into the LSCF scaffold by the infiltration method. The polarization resistances for the LSCF nanofiber and LSCF–GDC10 (weight ratio of 1:0.56) composite cathodes were equal to 0.78 and 0.14 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, respectively. The size of the infiltrated particles also may have an influence on the electrode performance. Burye and Nicholas [432] used desiccation of LSCF precursor nitrate solutions infiltrated into porous GDC10 scaffold with CaCl2 to decrease the average size of the infiltrated LSCF particles in the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathode down to 22 nm, which was more than twice lower than that in the pristine cathode. It allowed polarization resistance of 0.10 Ω cm2 to be obtained at 575 °C, compared to 650 °C for the undesiccated electrode. The results of the works [417,421,432] demonstrated the efficiency of the infiltration method in achieving the high cell performance of the solid oxide fuel cells.
The 50LSCF–50SDC core–shell composite cathode was prepared in [424]. The 500-nm size of the SDC core was controlled to achieve the total encapsulation of the SDC particles with the LSCF particles, resulting in the improved phase homogeneity with the excellent microstructure and increased TPB. The LSCF–SDC core–shell cathode was characterized by a polarization resistance of 0.265 Ω cm2 at 650 °C and long-term operational stability during both the 120 h electrochemical test and the 30 thermocycles between 100 and 650 °C [424]. According to the data of [340], the LNF94-infiltrated LSCF composite cathode with the core–shell structure on the GDC10 electrolyte was characterized by the values of Rp equal to 0.041 Ω cm2 and MPD, equal to 1080 mW cm−2 at 800 °C, and the excellent long-term stability in CO2 and Cr-containing atmospheres. The authors [340] showed that it was the heterogeneous electrode interface that significantly increased the electron conductivity and the oxygen dissociation.
Wang et al. [433] proposed a novel core–shell LSCF-based perovskite structured electrocatalyst covered with Ruddlesden–Popper phase La0.6Sr1.4Co0.2Fe0.8O4 − δ (LSCF214) thin film. To form a local LSCF214 structure on the LSCF particles, Sr(NO3)2 was added to the suspension of LSCF particles simultaneously with urea as a complexing agent. After suspension evaporation on a hot plate, a uniform Sr2+ coated LSCF particle precursor was obtained, which was finally calcined at 800 °C. The core–shell electrode formed by screen-printing followed by sintering at 900 °C, 2 h on the SDC electrolyte demonstrated a lower polarization resistance (0.17 Ω cm2) than the LSCF electrode (0.32 Ω cm2) at 650 °C. The MPD values obtained for the anode-supported cell with the thin-film SDC electrolyte and the core–shell and conventional LSCF electrodes were 0.57 and 0.3 W cm−2 at 650 °C, respectively. Moreover, the core–shell electrode showed a low degradation rate in the long-term test at 600 °C. The ASR values at 0, 100, 200, 300 and 400 h were 0.58, 0.77, 0.84, 0.85 and 0.82 Ω cm2, respectively.
In summary, the preparation of the composite electrodes, aimed at increasing the TPB by improving the oxygen ion migration, remains the most demanded strategy to enhance the electrochemical performance of the traditional perovskite electrodes. However, the latest composite fabrication techniques use nanostructured materials to provide an increased electrode interface.

4.3. Improvement of the Electrode Surface

The effective approach to increase the electrochemical activity of the conventional perovskite electrodes by increasing the TPB is related to the preparation of decorated electrodes by the infiltration (also called impregnation) method, where the porous cathode is filled with various additives [148,163,304,323,340,382,403,434,435,436,437,438] as well as decorating the electrode surface with nanocatalysts [141,154,315,387,405,416,426,439] and nanocoatings [303,308,341,342], which significantly improve the electrode surface diffusion and exchange with the gas phase.
The enhancement of the electrochemical performance of (La0.8Sr0.2)0.95MnO3 − δ ((LSM200.95)–YSZ cathodes by infiltrating salt solutions was reported in [382]. The developed 50LSM200.95–50YSZ cathodes were characterized by the reduction of the high-frequency polarization resistance up to 45% of the baseline (Rp(hf) = 1.06 Ω cm2 at 700 °C for the YSZ infiltrated electrode), and the low-frequency polarization resistance up to 28% of the baseline (Rp(lf) = 0.57 Ω cm2 at 700 °C for the ammonium chloride infiltrated electrode).
According to Zhang et al. [304] and Han et al. [305], the reversible cell with the LSM20–YSZ air electrode infiltrated with SrTi0.3Fe0.6Co0.1O3 − δ (STFC), the YSZ electrolyte, and the SrTi0.3Fe0.7O3 − δ fuel electrode showed the improved power performance using different fuel gases. The STFC infiltration allowed for an increase in the peak power density of the solid oxide cell in the fuel mode by >1.5 times, up to 0.88 W cm−2 and 1.37 W cm−2 using air and oxygen as an oxidizer, respectively [304], and up to 0.9 W cm−2 and 0.68 W cm−2 using wet H2 and wet CO as a fuel, respectively [305], at 800 °C.
Wu et al. [148], who investigated the influence of the infiltration process on the morphology and performance of the LSM electrode (electrode schemes are presented in Figure 9), showed that the electrochemical characteristics of the LSM–SDC electrodes infiltrated with Sm0.5Sr0.5CoO3 − δ (SSC) and the LSM–SSC electrodes infiltrated with SDC (LSM–SSC–SDC) were dependent on the infiltration time. It was shown that as the infiltration time increased, the cathode polarization resistance and overpotential decreased, and the single-cell peak power density improved. The Rp value for the LSM–SSC–SDC electrode was obtained as low as 0.08 Ω cm2 at 800 °C compared to 2.38 Ω cm2 at 800 °C for the LSM electrode.
Sun et al. in [154] developed the composite electrode for a protonic ceramic fuel cell based on (LS)0.95M20 and BZY15 infiltrated with Pr6O11 nanoparticles over four cycles. The polarization resistance of the (LS)0.95M20–BZY15 cathode on the BZY20 electrolyte, measured at 600 °C, was equal to 0.12 Ω cm2, and the peak power density of the NiO–BZY20|BZY20|LSM–BZY15–Pr6O11 single cell reached 0.28 W cm−2 at 600 °C. The long-term stability tests showed that the obtained cathode was stable at 600 °C for 100 h. The results of the work [154] demonstrated that the infiltration technique, which ultimately led to the TPB extension, is a highly effective strategy to improve the electrochemical activity of conventional LSM–YSZ cathodes by enhancing the oxygen adsorption, dissociation, and diffusion processes.
In [387], the possibility of using the low-cost mixed metal LnOx (Ln = Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm) as an ionic conductor in an air nanostructured electrode was demonstrated, and the Rp value, equal to 0.04 Ω cm2 at 800 °C, was measured for the composite electrode of praseodymium oxide-modified 60LSM20–40LnOx. The influence of the cerium, praseodymium or manganese oxide infiltration on the electrochemical performance of the 80(LS)0.95M20–20YSZ electrodes was investigated in [306]. It was shown that the infiltration of oxide nanoparticles significantly increased the electrochemical performance of LSM–YSZ: infiltration of PrOx resulted in a polarization resistance value of 0.068 Ω cm2 at 700 °C.
Seyed-Vakili et al. [405] investigated the effect of co-infiltration with metallic (Ag) and ceramic (La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 (LSF20), CeO2) precursors on the performance of the LSM cathode on the YSZ substrate. It was shown that the introduction of Ag and ceria reduced the polarization resistance down to 0.64 Ω cm2 at 800 °C, which was 2.5% lower than that of the pristine LSM electrode, while the infiltration of Ag solution reduced the electrode overpotential by approximately 114%.
The results of the study [303] showed that the enhancement of the LSM20–YSZ electrode activity can be achieved by using a nanocoating consisting of the dual (CoOx, Pt) nanocatalyst. The polarization resistance values for the electrodes without and with deposited nanocatalysts were equal to 0.66 and 0.31 Ω cm2 at 750 °C, respectively. In addition, the long-term operation of the NiO–YSZ|YSZ|LSM20–YSZ single cell at 750 °C showed that the use of the nanocoating resulted in an increase in the MPD value of almost 200%.
The improved electrochemical performance of the LSM20 cathode on the YSZ electrolyte substrate was achieved by depositing the nanocrystalline YSZ interlayer at the LSM/YSZ interface using an infiltration process [308]. The LSM–YSZ infiltrated cathode showed a reduced polarization resistance value of 0.11 Ω cm2 compared to 0.35 Ω cm2 for the LSM infiltrated cathode (at 750 °C). In addition, the single cell NiO–YSZ|YSZ|LSM20 with the nanocrystalline YSZ interlayer was characterized by the increased peak power density at 750 °C, equal to 1.54 W cm−2, compared to the value of 0.76 W cm−2 for the cell without the YSZ interlayer. The single cell based on the LSM–YSZ infiltrated cathode showed long-term stability at 750 °C for 300 h at a current density of 0.5 A cm−2. Koo et al. attributed the improved oxygen reduction kinetics to the increased TPB on the infiltrated YSZ interlayer, which increased the number of reaction sites with a low reaction barrier [308].
The LSCF–GDC10 composite electrodes decorated with CuO nanoparticles were prepared by the infiltration technique in [416]. The results of the high-temperature X-ray diffraction study indicated the formation of a new Cu-containing LSCF-based compound. The polarization resistance of the LSCF–GDC10 cathode on the GDC10 substrate decreased significantly from 0.62 Ω cm2 to 0.32 Ω cm2 at 650 °C for the bare and infiltrated electrodes, respectively. Gao et al. concluded that the electrode improvement was due to the Cu2+ reduction at the LSCF–GDC10/CuO interface. Meanwhile, a slight degradation in the performance of the infiltrated samples was observed during the ageing tests at 500 °C and 650 °C for 150 h in air. The authors of [416] attributed the electrode degradation to the coarsening of the CuO particles, the Sr segregation and the low stability of Cu-containing impurities formed at the interface.
The 50LSCF–50Er0.4Bi1.6O3 (ESB) composite cathode prepared by infiltration using organic solvents in [323] showed the excellent electrochemical performance with the SDC electrolyte, equal to 0.11 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, compared to 0.27 Ω cm2 at 700 °C for the LSCF cathode. It was also found that this value was the best performance for the LSCF infiltrated electrodes reported in the literature, such as LSCF–Ce(Ag) [315], LSCF–(Pr,Ni,Mn)O [341], LSCF–Pd [439], LSCF–LSM [403], LSCF–SDC [425], LSCF–SDC–CuO [416], LSCF–SDC–Ag [426], LSCF–GDC10 [417,418]. The NiO–SDC|SDC|LSCF–ESB single cell fuelled with wet hydrogen, characterized by an MPD value of 469 mW cm−2 at 700 °C had a good short-term stability for 50 h at a current density of 0.45 A cm−2 [323]. Wang et al. concluded that the ESB additive had changed the rate-limiting electrode process from the charge transfer to the oxygen diffusion on the cathode surface.
Shi et al. [341] reported on the enhanced electrochemical activity of the LSCF cathode by coating a thin film of (Pr,Ni,Mn)O (PNM5) oxide using an infiltration method. According to the XRD and SEM data, the PNM5 thin film coating, which consisted of a mixture of the Pr6O11, PrNiO3, MnO and NiO oxides, have formed the small particles on the surface of the LSCF backbone particles. The EIS data showed that the PNM5-infiltrated LSCF cathode on the GDC substrate exhibited Rp = 0.388 Ω cm2 at 700 °C compared to Rp = 1.166 Ω cm2 for the bare LSCF cathode. The MPD values of the NiO–DC|GDC|LSCF single cells were equal to 241 and 580 mW cm−2 at 750 °C for the cells with the bare and infiltrated LSCF cathodes, respectively. The degradation rates of the above cells were measured to be 0.07093% and 0.02168 at 750 °C during 200 h, respectively. Distribution of Relaxation Times (DRT) function analysis confirmed that the PNM5 coating significantly improved the ORR on the LSCF electrode surface.
Thus, the literature data presented confirm that the infiltration technique is currently the most advanced method for producing active air electrodes with enhanced surface properties.

4.4. Improvement of the Electrode–Electrolyte Interface

An advanced air electrode may consist of several layers, each of which has specific requirements. For a functional layer (FL), which is close to the interface with the electrolyte, it is important to have the thermo-mechanical properties (CTE value) close to those of the electrolyte substrate with no chemical interaction with the electrolyte, and high electrochemical activity.
It is known that the electrical conductivity of LSM-based composite layers decreases significantly with increasing electrolyte content [440], so it is necessary to form a collector layer (CL) with high electronic conductivity to ensure uniform current distribution over the electrode volume and to organize a stable current capacity. Therefore, noble metals have been used as the collectors for the composite electrodes: platinum in [149,198,377], and silver in [441]. The oxide electrode collectors with LSM were used in [149,151,387,442] (LSM40), in [205] (LSM30), [442] La0.65Sr0.3MnO3 − δ (L0.65SM30) and in [303,443] (LSM20), [442] ((LS)0.98M20).
Harboe et al. [205] investigated the microstructure and electrochemical activity of the L0.65SM30–YSZ–graphite–rice starch electrodes with the LSM collector with different compositions in a symmetrical YSZ electrolyte-supported cell. The results obtained showed that the application of the double L0.65SM30–YSZ–rice starch electrode combinations with the LSM30 current collector, sintered at 1150 °C, showed the best electrochemical performance of the cathode, equal to 0.26 Ω cm2 at 800 °C.
In [379] the effect of the configuration of the electrode based on LSM20–YSZ on its performance was investigated. The electrode with an area of 25 mm2 was formed by screen printing and annealed at 1200 °C for 2 h. Three electrode configurations were studied: monolayer 80LSM20–20YSZ electrode (the mass ratio of the components in the electrode is shown); bilayer electrode with FL 80LSM20–20YSZ and CL LSM20; triple-layer electrode with FL 60LSM20–40YSZ, interlayer 80LSM20–20YSZ and CL LSM20, as shown in Figure 10a. Scanning electron microscopy showed the absence of any defects at the interfaces between the composite cathode and the electrolyte, and between the different cathode layers for the triple-layer electrode, which was ensured by the gradual change in CTE (Figure 10b). The thickness of each cathode layer was approximately 5–6 μm. The polarization resistances for the above electrode configurations were 0.32, 0.24 and 0.18 Ω cm2 at 800 °C, respectively. Maximum values of current density (0.77 A cm−2 at an overvoltage of 0.1 V at 800 °C) and specific power of a single SOFC (447 mW cm−2 compared to 220 mW cm−2 for the single-layer electrode) were obtained for the triple-layer electrode.
Gradient composite electrodes based on La0.72Sr0.18MnO3 − δ (LSM18), LSCF, GDC were prepared by sol–gel slurry deposition [199]. The polarization resistance values for the 50LSM18–50GDC cathode with the 25LSM18–25LSCF–50GDC and 50LSCF–50GDC interlayers, and the LSCF collector layer (Figure 10c,d), sintered at 900 °C on the YSZ substrate, were equal to 0.21 and 0.10 Ω cm2 at 700 and 800 °C, respectively.
Tian et al. [307] fabricated the double-layer electrode LSM35–LSCF with the LSCF top layer infiltrated with SDC, the polarization resistance of which decreased by a factor of 3 times at 800 °C compared to the single-layer LSM electrode. The single fuel cell with the above-fabricated air electrode had an MPD value of 671 mW cm−2 at 800 °C, which was 5 times higher than that of the bare LSM cell. The electrolysis cell with the LSM35–LSCF air electrode was characterized by the hydrogen production rate of 547.58 mL cm−2 h−1 at 800 °C under 1.5 V, which was three times higher than that of the LSM air electrode. The results obtained in [307] justified that the formation of the double-layer air electrodes, whose functional layers consist of both LSCF and LSM, is a promising strategy for enhancing the oxygen reaction reduction and could be useful for the improvement of fuel cells and electrolysis cells.
The addition of La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 − δ (LSF) into the double functional layer and infiltration were simultaneously used in [444] to fabricate the LSCF−LSF−YSZ composite cathode. Layers of LSF and LSCF were sequentially deposited on the YSZ scaffold with LSF as a protective layer between LSCF and YSZ. The Rp values of the symmetrical cells with the LSF- and LSCF−LSF-based cathodes were equal to 0.72 and 0.19 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, respectively. The MPD values of the single cells with the LSCF−LSF−YSZ and LSF−YSZ cathodes were measured to be 1277 and 922 mW cm−2 at 700 °C, respectively. The results obtained showed that the use of the LSF protective layer could be applied to the adoption of the LSCF air electrode for use in YSZ-based cells without CeO2-based buffer layers.
The study on the effect of the thickness of FL and CL of the LSCF-based double-layer electrode on its polarization resistance in contact with the GDC10 electrolyte showed that the optimum FL was almost 5 μm-thick, while the optimum CL thickness reached 30 μm [445]. For the symmetrical cell with the optimum thickness cathode layers the excellent Rp value was measured to be 0.021 Ω cm2 at 650 °C.
Lee et al. [186] prepared the LSCF−BCZY15 composite cathode with gradient porosity by a slurry deposition method for use in PCFCs with the BCZY15 electrolyte. The gradient composite cathodes were prepared in such a way that the cathode porosity and cathode powder size increased significantly in the opposite direction from the electrode–electrolyte interface. The polarization resistances of the symmetrical cells with the porosity gradient and the conventional LSCF−BCZY15 composite cathodes were 0.19 and 0.22 Ω cm2 at 700 °C, respectively. The MPD values of the NiO–BCZY15|BCZY15|LSCF−BCZY15 single cells with the porosity gradient and the conventional cathodes were 367 and 352 mW cm−2 at 700 °C, respectively. In addition, the cell with the porosity gradient cathode showed excellent 100 h stability at 700 °C with a degradation rate of no more than 2%. The authors [186] concluded that it was the gradient structure of the composite cathode that prevented the degradation of the cell performance and stabilized the long-term durability by improving the oxygen adsorption and oxygen reduction at the TPBs.
A numerical simulation of the microstructure of the porosity gradient electrodes was presented in [115]. A “multi-sphere” discrete element method was used to model the powder packing, a kinetic Monte Carlo method was used to model the powder sintering, and the lattice Boltzmann method was used to model the electrochemical reaction at the cathode. It was found that the best performance of the cathode was achieved for the cathode design with a thickness of 25 μm and a density range of 40−65%, which suppressed the sintering but improved the thermal stability of the electrode.
The sintering conditions of the electrode affect the microstructure, adhesion of the electrode to the electrolyte and the possible electrode–electrolyte interdiffusion and chemical interaction, and are, therefore, the most important parameters of the electrode formation.
In [380], the effect of sintering conditions on the performance of electrodes with a 50(LS)0.95M25–50YSZ functional layer and an (LS)0.95M25 collector was investigated. Electrodes annealed in the temperature range 1150–1300 °C were studied, with the thickness of the FL varying in the range of 4–14 μm, and the collector layer 15–85 μm. Reducing the sintering temperature of the FL resulted in a more porous structure with smaller pores and particles, which reduced the polarization resistance. When the sintering temperature of the FL was kept constant at 1300 °C, a reduction in the annealing temperature of the collector also resulted in a reduction in the polarization resistance. The minimum values of the polarization and contact resistances (0.03 and 0.17 Ω cm2 at 1000 °C, respectively) were obtained for the 13 µm thick FL electrode annealed at 1150 °C and the 80 µm thick CL electrode annealed at 1150 °C.
A comparative study to investigate the effect of sintering temperature on the functional properties of (LS)0.95M20–YSZ and (LS)0.95CF–YSZ composites prepared as hollow fibers in the range of 1250–1450 °C was presented in [241]. For LSCF–YSZ, the formation of the pyrochlore structured impurity phase was observed at the sintering temperature of 1300 °C, followed by the degradation of the perovskite phase at 1400 °C. In contrast, LSM–YSZ showed high thermal stability. It was shown that the highest porosity (34.57% and 33.32% for LSM−YSZ and LSCF−YSZ, respectively) was obtained after sintering at the temperature of 1250 °C, and with the increasing sintering temperature, the porosity and gas permeability of both composites decreased significantly. The mechanical strength of the composites (which is an important property for the cathode-supported SOFCs) was improved by increasing the sintering temperature. For the two composites sintered at 1400 °C and with a sufficient porosity of 22%, the mechanical strength was measured to be 161 and 114 MPa for LSM–YSZ and LSCF–YSZ, respectively. Thus, Ab Rahman et al. [241] concluded that the LSM–YSZ composite cathode was more noticeable at high sintering temperatures compared to the LSCF−YSZ due to its thermal and chemical stability, optimum values of the mechanical strength, gas permeability, and porosity.
The effect of sintering temperature on the performance of the LSCF-based composite cathodes in PCFCs was investigated in [177]. It was shown, that the ohmic and polarization resistances of the LSCF–BZYb composite cathodes on the BZYb electrolyte decreased from 0.76 to 0.45, and from 2.43 to 0.73 Ω cm2 at 600 °C for the electrodes sintered at 900 and 1100 °C, respectively. The power densities of the fabricated PCFCs with the LSCF–BZYb composite cathodes sintered at 900 and 1100 °C were equal to 120 and 250 mW cm−2 at 600 °C, respectively. Watanabe et al. [177] suggested that a better performance of the electrodes sintered at higher temperatures was due to the improved adhesion at the cathode–electrolyte interface, resulting in an increased number and thickness of the BZYb proton conducting paths within the composite cathodes.
In addition, well-known problems with air electrode delamination [446,447,448] were partially solved by introducing a porous electrolyte layer at the LSM electrode/YSZ dense electrolyte interface [372,384] or by forming nanostructured or contact layers at the LSCF/YSZ interface [449,450]. The flash co-sintering technique was used to form of the LSCF nanofiber coating on the GDC substrate [451] as a possible solution to the electrode delamination problem. The experimental and modeling results showed that severe cracking was observed when the LSCF layer was connected to the electrode. When the LSCF layer was electrically isolated from the electrode, the temperature gradient was dropped. It was concluded that the optimum LSCF/SDC bilayer structure for use in SOFCs would be maintained if the GDC layer density of 92.86% and the LSCF layer porosity of 52.26% were achieved.
He et al. applied the numerical simulation using level-set and adjoint methods to optimize the porous LSCF microstructure [452,453,454]. It was shown that the spherical LSCF solid particles were preferable for performance improvement [452]. In [454], the LSCF/GDC10 electrode–electrolyte interface was numerically modelled using the adjoint method, and it was concluded from the calculation results that the cathode with the optimized electrode–electrolyte interface (optimized electrolyte volume fraction along the cathode thickness direction) had higher electrochemical activity compared to the flat electrode–electrolyte interface.
Thus, the data presented in this section show that the improvement of the perovskite electrode–electrolyte interface aimed at improving the processes occurring in TPBs includes the techniques of the gradient electrode fabrication, the use of collector layers, and the application of the optimum sintering temperature.

5. Modeling of the Electrode Performance

The data presented in the above paragraphs justify a greater number of experimental studies to improve the electrochemical performance of the conventional perovskite electrodes. Meanwhile, the high cost of the fuel and electrochemical cell elements and the time required for the investigations have led to the attempts to develop the mathematical models of the electrode performance and to perform 3D reconstruction of solid oxide cells with LSM- and LSCF-based electrodes using computational studies and an Artificial Intelligence (AI) technique. The computational modeling allows the analysis of key parameters that influence the electrochemical activity of the air electrodes.
In [309], Zhang et al. combined the super-resolution of a two-dimensional micrograph with the distribution of relaxation times (DRT) analysis data, showed that the active TPB was the key factor responsible for the LSM–YSZ infiltrated electrode activity, which monitored the electrochemical process at a high frequency. The authors of [309] presented the prospective strategy for modeling three-dimensional heterogeneous nanostructures from two-dimensional graphical data, and proposed an approach for correlating between functional properties of nanostructured electrodes. Sharma et al. [455] simulated a button cell based on a NiO–YSZ fuel electrode, YSZ electrolyte, and LSM air electrode. Electrochemical model equations (Fick’s model, Butler–Volmer equation, Ohm’s law used to estimate the values of concentration, activation, and ohmic overpotential losses, correspondingly) implemented in MATLAB software allowed the overall performance of the cell to be predicted by varying the fuel gas composition, operating temperature, electrolyte thickness and cell configuration. The authors believe that the mathematical model developed in [455] could be a prospect for the future design of solid oxide cells.
Yang et al. [456], for the first time, applied a calibrated multiphysics simulation with a multistep ORR model and structural coarsening data from a phase field study to investigate the degradation of the LSM–YSZ composite cathode performance. The multistep oxygen reduction reaction mechanism was considered to involve parallel surface (3PB) and bulk (2PB) pathways (Figure 11a,b). Multiphysical processes, such as charge conservation, gas transport through porous media and surface/bulk transport in the solid phase, were considered. The numerical simulation with a multistep ORR mechanism was simultaneously calibrated with DC polarization curves and AC impedance behavior for different air/fuel supply conditions. The structural changes were found to be sensitive to the volume fraction of LSM in the composite (Figure 11c). The degradation due to grain coarsening in the composite cathode was mainly due to the reduction of active sites for surface and bulk charge transfer steps with a change in the contributions of the 3PB (bulk) and 2PB (surface) pathways (Figure 11d). The simulation results were in good agreement with the experimental investigation of the degradation kinetics of the LSM–YSZ cathode performance carried out using combined isotope exchange, EIS and microstructural study [457].
The numerical simulation of the influence of microstructural characteristics, such as particle size and porosity, on the electrochemical performance of LSCF-based cathodes was provided by the He’s group [459,460]. In [459], it was predicted that the best performance of the LSCF cathode was observed at a porosity of 0.40, and the cathode performance decreased sharply at a critical porosity of 0.10–0.25 due to pore blockage. It was also shown that the LSCF cathodes with the smaller mean pore size could be active at the low porosity of 0.10. In [460], the 3D microstructure of the LSCF–GDC cathode was constructed and the influence of the GDC pillars inside the bare LSCF and composite cathodes with different particle sizes was studied. The results obtained showed that the GDC fibers improved the performance of the LSCF cathode and were more effective in the cathode microstructures with smaller particle sizes.
The prediction of the performance characteristics for the YSZ electrolyte-supported single cell with NiO–SDC as the composite anode and LSCF as the cathode was provided in [461] using a Support Vector Machine (SVM) machine learning technique. The key SOFC parameters, such as the temperature and the supply voltage, were input into the computational model and the values of current density and the MPD values were the output parameters, corresponding to 1160 mA cm−2 and 225 mW cm−2 at 800 °C, respectively. The prepared NiO–SDC|YSZ|LSCF single cell with hydrogen as fuel showed the values of peak current and power density equal to 1170 mA cm−2 and 227 mW cm−2 at 800 °C, respectively, which showed the closeness of the theoretically predicted and research data [461].
The experimental and theoretical approaches to identify the contributions of the different cell components were applied in [116] using EIS and a 2D simulation tool for the anode-supported NiO–YSZ|YSZ|LSCF–GDC10 and electrolyte-supported NiO–CGO|YSZ|LSCF–GDC10 planar cells (Figure 11e). It was found that in the electrolyte-supported cell, the largest contribution to the total cell resistance was ohmic due to the greater thickness of the electrolyte layer compared to the anode-supported cell. The major contribution to the total cell resistance of the anode-supported cell was due to the activation overpotential, which was three times higher than that of the electrolyte-supported cell. Gas diffusion was negligible in all tests with the electrolyte-supported cell, in contrast to its large influence in the anode-supported cell. In addition, temperature had a greater influence in the anode-supported cell due to the higher values of the activation energy for the ohmic and activation losses. As the current density increased, the contribution to the activation resistance decreased in both cells studied. Padinjarethil et al. [116] considered that the same work, if improved by introducing the effect of time on the kinetic parameters, could be useful for predicting the long-term operation of SOFCs. The influence of temperature, concentration, and current density gradients within and along the cell structure on the performance of the NiO-cermet anode-supported single cell was evaluated in [462] using a calibration model. The results obtained for the cell in a steady state showed the strong role of the temperature gradients along the channel and the mass transport processes at the gas/electrode interface.
The 1D and 2D models for the LSCF cathode degradation due to sulfur poisoning were developed numerically in [463]. The 1D model viewed a barrier layer formed on the LSCF surface with a random distribution of sulfur content in the thickness direction. The above 1D model was fed to the 2D model of the anode-supported single cell under sulfur poisoning. The results obtained for the 2D simulation model of the planar SOFC showed that it was the model that correctly predicted the SrSO4 formation near the cathode–electrolyte interface in the region of the air channel. Iwai et al. concluded that the model proposed in [463] could be used to improve the LSCF cathode by considering the poisoning rate as a function of the barrier thickness.
Modelling of the electrochemical reactions occurring at 2PBs and 3PBs of the single layer La0.6Sr0.4Co0.4Fe0.6O3 − δ (LSCF60) and bilayer LSCF60/SCT (strontium cobalt tantalum oxide) air electrodes in a solid oxide electrolysis cell with the YSZ electrolyte and GDC10 buffer layer provided in [458] (as shown in Figure 11f) revealed a competition in electrode kinetics between 2PBs and 3PBs. However, 3PBs were the preferred reactive sites for the single-layer LSCF60 electrode at high voltages. The application of the SCT layer increased the activity of 2PBs, thus reducing the oxygen stoichiometry and dimensional changes. The authors of [458] considered that the analog strategy would be used to prevent delamination at the electrode–electrolyte interface. In addition, the cyclic voltammetry (CV) response of the porous LSCF electrode was simulated in [464], considering the models of solid-state diffusion coupled with oxygen exchange (model-I) and a detailed description of the reaction mechanism (model-II). It was shown that the peaks of the voltammograms were due to the change in oxygen stoichiometry governed by both oxygen diffusion and oxygen exchange, and model-I satisfactorily described the CV curves when the kchem constant was determined far from equilibrium. Meanwhile, model II adequately explained the shape of the voltammograms due to the passivation and decomposition of the LSCF surface.

6. Conclusions

In the present review, the established and novel methods for modifying conventional air electrodes with perovskite structure were discussed, such as lanthanum strontium manganite La1 − xSrxMnO3 − δ (LSM) and lanthanum strontium cobaltite ferrite La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ (LSCF), with particular emphasis on the selection of the optimal electrode material composition, electrode layer design, progressive synthesis and deposition methods, and electrode activation techniques. In addition to the creation of defects as the most suitable way to increase the chemical stability of the materials, the development of high-entropy oxides based on LSM and LSCF containing at least five co-dopants was noted. Ceramic methods such as screen printing, tape casting and spraying were found to be the most technologically simple and easily scalable electrode fabrication methods. Spray pyrolysis in its different modifications, along with electrospinning, template method, and 3D printing were mentioned among the variety of methods available to improve the conventional perovskite electrodes by extending TPB. The deposition of protective and non-catalytic layers on the electrode surface was proposed as a solution to the problems of segregation, impurity poisoning and sluggish oxygen kinetics.
New trends in the design of the LSM- and LSCF-based composite electrodes were highlighted, including various infiltration techniques, modification of the electrode structure using nanofibers and the creation of core–shell structures. The selection of the optimum sintering temperature, the creation of the electrodes with gradient composition and porosity and the use of collector layers were shown to be important in improving the perovskite electrode–electrolyte interface, preventing electrode delamination, and ensuring stable current collection.
It was shown that computational design and numerical simulations of the perovskite-based composite allowed us to suggest possible degradation mechanisms and to understand the electrode behavior at both atomic and macroscopic scales. These methods were found to be useful for quickly analyzing key parameters that influence the electrochemical activity of the air electrodes and for predicting the durability of the electrode without time-consuming experimental work. The development of the mathematical models was shown to be promising for the future design of solid oxide cells.
The present review, which summarizes the basic information on the methods to improve the electrochemical performance of conventional air electrodes, can serve as a guide for the application of the developed technologies to the modification of electrodes with novel, recently investigated electrode materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.F. and E.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.F. and E.P.; writing—review and editing, E.F. and E.P.; data visualization, E.F.; funding acquisition, E.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research funding from the Russian Science Foundation (agreement 23-23-00083) is gratefully acknowledged.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Anastasia Ivanova and Polina Morozova for help with data visualization.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Erixno, O.; Rahim, N.A.; Ramadhani, F.; Adzman, N.N. Energy Management of Renewable Energy-Based Combined Heat and Power Systems: A Review. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 51, 101944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Iliev, I.K.; Filimonova, A.A.; Chichirov, A.A.; Chichirova, N.D.; Pechenkin, A.V.; Vinogradov, A.S. Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Combined Heat and Power Systems with SOFCs. Energies 2023, 16, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lee, J.; Lin, K.-Y.A.; Jung, S.; Kwon, E.E. Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems Involving Thermochemical Conversion Process for Waste-to-Energy Strategy. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 452, 139218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. He, V.; Gaffuri, M.; Van Herle, J.; Schiffmann, J. Readiness Evaluation of SOFC-MGT Hybrid Systems with Carbon Capture for Distributed Combined Heat and Power. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 278, 116728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Cao, Q.; Liu, L.; Wu, Y.; Liu, H.; Gu, Z.; Zhu, C. A Review of Low and Zero Carbon Fuel Technologies: Achieving Ship Carbon Reduction Targets. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 54, 102762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maestre, V.M.; Ortiz, A.; Ortiz, I. Challenges and Prospects of Renewable Hydrogen-Based Strategies for Full Decarbonization of Stationary Power Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Russo, M.A.; Carvalho, D.; Martins, N.; Monteiro, A. Forecasting the Inevitable: A Review on the Impacts of Climate Change on Renewable Energy Resources. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shen, M. Solid Oxide Fuel Cell-Lithium Battery Hybrid Power Generation System Energy Management: A Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 32974–32994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kumar, P.; Singh, O. A Review of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Based Hybrid Cycles. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 8560–8589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Feng, Y.; Qu, J.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, B.; Wu, Y.; Xiao, Z.; Liu, J. Progress and Prospect of the Novel Integrated SOFC-ICE Hybrid Power System: System Design, Mass and Heat Integration, System Optimization and Techno-Economic Analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 18, 100350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kasaeian, A.; Javidmehr, M.; Mirzaie, M.R.; Fereidooni, L. Integration of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Solar Energy Systems: A Review. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 224, 120117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Singh, M.; Zappa, D.; Comini, E. Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: Decade of Progress, Future Perspectives and Challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 27643–27674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bilal Hanif, M.; Motola, M.; Qayyum, S.; Rauf, S.; Khalid, A.; Li, C.-J.; Li, C.-X. Recent Advancements, Doping Strategies and the Future Perspective of Perovskite-Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for Energy Conversion. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 428, 132603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hu, S.; Li, J.; Zeng, Y.; Pu, J.; Chi, B. A Mini Review of the Recent Progress of Electrode Materials for Low-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2023, 25, 5926–5941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tarutin, A.P.; Filonova, E.A.; Ricote, S.; Medvedev, D.A.; Shao, Z. Chemical Design of Oxygen Electrodes for Solid Oxide Electrochemical Cells: A Guide. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 57, 103185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Md Harashid, M.A.; Chen, R.S.; Ahmad, S.H.; Ismail, A.F.; Baharuddin, N.A. Recent Advances in Electrode Material for Symmetrical Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and Way Forward Sustainability Based on Local Mineral Resources. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 22188–22221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tahir, N.N.M.; Baharuddin, N.A.; Samat, A.A.; Osman, N.; Somalu, M.R. A Review on Cathode Materials for Conventional and Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 894, 162458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, M.; Du, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, H. Progress of Perovskites as Electrodes for Symmetrical Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2022, 5, 13081–13095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pikalova, E.Y.; Kalinina, E.G.; Pikalova, N.S.; Filonova, E.A. High-Entropy Materials in SOFC Technology: Theoretical Foundations for Their Creation, Features of Synthesis, and Recent Achievements. Materials 2022, 15, 8783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Skutina, L.; Filonova, E.; Medvedev, D.; Maignan, A. Undoped Sr2MMoO6 Double Perovskite Molybdates (M = Ni, Mg, Fe) as Promising Anode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Materials 2021, 14, 1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Curi, M.; da Silva, E.R.; de Furtado, J.G.M.; Ferraz, H.C.; Secchi, A.R. Anodes for SOFC: Review of Material Selection, Interface and Electrochemical Phenomena. Quim. Nova 2021, 44, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Filonova, E.; Medvedev, D. Recent Progress in the Design, Characterisation and Application of LaAlO3 and LaGaO3-Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrolytes. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, D.; Jeong, I.; Kim, K.J.; Bae, K.T.; Kim, D.; Koo, J.; Yu, H.; Lee, K.T. A Brief Review of Heterostructure Electrolytes for High-Performance Solid Oxide Fuel Cells at Reduced Temperatures. J. Korean Ceram. Soc. 2022, 59, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hanif, M.B.; Rauf, S.; Motola, M.; Babar, Z.U.D.; Li, C.-J.; Li, C.-X. Recent Progress of Perovskite-Based Electrolyte Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and Performance Optimizing Strategies for Energy Storage Applications. Mater. Res. Bull. 2022, 146, 111612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dey, S.; Chaudhary, S.; Parvatalu, D.; Mukhopadhyay, M.; Sharma, A.D.; Mukhopadhyay, J. Advancing Electrode Properties through Functionalization for Solid Oxide Cells Application: A Review. Chem. Asian J. 2023, 18, e202201222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kaur, P.; Singh, K. Review of Perovskite-Structure Related Cathode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 5521–5535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jun, A.; Kim, J.; Shin, J.; Kim, G. Perovskite as a Cathode Material: A Review of Its Role in Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell Technology. ChemElectroChem 2016, 3, 511–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Klyndyuk, A.I.; Chizhova, E.A.; Kharytonau, D.S.; Medvedev, D.A. Layered oxygen-deficient double perovskites as promising cathode materials for solid oxide fuel cells. Materials 2022, 15, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Vinoth Kumar, R.; Khandale, A.P. A Review on Recent Progress and Selection of Cobalt-Based Cathode Materials for Low Temperature-Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jiang, S.P. Development of Lanthanum Strontium Manganite Perovskite Cathode Materials of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: A Review. J. Mater. Sci. 2008, 43, 6799–6833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carda, M.; Budáč, D.; Paidar, M.; Bouzek, K. Current Trends in the Description of Lanthanum Strontium Manganite Oxygen Electrode Reaction Mechanism in a High-Temperature Solid Oxide Cell. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2022, 31, 100852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Oliveira, L.C.; Venâncio, R.; de Azevedo, P.V.; Anchieta, C.G.; Nepel, T.C.; Rodella, C.B.; Zanin, H.; Doubek, G. Reviewing Perovskite Oxide Sites Influence on Electrocatalytic Reactions for High Energy Density Devices. J. Energy Chem. 2023, 81, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jiang, S.P. Development of Lanthanum Strontium Cobalt Ferrite Perovskite Electrodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells—A Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 7448–7493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ndubuisi, A.; Abouali, S.; Singh, K.; Thangadurai, V. Recent Advances, Practical Challenges, and Perspectives of Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathodes. J. Mater. Chem. A 2022, 10, 2196–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, Z.; Li, M.; Zhu, Z. Perovskite Cathode Materials for Low-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: Fundamentals to Optimization. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 2022, 5, 263–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Safian, S.D.; Abd Malek, N.I.; Jamil, Z.; Lee, S.-W.; Tseng, C.-J.; Osman, N. Study on the Surface Segregation of Mixed Ionic-Electronic Conductor Lanthanum-Based Perovskite Oxide La1 − xSrxCo1 − yFeyO3 − δ Materials. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 7101–7117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zarabi Golkhatmi, S.; Asghar, M.I.; Lund, P.D. A Review on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Durability: Latest Progress, Mechanisms, and Study Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Connor, P.A.; Yue, X.; Savaniu, C.D.; Price, R.; Triantafyllou, G.; Cassidy, M.; Kerherve, G.; Payne, D.J.; Maher, R.C.; Cohen, L.F.; et al. Tailoring SOFC Electrode Microstructures for Improved Performance. Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1800120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Celik, I.; Lee, S.; Abernathy, H.; Hackett, G. Performance Degradation Predictions Based on Microstructural Evolution Due to Grain Coarsening Effects in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, F64–F74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Geofrey Sahini, M.; Daud Lupyana, S. Perspective and Control of Cation Interdiffusion and Interface Reactions in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs). Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2023, 292, 116415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, L.; Chen, G.; Dai, R.; Lv, X.; Yang, D.; Geng, S. A Review of the Chemical Compatibility between Oxide Electrodes and Electrolytes in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2021, 492, 229630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, M.Z.; Song, R.-H.; Mehran, M.T.; Lee, S.-B.; Lim, T.-H. Controlling Cation Migration and Inter-Diffusion across Cathode/Interlayer/Electrolyte Interfaces of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: A Review. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 5839–5869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, F.; Kishimoto, H.; Ishiyama, T.; Develos-Bagarinao, K.; Yamaji, K.; Horita, T.; Yokokawa, H. A Review of Sulfur Poisoning of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 478, 228763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, C.C.; O’Donnell, K.; Jian, L.; Jiang, S.P. Co-Deposition and Poisoning of Chromium and Sulfur Contaminants on La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2015, 162, F507–F512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, R.; Parent, L.R.; Gopalan, S.; Zhong, Y. Experimental and Computational Investigations on the SO2 Poisoning of (La0.8Sr0.2)0.95MnO3 Cathode Materials. Adv. Powder Mater. 2023, 2, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Horita, T. Chromium Poisoning for Prolonged Lifetime of Electrodes in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells—Review. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 7293–7306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou, L.; Mason, J.H.; Li, W.; Liu, X. Comprehensive Review of Chromium Deposition and Poisoning of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) Cathode Materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, R.; Sun, Z.; Lu, Y.; Gopalan, S.; Basu, S.N.; Pal, U.B. Comparison of Chromium Poisoning between Lanthanum Strontium Manganite and Lanthanum Strontium Ferrite Composite Cathodes in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 476, 228743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiang, S.P.; Chen, X. Chromium Deposition and Poisoning of Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells—A Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 505–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, Q.; Wang, X.; Jia, L.; Chi, B.; Pu, J.; Li, J. High Performance and Carbon-Deposition Resistance Metal-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with a Nickel–Manganese Spinel Modified Anode. Mater. Today Energy 2020, 17, 100473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Girona, K.; Laurencin, J.; Fouletier, J.; Lefebvre-Joud, F. Carbon Deposition in CH4/CO2 Operated SOFC: Simulation and Experimentation Studies. J. Power Sources 2012, 210, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, K.; Jiang, S.P. Surface Segregation in Solid Oxide Cell Oxygen Electrodes: Phenomena, Mitigation Strategies and Electrochemical Properties. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 2020, 3, 730–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, S.; Zhang, H.; Yao, C.; Lou, H.; Chen, M.; Lang, X.; Cai, K. Review of SOFC Cathode Performance Enhancement by Surface Modifications: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Energy Fuels 2023, 37, 3470–3487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jiang, S.P. Issues on Development of (La,Sr)MnO3 Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2003, 124, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cherepanov, V.A.; Barkhatova, L.Y.; Voronin, V.I. Phase Equilibria in the La–Sr–Mn–O System. J. Solid State Chem. 1997, 134, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cherepanov, V.A.; Filonova, E.A.; Voronin, V.I.; Berger, I.F.; Barkhatova, L.Y. Phase Equilibria in the LaCoO3–LaMnO3–SrCoO2.5–SrMnO3 System. Mater. Res. Bull. 1999, 34, 1481–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Filonova, E.A.; Demina, A.N.; Kleibaum, E.A.; Gavrilova, L.Y.; Petrov, A.N. Phase Equilibria in the System LaMnO3+δ-SrMnO3-LaFeO3-SrFeO3 − d. Inorg. Mater. 2006, 42, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yusenko, M.V.; Belyaev, V.D.; Demin, A.K.; Bronin, D.I.; Sobyanin, V.A.; Snytnikov, P.V. A Study of the Electrochemical Characteristics of Single-Chamber Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Based on Platinum and Strontium-Doped Lanthanum Manganite Electrodes and Fed with a Methane–Air Mixture. Kinet. Catal. 2022, 63, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mizusaki, J. Electronic Conductivity, Seebeck Coefficient, Defect and Electronic Structure of Nonstoichiometric La1 − xSrxMnO3. Solid State Ion. 2000, 132, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mori, M.; Hiei, Y.; Sammes, N.M.; Tompsett, G.A. Thermal-Expansion Behaviors and Mechanisms for Ca- or Sr-Doped Lanthanum Manganite Perovskites under Oxidizing Atmospheres. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000, 147, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Demina, A.N.; Polovnikova, K.P.; Filonova, E.A.; Petrov, A.N.; Demin, A.K.; Pikalova, E.Y. Thermal Expansion and Electrical Conductivity of La0.7Sr0.3Mn1 − yCryO3. Inorg. Mater. 2007, 43, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Løken, A.; Ricote, S.; Wachowski, S. Thermal and Chemical Expansion in Proton Ceramic Electrolytes and Compatible Electrodes. Crystals 2018, 8, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tsvetkov, D.S.; Sereda, V.V.; Malyshkin, D.A.; Ivanov, I.L.; Zuev, A.Y. Chemical Lattice Strain in Nonstoichiometric Oxides: An Overview. J. Mater. Chem. A 2022, 10, 6351–6375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maiti, T.K.; Majhi, J.; Maiti, S.K.; Singh, J.; Dixit, P.; Rohilla, T.; Ghosh, S.; Bhushan, S.; Chattopadhyay, S. Zirconia- and Ceria-Based Electrolytes for Fuel Cell Applications: Critical Advancements toward Sustainable and Clean Energy Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 64489–64512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sameshima, S.; Kawaminami, M.; Hirata, Y. Thermal Expansion of Rare-Earth-Doped Ceria Ceramics. J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 2002, 110, 597–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tsvinkinberg, V.A.; Tolkacheva, A.S.; Filonova, E.A.; Gyrdasova, O.I.; Pikalov, S.M.; Vorotnikov, V.A.; Vylkov, A.I.; Moskalenko, N.I.; Pikalova, E.Y. Structure, Thermal Expansion and Electrical Conductivity of La2 − xGdxNiO4+δ (0.0 ≤ x ≤ 0.6) Cathode Materials for SOFC Applications. J. Alloys Compd. 2021, 853, 156728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, D.; Han, J.-H.; Chun, Y.; Song, R.-H.; Shin, D.R. Preparation and Characterization of Strontium and Magnesium Doped Lanthanum Gallates as the Electrolyte for IT-SOFC. J. Power Sources 2007, 166, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tietz, F. Thermal Expansion of SOFC Materials. Ionics 1999, 5, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Haart, L.G.J.; Vinke, I.C. Long-Term Operation of Planar Type SOFC Stacks. ECS Trans. 2011, 35, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim-Lohsoontorn, P.; Brett, D.J.L.; Laosiripojana, N.; Kim, Y.-M.; Bae, J.-M. Performance of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells Based on Composite La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ—Yttria Stabilized Zirconia and Ba0.5Sr0.5Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ Oxygen Electrodes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 3958–3966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Souza, R.A.; Kilner, J.A.; Walker, J.F. A SIMS Study of Oxygen Tracer Diffusion and Surface Exchange in La0.8Sr0.2MnO3+δ. Mater. Lett. 2000, 43, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tai, L. Structure and Electrical Properties of La1 − xSrxCo1 − yFeyO3. Part 2. The System La1 − xSrxCo0.2Fe0.8O3. Solid State Ion. 1995, 76, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mineshige, A.; Izutsu, J.; Nakamura, M.; Nigaki, K.; Kobune, M.; Fujii, S.; Inaba, M.; Ogumi, Z.; Yao, T. Electrical Property, Crystal Structure and Oxygen Nonstoichiometry of La1 − xSrxCo0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ. Electrochemistry 2000, 68, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Teraoka, Y.; Zhang, H.M.; Okamoto, K.; Yamazoe, N. Mixed Ionic-Electronic Conductivity of La1 − xSrxCo1 − yFeyO3 − δ Perovskite-Type Oxides. Mater. Res. Bull. 1988, 23, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Petric, A. Evaluation of La–Sr–Co–Fe–O Perovskites for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and Gas Separation Membranes. Solid State Ion. 2000, 135, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Carter, S. Oxygen Transport in Selected Nonstoichiometric Perovskite-Structure Oxides. Solid State Ion. 1992, 53–56, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Katsuki, M. High Temperature Properties of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ Oxygen Nonstoichiometry and Chemical Diffusion Constant. Solid State Ion. 2003, 156, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Simner, S.P.; Anderson, M.D.; Engelhard, M.H.; Stevenson, J.W. Degradation Mechanisms of La–Sr–Co–Fe–O3 SOFC Cathodes. Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 2006, 9, A478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, H.; Barnett, S.A. Degradation Mechanisms of Porous La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, F564–F570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Laurencin, J.; Hubert, M.; Sanchez, D.F.; Pylypko, S.; Morales, M.; Morata, A.; Morel, B.; Montinaro, D.; Lefebvre-Joud, F.; Siebert, E. Degradation Mechanism of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ/Gd0.1Ce0.9O2 − δ Composite Electrode Operated under Solid Oxide Electrolysis and Fuel Cell Conditions. Electrochim. Acta 2017, 241, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhao, L.; Drennan, J.; Kong, C.; Amarasinghe, S.; Jiang, S.P. Insight into Surface Segregation and Chromium Deposition on La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 11114–11123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lee, W.; Han, J.W.; Chen, Y.; Cai, Z.; Yildiz, B. Cation Size Mismatch and Charge Interactions Drive Dopant Segregation at the Surfaces of Manganite Perovskites. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 7909–7925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. He, S.; Jiang, S.P. Electrode/Electrolyte Interface and Interface Reactions of Solid Oxide Cells: Recent Development and Advances. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2021, 31, 341–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stochniol, G.; Syskakis, E.; Naoumidis, A. Chemical Compatibility between Strontium-Doped Lanthanum Manganite and Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1995, 78, 929–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yokokawa, H.; Tu, H.; Iwanschitz, B.; Mai, A. Fundamental Mechanisms Limiting Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Durability. J. Power Sources 2008, 182, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kindermann, L. Chemical Compatibility of the LaFeO3 Base Perovskites (La0.6Sr0.4)ZFe0.8M0.2O3 − δ (z = 1, 0.9; M = Cr, Mn, Co, Ni) with Yttria Stabilized Zirconia. Solid State Ion. 1996, 89, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hubert, M.; Laurencin, J.; Cloetens, P.; Mougin, J.; Ferreira Sanchez, D.; Pylypko, S.; Morales, M.; Morata, A.; Morel, B.; Montinaro, D.; et al. Solid Oxide Cell Degradation Operated in Fuel Cell and Electrolysis Modes: A Comparative Study on Ni Agglomeration and LSCF Destabilization. ECS Trans. 2017, 78, 3167–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kostogloudis, G. Chemical Reactivity of Perovskite Oxide SOFC Cathodes and Yttria Stabilized Zirconia. Solid State Ion. 2000, 135, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fan, B.; Yan, J.; Yan, X. The Ionic Conductivity, Thermal Expansion Behavior, and Chemical Compatibility of La0.54Sr0.44Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ as SOFC Cathode Material. Solid State Sci. 2011, 13, 1835–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Darvish, S.; Asadikiya, M.; Hu, B.; Singh, P.; Zhong, Y. Thermodynamic Prediction of the Effect of CO2 to the Stability of (La0.8Sr0.2)0.98MnO3±δ System. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 10239–10248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hu, B.; Mahapatra, M.K.; Keane, M.; Zhang, H.; Singh, P. Effect of CO2 on the Stability of Strontium Doped Lanthanum Manganite Cathode. J. Power Sources 2014, 268, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhao, Z.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Wu, W.; Tu, B.; Ou, D.; Cheng, M. A Comparison on Effects of CO2 on La0.8Sr0.2MnO3+δ and La0.6Sr0.4CoO3 − δ Cathodes. J. Power Sources 2013, 222, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Darvish, S.; Gopalan, S.; Zhong, Y. Thermodynamic Stability Maps for the La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3±δ–CO2–O2 System for Application in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2016, 336, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhao, Z.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Wu, W.; Tu, B.; Cui, D.; Ou, D.; Cheng, M. High- and Low- Temperature Behaviors of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode Operating under CO2/H2O-Containing Atmosphere. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 15361–15370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lai, S.Y.; Ding, D.; Liu, M.; Liu, M.; Alamgir, F.M. Operando and in Situ X-ray Spectroscopies of Degradation in La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Thin Film Cathodes in Fuel Cells. ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3078–3087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Liu, Y.L.; Hagen, A.; Barfod, R.; Chen, M.; Wang, H.J.; Poulsen, F.W.; Hendriksen, P.V. Microstructural Studies on Degradation of Interface between LSM–YSZ Cathode and YSZ Electrolyte in SOFCs. Solid State Ion. 2009, 180, 1298–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hu, B.; Mahapatra, M.K.; Singh, P. Performance Regeneration in Lanthanum Strontium Manganite Cathode during Exposure to H2O and CO2 Containing Ambient Air Atmospheres. J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 2015, 123, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xia, Z.; Zhao, D.; Zhou, Y.; Deng, Z.; Kupecki, J.; Fu, X.; Li, X. Control-Oriented Performance Prediction of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell and Durability Improvement through Retard Oxygen Electrode Delamination with Reverse Operation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 277, 116596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wachsman, E.D.; Huang, Y.-L.; Pellegrinelli, C.; Taillon, J.A.; Salamanca-Riba, L.G. Towards a Fundamental Understanding of the Cathode Degradation Mechanisms. ECS Trans. 2014, 61, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wei, B.; Chen, K.; Zhao, L.; Lü, Z.; Jiang, S.P. Chromium Deposition and Poisoning at La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Oxygen Electrodes of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 1601–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Subotić, V.; Futamura, S.; Harrington, G.F.; Matsuda, J.; Natsukoshi, K.; Sasaki, K. Towards Understanding of Oxygen Electrode Processes during Solid Oxide Electrolysis Operation to Improve Simultaneous Fuel and Oxygen Generation. J. Power Sources 2021, 492, 229600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. He, S.; Saunders, M.; Chen, K.; Gao, H.; Suvorova, A.; Rickard, W.D.A.; Quadir, Z.; Cui, C.Q.; Jiang, S.P. A FIB-STEM Study of Strontium Segregation and Interface Formation of Directly Assembled La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode on Y2O3-ZrO2 Electrolyte of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, F417–F429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pellegrinelli, C.; Huang, Y.-L.; Wachsman, E.D. Effect of H2O and CO2 on LSCF−GDC Composite Cathodes. ECS Trans. 2019, 91, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Xiong, C.; Qiu, P.; Zhang, W.; Pu, J. Influence of Practical Operating Temperature on the Cr Poisoning for LSCF-GDC Cathode. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 33999–34004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Minh, N.Q. Development of Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (RSOFCs)and Stacks. ECS Trans. 2011, 35, 2897–2904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Monaco, F.; Ferreira-Sanchez, D.; Hubert, M.; Morel, B.; Montinaro, D.; Grolimund, D.; Laurencin, J. Oxygen Electrode Degradation in Solid Oxide Cells Operating in Electrolysis and Fuel Cell Modes: LSCF Destabilization and Interdiffusion at the Electrode/Electrolyte Interface. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 31533–31549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lu, K.; Shen, F. Long Term Behaviors of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 and La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 as Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 7963–7971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Türk, H.; Götsch, T.; Schmidt, F.; Hammud, A.; Ivanov, D.; (Bert) de Haart, L.G.J.; Vinke, I.C.; Eichel, R.; Schlögl, R.; Reuter, K.; et al. Sr Surface Enrichment in Solid Oxide Cells—Approaching the Limits of EDX Analysis by Multivariate Statistical Analysis and Simulations. ChemCatChem 2022, 14, e202200300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Li, D.; Zhang, X.; Liang, C.; Jin, Y.; Fu, M.; Yuan, J.; Xiong, Y. Study on Durability of Novel Core-Shell-Structured La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ@Gd0.2Ce0.8O1.9 Composite Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathodes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 28221–28231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Türk, H.; Schmidt, F.; Götsch, T.; Girgsdies, F.; Hammud, A.; Ivanov, D.; Vinke, I.C.; (Bert) de Haart, L.G.J.; Eichel, R.; Reuter, K.; et al. Complexions at the Electrolyte/Electrode Interface in Solid Oxide Cells. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 8, 2100967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Cheng, K.; Xu, H.; Zhang, L.; Du, Y.; Zhou, J.; Tang, S.; Chen, M. Numerical Simulation of the SrZrO3 Formation in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Electron. Mater. 2019, 48, 5510–5515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jacobs, R.; Liu, J.; Na, B.T.; Guan, B.; Yang, T.; Lee, S.; Hackett, G.; Kalapos, T.; Abernathy, H.; Morgan, D. Unconventional Highly Active and Stable Oxygen Reduction Catalysts Informed by Computational Design Strategies. Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2201203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Han, H.; Hu, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, C. Method to Determine the Oxygen Reduction Reaction Kinetics via Porous Dual-Phase Composites Based on Electrical Conductivity Relaxation. J. Mater. Chem. A 2023, 11, 2460–2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yan, Z.; He, A.; Hara, S.; Shikazono, N. Design and Optimization of Functionally Graded Electrodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) by Mesoscale Modeling. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 16610–16625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Padinjarethil, A.K.; Bianchi, F.R.; Bosio, B.; Hagen, A. Electrochemical Characterization and Modelling of Anode and Electrolyte Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 668964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bliem, R.; Kim, D.; Wang, J.; Crumlin, E.J.; Yildiz, B. Hf Deposition Stabilizes the Surface Chemistry of Perovskite Manganite Oxide. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 3346–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Zeng, D.; Xu, K.; Zhu, F.; Chen, Y. Enhancing the Oxygen Reduction Reaction Activity and Durability of a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode by Surface Modification of a Hybrid Coating. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 23992–24001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Li, J.; Zhou, X.; Wu, C.; Zhao, L.; Dong, B.; Wang, S.; Chi, B. Self-Stabilized Hybrid Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: A-Site Deficient Perovskite Coating as Solid Solution for Strontium Diffusion. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 438, 135446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zhang, X.; Jin, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Zong, X.; Li, Y.; Xiong, Y. Enhancing Chromium Poisoning Tolerance of La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode by Ce0.8Gd0.2O1.9 − δ Coating. J. Power Sources 2022, 547, 231996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pei, K.; Zhou, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, K.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, W.; Sasaki, K.; Choi, Y.; Liu, M.; Chen, Y. An Improved Oxygen Reduction Reaction Activity and CO2-Tolerance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Achieved by a Surface Modification with Barium Cobaltite Coatings. J. Power Sources 2021, 514, 230573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pei, K.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, K.; He, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yoo, S.; Zhao, B.; Yuan, W.; Liu, M.; et al. Enhanced Cr-Tolerance of an SOFC Cathode by an Efficient Electro-Catalyst Coating. Nano Energy 2020, 72, 104704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ishfaq, H.A.; Khan, M.Z.; Shirke, Y.M.; Qamar, S.; Hussain, A.; Mehran, M.T.; Song, R.-H.; Saleem, M. A Heuristic Approach to Boost the Performance and Cr Poisoning Tolerance of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode by Robust Multi-Doped Ceria Coating. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2023, 323, 122178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Chen, Y.; Hinerman, A.; Liang, L.; Gerdes, K.; Navia, S.P.; Prucz, J.; Song, X. Conformal Coating of Cobalt Oxide on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode and Resultant Continuously Increased Oxygen Reduction Reaction Kinetics upon Operation. J. Power Sources 2018, 405, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Niu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Evans, C.; Luo, Z.; Kane, N.; Ding, Y.; Chen, Y.; Guo, X.; et al. Highly Active and Durable Air Electrodes for Reversible Protonic Ceramic Electrochemical Cells Enabled by an Efficient Bifunctional Catalyst. Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zhang, X.; Jin, Y.; Li, D.; Zong, X.; Xiong, Y. Effects of Gd0.8Ce0.2O1.9 − δ Coating with Different Thickness on Electrochemical Performance and Long-Term Stability of La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode in SOFCs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 4100–4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chen, Y.; Paredes-Navia, S.A.; Romo-De-La-Cruz, C.-O.; Liang, L.; Fernandes, A.; Hinerman, A.; Prucz, J.; Williams, M.; Song, X. Coating Internal Surface of Porous Electrode for Decreasing the Ohmic Resistance and Shifting Oxygen Reduction Reaction Pathways in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2021, 499, 229854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Niu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Lv, W.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Luo, Z.; Kane, N.; Ding, Y.; Soule, L.; et al. Enhancing Oxygen Reduction Activity and Cr Tolerance of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathodes by a Multiphase Catalyst Coating. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2100034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Yokokawa, H.; Horita, T. Cathodes. In High Temperature and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 119–147. ISBN 978-1-85617-387-2. [Google Scholar]
  130. Filonova, E.A.; Gilev, A.R.; Skutina, L.S.; Vylkov, A.I.; Kuznetsov, D.K.; Shur, V.Y. Double Sr2Ni1 − xMgxMoO6 Perovskites (x = 0, 0.25) as Perspective Anode Materials for LaGaO3-Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2018, 314, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wu, Y.; Sang, J.; Liu, Z.; Fan, H.; Cao, B.; Wang, Q.; Yang, J.; Guan, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Enhancing the Performance and Stability of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Adopting Samarium-Doped Ceria Buffer Layer. Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 20290–20297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Yang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Tian, D.; Wu, H.; Ding, Y.; Lu, X.; Chen, Y.; Lin, B. Enhancing Performance and Stability of Symmetrical Solid Oxide Fuel Cells via Quasi-Symmetrical Ceria-Based Buffer Layers. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 27509–27515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zhang, Y.; Niu, B.; Hao, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Jiang, P.; He, T. Layered Oxygen-Deficient Double Perovskite GdBaFe2O5+δ as Electrode Material for Symmetrical Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells. Electrochim. Acta 2021, 370, 137807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Niemczyk, A.; Zheng, K.; Cichy, K.; Berent, K.; Küster, K.; Starke, U.; Poudel, B.; Dabrowski, B.; Świerczek, K. High Cu Content LaNi1-xCuxO3 − δ Perovskites as Candidate Air Electrode Materials for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 29449–29464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Yang, X.; Li, R.; Yang, Y.; Wen, G.; Tian, D.; Lu, X.; Ding, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lin, B. Improving Stability and Electrochemical Performance of Ba0.5Sr0.5Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Electrode for Symmetrical Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Mo Doping. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 831, 154711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Huang, K.; Wan, J.; Goodenough, J.B. Oxide-Ion Conducting Ceramics for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Mater. Sci. 2001, 36, 1093–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Yun, J.W.; Yoon, S.P.; Park, S.; Han, J.; Nam, S.W.; Lim, T.-H.; Kim, J.-S. Modifying the Cathodes of Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with a Ce0.8Sm0.2O2 Sol–Gel Coating. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 9213–9219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hanifi, A.R.; Paulson, S.; Torabi, A.; Shinbine, A.; Tucker, M.C.; Birss, V.; Etsell, T.H.; Sarkar, P. Slip-Cast and Hot-Solution Infiltrated Porous Yttria Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) Supported Tubular Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2014, 266, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Hwang, S.; Lee, J.; Kang, G.; Choi, M.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, W.; Byun, D. A Hydrogel-Assisted GDC Chemical Diffusion Barrier for Durable Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 11683–11690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Liu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Pu, J.; Ciucci, F.; Chi, B. Nano Film Pr2Ni0.8Cu0.2O4+δ Decorated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Oxygen Electrode for Highly Efficient and Stable Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. Electrochim. Acta 2022, 430, 141032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Wang, Y.; Xu, N.; Dogdibegovic, E.; Su, T.; Brocato, A.D.; Zhou, X.-D. Role of Mixed Conducting Pr0.1Gd0.1Ce0.8O1.9 − δ Barrier Layer on the Promotion of SOFC Performance. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 1917–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Park, J.H.; Jung, C.H.; Kim, K.J.; Kim, D.; Shin, H.R.; Hong, J.-E.; Lee, K.T. Enhancing Bifunctional Electrocatalytic Activities of Oxygen Electrodes via Incorporating Highly Conductive Sm3+ and Nd3+ Double-Doped Ceria for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 2496–2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Park, J.H.; Han, S.M.; Kim, B.-K.; Lee, J.-H.; Yoon, K.J.; Kim, H.; Ji, H.-I.; Son, J.-W. Sintered Powder-Base Cathode over Vacuum-Deposited Thin-Film Electrolyte of Low-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: Performance and Stability. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 296, 1055–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Choi, H.-J.; Na, Y.-H.; Kwak, M.; Kim, T.W.; Seo, D.-W.; Woo, S.-K.; Kim, S.-D. Development of Solid Oxide Cells by Co-Sintering of GDC Diffusion Barriers with LSCF Air Electrode. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 13653–13660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Yoo, Y.-S.; Jeon, S.-Y.; Park, M.-A.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y. Electrochemical Performance of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells with LSCF6428–SDC/SDC Electrode for H2O/CO2 High Temperature Co-Electrolysis. ECS Trans. 2017, 78, 3123–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zhang, G.; Zheng, G.; Huang, Z.; Bao, X.; Shi, C.; Yang, X.; Zhou, J.; Chen, T.; Wang, S. The Effect of Fe2O3 Sintering Aid on Gd0.1Ce0.9O1.95 Diffusion Barrier Layer and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Performance. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 21908–21919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Budiman, R.A.; Yamaguchi, T.; Ishiyama, T.; Develos-Bagarinao, K.; Yamaji, K.; Kishimoto, H. Interlayer Modification for High-Performance and Stable Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell. Mater. Lett. 2022, 309, 131419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Wu, P.; Tian, Y.; Lü, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ding, L. Electrochemical Performance of La0.65Sr0.35MnO3 Oxygen Electrode with Alternately Infiltrated Sm0.5Sr0.5CoO3 − δ and Sm0.2Ce0.8O1.9 Nanoparticles for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 747–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Yaroslavtsev, I.Y.; Kuzin, B.L.; Bronin, D.I.; Bogdanovich, N.M. Polarization Characteristics of Composite Electrodes in Electrochemical Cells with Solid Electrolytes Based on CeO2 and LaGaO3. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2005, 41, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Mosiałek, M.; Zimowska, M.; Kharytonau, D.; Komenda, A.; Górski, M.; Krzan, M. Improvement of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ Cathode Material for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Addition of YFe0.5Co0.5O3. Materials 2022, 15, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bogdanovich, N.M.; Bronin, D.I.; Vdovin, G.K.; Yaroslavtsev, I.Y.; Kuzin, B.L. Effect of Bi0.75Y0.25O1.5 Electrolyte Additive in Collector Layer to Properties of Bilayer Composite Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Based on La(Sr)MnO3 and La(Sr)Fe(Co)O3 Compounds. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2009, 45, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Perry Murray, E. (La,Sr)MnO3–(Ce,Gd)O2 − x Composite Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2001, 143, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Chen, G.; Gao, Y.; Luo, Y.; Guo, R. Effect of A Site Deficiency of LSM Cathode on the Electrochemical Performance of SOFCs with Stabilized Zirconia Electrolyte. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 1304–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sun, K.; Yu, Z.; Ni, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, D.; Gu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Chen, H.; Ge, L.; Guo, L. Highly Durable Sr-Doped LaMnO3-Based Cathode Modified with Pr6O11 Nano-Catalyst for Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells Based on Y-Doped BaZrO3 Electrolyte. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 42, 4266–4274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Cao, X.G.; Jiang, S.P. Identification of Oxygen Reduction Processes at (La,Sr)MnO3 Electrode/La9.5Si6O26.25 Apatite Electrolyte Interface of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 2421–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Strandbakke, R.; Dyrlie, O.; Hage, F.S.; Norby, T. Reaction Kinetics of Protons and Oxide Ions in LSM/Lanthanum Tungstate Cathodes with Pt Nanoparticle Activation. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016, 163, F507–F515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Shen, F.; Wang, R.; Tucker, M.C. Long Term Durability Test and Post Mortem for Metal-Supported Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 474, 228618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Mater, A.; Othmani, A.; Boukhachem, A.; Madani, A. Cathode Performance Study of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ with Various Electrolyte-Doped Ceria Ce0.8Sm0.17Ln0.03O1.9 for IT-Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Electron. Mater. 2020, 49, 4123–4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Yang, C.; Cheng, J.G.; He, H.G.; Gao, J.F. Ni/SDC Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Anode Applications by the Glycine-Nitrate Method. Key Eng. Mater. 2010, 434–435, 731–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ahuja, A.; Gautam, M.; Sinha, A.; Sharma, J.; Patro, P.K.; Venkatasubramanian, A. Effect of Processing Route on the Properties of LSCF-Based Composite Cathode for IT-SOFC. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2020, 43, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. He, A.; Onishi, J.; Shikazono, N. Optimization of Electrode-Electrolyte Interface Structure for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode. J. Power Sources 2020, 449, 227565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Loureiro, F.J.A.; Macedo, D.A.; Nascimento, R.M.; Cesário, M.R.; Grilo, J.P.F.; Yaremchenko, A.A.; Fagg, D.P. Cathodic Polarisation of Composite LSCF-SDC IT-SOFC Electrode Synthesised by One-Step Microwave Self-Assisted Combustion. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2019, 39, 1846–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Wei, F.; Wang, L.; Luo, L.; Cheng, L.; Xu, X. One-Pot Impregnation to Construct Nanoparticles Loaded Scaffold Cathode with Enhanced Oxygen Reduction Performance for LT-SOFCs. J. Alloys Compd. 2023, 941, 168981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Sun, Y.; He, S.; Saunders, M.; Chen, K.; Shao, Z.; Jiang, S.P. A Comparative Study of Surface Segregation and Interface of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Electrode on GDC and YSZ Electrolytes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 2606–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Abarzua, G.; Udayabhaskar, R.; Mangalaraja, R.V.; Durango-Petro, J.; Usuba, J.; Flies, H. A Feasible Strategy for Tailoring Stable Spray-Coated Electrolyte Layer in Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2022, 19, 1389–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Samreen, A.; Galvez-Sanchez, M.; Steinberger-Wilckens, R.; Arifin, N.A.; Saher, S.; Ali, S.; Qamar, A. Electrochemical Performance of Novel NGCO−LSCF Composite Cathode for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 21714–21721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hong, T.; Lee, S.; Ohodnicki, P.; Brinkman, K. A Highly Scalable Spray Coating Technique for Electrode Infiltration: Barium Carbonate Infiltrated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Perovskite Structured Electrocatalyst with Demonstrated Long Term Durability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 24978–24988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Tsuji, Y.; Amezawa, K.; Nakao, T.; Ina, T.; Kawada, T.; Yamamoto, K.; Uchimoto, Y.; Orikasa, Y. Investigation of Cathodic Reaction Mechanism in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Operando X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy. Electrochemistry 2020, 88, 560–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Chen, X.; Sun, X.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, D.; Zhu, X.; Meng, J. Effects of CoO and Bi2O3 Single/Dual Sintering Aids Doping on Structure and Properties of Ce0.8Nd0.2O1.9. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 22727–22732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Wang, Y.-P.; Liu, S.-H.; Zhang, H.-Y.; Li, C.-X.; Zhang, S.-L.; Yang, G.-J.; Li, C.-J. Structured La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode with Large-Scale Vertical Cracks by Atmospheric Laminar Plasma Spraying for IT-SOFCs. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 825, 153865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wang, J.; Yang, Z.; Yang, K.; Peng, S. Kinetics of Oxygen Reaction in Porous La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ-Ce0.8Gd0.2O1.9 Composite Electrodes for Solid Oxide Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 25608–25619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Khaerudini, D.S.; Guan, G.; Zhang, P.; Hao, X.; Wang, Z.; Xue, C.; Kasai, Y.; Abudula, A. Performance Assessment of Bi0.3Sr0.7Co0.3Fe0.7O3 − δ–LSCF Composite as Cathode for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with La0.8Sr0.2Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ Electrolyte. J. Power Sources 2015, 298, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Zhang, S.-L.; Shang, Y.-B.; Li, C.-X.; Li, C.-J. Vacuum Cold Sprayed Nanostructured La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ as a High-Performance Cathode for Porous Metal-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Operating below 600 °C. Mater. Today Energy 2021, 21, 100815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Wang, S.-F.; Lu, H.-C.; Hsu, Y.-F.; Jasinski, P. High-Performance Anode-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Co-Fired Sm0.2Ce0.8O2 − δ/La0.8Sr0.2Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ/Sm0.2Ce0.8O2 − δ Sandwiched Electrolyte. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 5429–5438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Lei, L.; Tao, Z.; Hong, T.; Wang, X.; Chen, F. A Highly Active Hybrid Catalyst Modified (La0.60Sr0.40)0.95Co0.20Fe0.80O3 − δ Cathode for Proton Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2018, 389, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Di Bartolomeo, E.; Zunic, M.; Chevallier, L.; D’Epifanio, A.; Licoccia, S.; Traversa, E. Fabrication of Proton Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Using Electrophoretic Deposition. ECS Trans. 2009, 25, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Watanabe, K.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Nomura, K.; Sumi, H.; Mori, M.; Mizutani, Y.; Shimada, H. Effect of Cobalt Content on Electrochemical Performance for La0.6Sr0.4CoxFe1 − xO3 − δ and BaZr0.8Yb0.2O3 − δ Composite Cathodes in Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 21085–21090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Vafaeenezhad, S.; Sandhu, N.K.; Hanifi, A.R.; Etsell, T.H.; Sarkar, P. Development of Proton Conducting Fuel Cells Using Nickel Metal Support. J. Power Sources 2019, 435, 226763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Zhang, Q.; Hou, Y.; Chen, L.; Wang, L.; Chou, K. Enhancement of Electrochemical Performance for Proton Conductive Solid Oxide Fuel Cell by 30%GDC−LSCF Cathode. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 17816–17827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Chen, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, Y.; Xing, J.; Zhang, Z.; Ding, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhou, J.; Wang, S. Fabrication and Performance of Anode-Supported Proton Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Based on BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.1Yb0.1O3 − δ Electrolyte by Multi-Layer Aqueous-Based Co-Tape Casting. J. Power Sources 2021, 506, 229922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Shimada, H.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Sumi, H.; Mizutani, Y. Performance Comparison of Perovskite Composite Cathodes with BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.1Yb0.1O3 − δ in Anode-Supported Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 124506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Gao, J.; Meng, Y.; Lee, S.; Tong, J.; Brinkman, K.S. Effect of Infiltration of Barium Carbonate Nanoparticles on the Electrochemical Performance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes for Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells. JOM 2019, 71, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Lai, Y.-W.; Lee, K.-R.; Yang, S.-Y.; Tseng, C.-J.; Jang, S.-C.; Tsao, I.-Y.; Chen, S.; Lee, S.-W. Production of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode with Graded Porosity for Improving Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 22479–22485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Fan, Y.; Xi, X.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Xiang, K.; Medvedev, D.; Luo, J.-L.; Fu, X.-Z. Barium-Doped Sr2Fe1.5Mo0.5O6 − δ Perovskite Anode Materials for Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells for Ethane Conversion. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 105, 3613–3624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Lin, X.; Fu, M.; Hu, W.; Tong, H.; Tao, Z. Investigation and Study of Three Different Composite Cathodes for Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 300, 121890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Lee, H.; Lee, S.; Lee, T.; Park, S.; Shin, D. Long Term Stability of Porosity Gradient Composite Cathode Controlled by Electro-Static Slurry Spray Deposition. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 3748–3752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Hanif, M.B.; Rauf, S.; Abadeen, Z.U.; Khan, K.; Tayyab, Z.; Qayyum, S.; Mosiałek, M.; Shao, Z.; Li, C.-X.; Motola, M. Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: Relationship of Composition-Structure-Property, Their Challenges, and Prospects. Matter 2023, 6, 1782–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Zayas-Rey, M.J.; Dos Santos-Gómez, L.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Evaluation of Lanthanum Tungstates as Electrolytes for Proton Conductors Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2015, 294, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Marrero-López, D.; Martín-Sedeño, M.C.; Peña-Martínez, J.; Ruiz-Morales, J.C.; Núñez, P.; Aranda, M.A.G.; Ramos-Barrado, J.R. Evaluation of Apatite Silicates as Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrolytes. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 2496–2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Nesaraj, A.S.; Kumar, M.; Arul Raj, I.; Radhakrishna, I.; Pattabiraman, R. Investigations on Chemical Interactions between Alternate Cathodes and Lanthanum Gallate Electrolyte for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (ITSOFC). J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2007, 4, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Giannici, F.; Chiara, A.; Canu, G.; Longo, A.; Martorana, A. Interface Solid-State Reactions in La0.8Sr0.2MnO3/Ce0.8Sm0.2O2 and La0.8Sr0.2MnO3/BaCe0.9Y0.1O3 Disclosed by X-ray Microspectroscopy. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2, 3204–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Lyagaeva, J.; Medvedev, D.; Pikalova, E.; Plaksin, S.; Brouzgou, A.; Demin, A.; Tsiakaras, P. A Detailed Analysis of Thermal and Chemical Compatibility of Cathode Materials Suitable for BaCe0.8Y0.2O3 − δ and BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 − δ Proton Electrolytes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Application. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 1715–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Pikalova, E.; Bogdanovich, N.; Kolchugin, A.; Brouzgou, A.; Bronin, D.; Plaksin, S.V.; Khasanov, A.; Tsiakaras, P. Effect of Nature of the Ceramic Component of the Composite Electrodes Based on La1.7Ca(Sr)0.3NiO4+δ on Their Electrochemical Performance. ECS Trans. 2015, 68, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Antonova, E.P.; Kolchugin, A.A.; Pikalova, E.Y.; Medvedev, D.A.; Bogdanovich, N.M. Development of Electrochemically Active Electrodes for BaCe0.89Gd0.1Cu0.01O3 − δ Proton Conducting Electrolyte. Solid State Ion. 2017, 306, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Pikalova, E.Y.; Kolchugin, A.A. The Influence of the Substituting Element (M = Ca, Sr, Ba) in La1.7M0.3NiO4+δ on the Electrochemical Performance of the Composite Electrodes. Eur. Chem. Technol. J. 2016, 18, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Pikalova, E.; Kolchugin, A.; Koroleva, M.; Vdovin, G.; Farlenkov, A.; Medvedev, D. Functionality of an Oxygen Ca3Co4O9+δ Electrode for Reversible Solid Oxide Electrochemical Cells Based on Proton-Conducting Electrolytes. J. Power Sources 2019, 438, 226996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Filonova, E.A.; Tokareva, E.S.; Pikalova, N.S.; Vylkov, A.I.; Bogdanovich, N.M.; Pikalova, E.Y. Assessment of Prospective Cathodes Based on (1 − x)Ca3Co4O9+δ–xBaCe0.5Zr0.3Y0.1Yb0.1O3 − δ Composites for Protonic Ceramic Electrochemical Cells. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2020, 24, 1509–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Chen, K.; Ai, N.; Jiang, S.P. Performance and Structural Stability of Gd0.2Ce0.8O1.9 Infiltrated La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 Nano-Structured Oxygen Electrodes of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 10349–10358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Zha, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, M. Functionally Graded Cathodes Fabricated by Sol-Gel/Slurry Coating for Honeycomb SOFCs. Solid State Ion. 2005, 176, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Kammer Hansen, K.; Menon, M.; Knudsen, J.; Bonanos, N.; Mogensen, M. The Effect of a CGO Barrier Layer on the Performance of LSM/YSZ SOFC Cathodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2010, 157, B309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Recio, P.; Alcázar, C.; Moreno, R. Colloidal Processing of Y0.08Zr0.92O2/La0.80Sr0.20MnO3 Semi-Cells Using a Sr-Doped Lanthanum Manganite Synthesized by a Citrate Route. Materials 2021, 14, 7831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Chen, M.; Moon, B.H.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, B.H.; Xu, Q.; Ahn, B.-G. Characterization of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ + La2NiO4+δ Composite Cathode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Fuel Cells 2012, 12, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Chen, Y.; Chen, F.; Ding, D.; Gao, J. Development and Fabrication of a New Concept Planar-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (PT-SOFC). Fuel Cells 2011, 11, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Zunic, M.; Chevallier, L.; Di Bartolomeo, E.; D’Epifanio, A.; Licoccia, S.; Traversa, E. Anode Supported Protonic Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Fabricated Using Electrophoretic Deposition. Fuel Cells 2011, 11, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Harboe, S.; Lupetin, P.; Guillon, O.; Menzler, N.H. Investigation of LSM/8YSZ Cathode within an All-Ceramic SOFC, Part II: Optimization of Performance and Co-Sinterability. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 3618–3631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Liang, M.; Yu, B.; Wen, M.; Chen, J.; Xu, J.; Zhai, Y. Preparation of LSM–YSZ Composite Powder for Anode of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell and Its Activation Mechanism. J. Power Sources 2009, 190, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Gong, Y.; Ji, W.; Zhang, L.; Xie, B.; Wang, H. Performance of (La,Sr)MnO3 Cathode Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: Effect of Bismuth Oxide Sintering Aid in Silver Paste Cathode Current Collector. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 928–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Tanveer, W.H.; Rezk, H.; Nassef, A.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Kolosz, B.; Karuppasamy, K.; Aslam, J.; Gilani, S.O. Improving Fuel Cell Performance via Optimal Parameters Identification through Fuzzy Logic Based-Modeling and Optimization. Energy 2020, 204, 117976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Pijolat, C. Screen-Printing for the Fabrication of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). In Printed Films; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 469–495. ISBN 978-1-84569-988-8. [Google Scholar]
  210. Park, S.-C.; Lee, J.-J.; Lee, S.-H.; Moon, J.; Hyun, S.-H. Design and Preparation of SOFC Unit Cells Using Scandia-Stabilized Zirconia Electrolyte for Intermediate Temperature Operation. J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 044501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Li, D.; Jin, Y.; Liu, C.; Fu, M.; Zong, X.; Xiong, Y. Effect of Optimal GDC Loading on Long-Term Stability of La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ/Gd0.2Ce0.8O1.9 Composite Cathodes. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 6591–6596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Cheng, L.; Sun, M.; Ye, F.; Bai, Y.; Li, M.; Fan, S.; Zhang, L. Structure Design, Fabrication, Properties of Laminated Ceramics: A Review. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manufact. 2018, 1, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Liu, T.; Lin, J.; Liu, T.; Wu, H.; Xia, C.; Chen, C.; Zhan, Z. Tailoring the Pore Structure of Cathode Supports for Improving the Electrochemical Performance of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Electroceram. 2018, 40, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Li, P.; Chen, X.; Sun, Y.; Chen, T.; Zhang, B.; Li, F.; Zhou, J.; Wang, S. Fabrication of Anode Supported Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell with the Co-Tape Casting Technique and Study on Co-Electrolysis Characteristics. J. Power Sources 2023, 569, 232912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Won, B.-R.; Kim, Y.H.; Jo, S.; Myung, J. Highly Flexible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Using Phase-Controlled Electrolyte Support. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 42, 5813–5819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Snowdon, A.L.; Jiang, Z.; Steinberger-Wilckens, R. Five-layer Reverse Tape Casting of IT-SOFC. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2022, 19, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Xu, N.; Geng, D.; Tong, X.; Sun, M.; Xu, Z. Fabrication and Characterization of Co-Fired Metal-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2020, 358, 115482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Shimada, H.; Fujimaki, Y.; Fujishiro, Y. Highly Active and Durable La0.4Sr0.6MnO3 − δ and Ce0.8Gd0.2O1.9 Nanocomposite Electrode for High-Temperature Reversible Solid Oxide Electrochemical Cells. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 19617–19623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Zamudio-García, J.; Caizán-Juanarena, L.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Boosting the Performance of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ Electrodes by the Incorporation of Nanocomposite Active Layers. Adv. Mater. Int. 2022, 9, 2200702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Vardavoulias, M.; Gkomoza, P.; Arkas, M.; Niakolas, D.K.; Neophytides, S.G. Thermal Spray Multilayer Ceramic Structures with Potential for Solid Oxide Cell Applications. Coatings 2021, 11, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Pyo, S.-S.; Lee, S.-B.; Lim, T.-H.; Song, R.-H.; Shin, D.-R.; Hyun, S.-H.; Yoo, Y.-S. Characteristic of (La0.8Sr0.2)0.98MnO3 Coating on Crofer22APU Used as Metallic Interconnects for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 1868–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Lin, J.; Li, H.; Wang, W.; Qiu, P.; Tao, G.; Huang, K.; Chen, F. Atmospheric Plasma Spraying to Fabricate Metal-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Open-Channel Porous Metal Support. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2023, 106, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. dos Santos-Gómez, L.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Martín, F.; Ramos-Barrado, J.R.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. A Novel Multilaminated Composite Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 18124–18127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, W.; Wei, Z.; Guan, K.; Meng, J.; Meng, F.; Meng, J.; Liu, X. Enhancing Catalysis Activity of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell by a Facile and Efficient Impregnation Process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 13757–13767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Ahamad, S.; Ahmad, M.; Mehta, B.R.; Gupta, A. Effect of Nano-Fillers on Capacity Retention and Rate Capability of Mesocarbon Microbeads Anode. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2017, 164, A2967–A2976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Verma, R.; Suri, N.M.; Kant, S. Effect of Parameters on Adhesion Strength for Slurry Spray Coating Technique. Mater. Manufact. Proc. 2017, 32, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Creanga, C.; Serban, S.; Pittson, R.; Murr, N.E. “No Calibration” Type Sensor in Routine Amperometric Bio-sensing: An Example of a Disposable Hydrogen Peroxide Biosensor. In Biosensors—Emerging Materials and Applications; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2011; pp. 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Ren, L.; Luo, X.; Zhou, H. The Tape Casting Process for Manufacturing Low-temperature Co-fired Ceramic Green Sheets: A Review. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2018, 101, 3874–3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Emley, B.; Panthi, D.; Du, Y.; Yao, Y. Controlling Porosity of Anode Support in Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Freeze Casting. J. Electrochem. Energy Convers. Storage 2020, 17, 041008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Yao, Y.; Wang, C.; Ma, Y.; Ye, H.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhao, X.; Tao, T.; Yao, Y.; Lu, S.; et al. Preparation and Performance of a Nano-Honeycomb Cathode for Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 5229–5236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Sahu, S.K.; Panthi, D.; Feng, H.; Du, Y. Effect of Microstructure of the Anode Support Tubes towards SOFC Performance. In Proceedings of the ECS Transactions; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 103, pp. 407–418. [Google Scholar]
  232. Timurkutluk, C.; Yildirim, F.; Toruntay, F.; Onbilgin, S.; Yagiz, M.; Timurkutluk, B. Fabrication and Optimization of LSM Infiltrated Cathode Electrode for Anode Supported Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 9833–9844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Panthi, D.; Choi, B.; Tsutsumi, A. A Novel Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with a Porous Zirconia Support for Intermediate-Temperature Operation. ECS Trans. 2015, 68, 2259–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Min, S.H.; Song, R.-H.; Lee, J.G.; Park, M.-G.; Ryu, K.H.; Jeon, Y.-K.; Shul, Y. Fabrication of Anode-Supported Tubular Ba(Zr0.1Ce0.7Y0.2)O3 − δ Cell for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2014, 40, 1513–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Zhao, K.; Kim, B.-H.; Norton, M.G.; Ha, S.Y. Cathode Optimization for an Inert-Substrate-Supported Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Front. Energy Res. 2018, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Amiri, T.; Singh, K.; Sandhu, N.K.; Hanifi, A.R.; Etsell, T.H.; Luo, J.-L.; Thangadurai, V.; Sarkar, P. High Performance Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Based on Ba0.5Sr0.5Ce0.6Zr0.2Gd0.1Y0.1O3 − δ Proton Conducting Electrolyte. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, F764–F769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. López-Robledo, M.J.; Laguna-Bercero, M.A.; Silva, J.; Orera, V.M.; Larrea, A. Electrochemical Performance of Intermediate Temperature Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Using Porous Ceria Barrier Layers. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 7651–7660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Mushtaq, U.; Kim, D.-W.; Yun, U.-J.; Lee, J.-W.; Lee, S.-B.; Park, S.-J.; Song, R.-H.; Kim, G.; Lim, T.-H. Effect of Cathode Geometry on the Electrochemical Performance of Flat Tubular Segmented-in-Series (SIS) Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 6207–6215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Ab Rahman, M.; Othman, M.H.D.; Fansuri, H.; Harun, Z.; Omar, A.F.; Shabri, H.A.; Ravi, J.; Rahman, M.A.; Jaafar, J.; Ismail, A.F.; et al. Development of High-Performance Anode/Electrolyte/Cathode Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell via Phase Inversion-Based Co-Extrusion/Co-Sintering Technique. J. Power Sources 2020, 467, 228345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. ur Rehman, S.; Song, R.-H.; Lee, J.-W.; Lim, T.-H.; Park, S.-J.; Lee, S.-B. Fabrication and Characterization of La0.65Sr0.3MnO3 − δ/(Y2O3)0.08(ZrO2)0.92/Gd0.1Ce0.9O2 − δ Tri-Composite Cathode-Supported Tubular Direct Carbon Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 1086–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Ab Rahman, M.; Othman, M.H.D.; Fansuri, H.; Harun, Z.; Jamil, S.M.; Omar, A.F.; Rahman, M.A.; Jaafar, J.; Ismail, A.F. Effect of Sintering Temperature on Perovskite-Based Hollow Fiber as a Substrate for Cathode-Supported Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Aust. Ceram. Soc. 2021, 57, 1199–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Wang, S.-F.; Hsu, Y.-F.; Hsia, P.; Hung, W.-K.; Jasinski, P. Design and Characterization of Apatite La9.8Si5.7Mg0.3O26±δ-Based Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 460, 228072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Jamil, S.M.; Dzarfan Othman, M.H.; Mohamed, M.H.; Adam, M.R.; Rahman, M.A.; Jaafar, J.; Ismail, A.F. A Novel Single-Step Fabrication Anode/Electrolyte/Cathode Triple-Layer Hollow Fiber Micro-Tubular SOFC. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 18509–18515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. López-Robledo, M.J.; Laguna-Bercero, M.A.; Larrea, A.; Orera, V.M. Reversible Operation of Microtubular Solid Oxide Cells Using La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ−Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 − δ Oxygen Electrodes. J. Power Sources 2018, 378, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Pikalova, E.Y.; Kalinina, E.G. Place of Electrophoretic Deposition among Thin-Film Methods Adapted to the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology: A Short Review. Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag. 2019, 4, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Kalinina, E.G.; Pikalova, E.Y. New Trends in the Development of Electrophoretic Deposition Method in the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology: Theoretical Approaches, Experimental Solutions and Development Prospects. Russ. Chem. Rev. 2019, 88, 1179–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Yamaji, T.; Itagaki, Y.; Arakawa, K.; Sadaoka, Y. Formation of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 Films as SOFC Cathodes by Electrophoretic Deposition. J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 2010, 118, 1202–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Cherng, J.S.; Wu, C.C.; Chen, W.H.; Yeh, T.H. Microstructure and Performance of Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Made by Aqueous Electrophoretic Deposition. Ceram. Int. 2013, 39, S601–S604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Cherng, J.S.; Ho, M.Y.; Yeh, T.H.; Chen, W.H. Anode-Supported Micro-Tubular SOFCs Made by Aqueous Electrophoretic Deposition. Ceram. Int. 2012, 38, S477–S480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Salehzadeh, D.; Torabi, M.; Sadeghian, Z.; Marashi, P. A Multiscale-Architecture Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Fabricated by Electrophoretic Deposition Technique. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 830, 154654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Santillán, M.J.; Caneiro, A.; Quaranta, N.; Boccaccini, A.R. Electrophoretic Deposition of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ Cathodes on Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95 Substrates for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (IT-SOFC). J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2009, 29, 1125–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Santillán, M.J.; Caneiro, A.; Lovey, F.C.; Quaranta, N.; Boccaccini, A.R. Electrophoretic Codeposition of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ and Carbon Nanotubes for Developing Composite Cathodes for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2010, 7, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Baharuddin, N.A. Influence of Sintering Temperature on the Polarization Resistance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ−SDC Carbonate Composite Cathode. Ceram. Silikáty 2016, 60, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Yamamoto, K.; Sato, K.; Matsuda, M.; Ozawa, M.; Ohara, S. Anomalous Low-Temperature Sintering of a Solid Electrolyte Thin Film of Tailor-Made Nanocrystals on a Porous Cathode Support for Low-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 15939–15946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Tsai, H.-C.; Chang, Y.-T.; Wu, P.-W.; Lin, P. Fabrication of Tri-Layered Structrure for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Electrophetic Depositions. ECS Trans. 2009, 25, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Itagaki, Y.; Watanabe, S.; Yamaji, T.; Asamoto, M.; Yahiro, H.; Sadaoka, Y. Electrophoretic Deposition of Bi-Layered LSM/LSM–YSZ Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Power Sources 2012, 214, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Ji, Q.; Xu, X.; Liu, X.; Bi, L. Improvement of the Catalytic Properties of Porous Lanthanum Manganite for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction by Partial Substitution of Strontium for Lanthanum. Electrochem. Commun. 2021, 124, 106964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Torabi, A.; Hanifi, A.R.; Etsell, T.H.; Sarkar, P. Effects of Porous Support Microstructure on Performance of Infiltrated Electrodes in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2011, 159, B201–B210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Benipayo, A.B.; Cervera, R.B.M. Influence of Carbon Black Pore Former on the Synthesis of LSM-YSZ Composite Electrode Material via Solid-State Reaction and Glycine-Nitrate Process. Mater. Sci. Forum 2019, 950, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Noh, J.H.; Myung, J. Optimization of Anode and Electrolyte Microstructure for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Korean Chem. Eng. Res. 2019, 57, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Wu, S.; Tan, W.; Peng, Y.; Gao, J.; Shi, H.; Qu, J.; Zhu, X. Electrochemical Reduction of Nitric Oxide in Different Carbon-Driven Solid State Cells. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 812, 152163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Nie, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, M. Effects of Pore Formers on Microstructure and Performance of Cathode Membranes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 9975–9979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Mohamed, R.; Cheng, X.; Fabbri, E.; Levecque, P.; Kötz, R.; Conrad, O.; Schmidt, T.J. Electrocatalysis of Perovskites: The Influence of Carbon on the Oxygen Evolution Activity. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2015, 162, F579–F586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Safakas, A.; Bampos, G.; Bebelis, S. Oxygen Reduction Reaction on La0.8Sr0.2CoxFe1 − xO3 − δ Perovskite/Carbon Black Electrocatalysts in Alkaline Medium. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2019, 244, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Ding, H.; Xue, X. A Platinum Nanowire Network as a Highly Efficient Current Collector for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 11317–11321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Burmistrov, I.N.; Agarkov, D.A.; Tsybrov, F.M.; Bredikhin, S.I. Preparation of Membrane-Electrode Assemblies of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Co-Sintering of Electrodes. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2016, 52, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Burmistrov, I.N.; Agarkov, D.A.; Korovkin, E.V.; Yalovenko, D.V.; Bredikhin, S.I. Fabrication of Membrane–Electrode Assemblies for Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells by Joint Sintering of Electrodes at High Temperature. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2017, 53, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Zhang, X.; Yu, G.; Zeng, S.; Parbey, J.; Xiao, S.; Li, B.; Li, T.; Andersson, M. Mechanism of Chromium Poisoning the Conventional Cathode Material for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2018, 381, 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. He, Z.; Andersen, K.B.; Keel, L.; Nygaard, F.B.; Menon, M.; Hansen, K.K. Processing and Characterization of Porous Electrochemical Cells for Flue Gas Purification. Ionics 2009, 15, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Abd Mutalib, M.; Othman, M.H.D.; Aziz, M.; Rahman, M.A.; Jaafar, J.; Ismail, A.F.; Mohamed, M.A. The Influence of PEEK as a Pore Former on the Microstructure of Brush-Painted LSCF Cathodes. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2016, 20, 2895–2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Duan, N.-Q.; Tan, Y.; Yan, D.; Jia, L.; Chi, B.; Pu, J.; Li, J. Biomass Carbon Fueled Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Molten Antimony Anode. Appl. Energy 2016, 165, 983–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Chen, M.; Kim, B.H.; Xu, Q.; Ahn, B.G.; Huang, D.P. Fabrication and Performance of Anode-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells via Slurry Spin Coating. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 360, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. dos Santos-Gómez, L.; Zamudio-García, J.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Recent Progress in Nanostructured Electrodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Deposited by Spray Pyrolysis. J. Power Sources 2021, 507, 230277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. dos Santos-Gómez, L.; Zamudio-García, J.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Highly Efficient La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ−Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95 Nanocomposite Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 4961–4966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Kumari, N.; Haider, M.A.; Anjum, U.; Basu, S. Identifying Operating Mechanism in the Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 on Thin-Film Praseodymium-Doped Ceria Electrodes. Ionics 2020, 26, 5673–5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Krestou, A.; Barmpatsis, A.; Tsanaktsidis, C.; Matsouka, C.; Nalbandian, L.; Kiratzis, N.E. Fabrication and Characterization of Functional Ceramic Films by Solution Spray Pyrolysis: Correlations with the Thermal Decomposition Characteristics of the Constituent Salts. ECS Trans. 2021, 103, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Sharma, R.K.; Khamidy, N.I.; Rapenne, L.; Charlot, F.; Moussaoui, H.; Laurencin, J.; Djurado, E. Highly Efficient Architectured Pr6O11 Oxygen Electrode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Power Sources 2019, 419, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Castro-Robles, J.D.; Soltani, N.; Chávez-Carvayar, J.Á. Structural, Morphological and Transport Properties of Nanostructured La1 − xSrxCo0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Thin Films, Deposited by Ultrasonic Spray Pyrolysis. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 225, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. dos Santos-Gómez, L.; Zamudio-García, J.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Highly Oriented and Fully Dense CGO Films Prepared by Spray-Pyrolysis and Different Precursor Salts. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 3080–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Kamecki, B.; Karczewski, J.; Jasiński, P.; Molin, S. Improvement of Oxygen Electrode Performance of Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Cells by Spray Pyrolysis Deposited Active Layers. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 8, 2002227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Zamudio-García, J.; Caizán-Juanarena, L.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Losilla, E.R.; Marrero-López, D. Unraveling the Influence of the Electrolyte on the Polarization Resistance of Nanostructured La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 3936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Aruna, S.T.; Balaji, L.S.; Kumar, S.S.; Prakash, B.S. Electrospinning in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Parbey, J.; Wang, Q.; Yu, G.; Zhang, X.; Li, T.; Andersson, M. Progress in the Use of Electrospun Nanofiber Electrodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: A Review. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2020, 36, 879–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Liu, Z.; Gu, Y.; Bi, L. Applications of Electrospun Nanofibers in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells—A Review. J. Alloys Compd. 2023, 937, 168288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Squizzato, E.; Sanna, C.; Glisenti, A.; Costamagna, P. Structural and Catalytic Characterization of La0.6Sr0.4MnO3 Nanofibers for Application in Direct Methane Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Anodes. Energies 2021, 14, 3602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Gong, J.; Wu, P.; Bai, Z.; Ma, J.; Li, T.; Yao, Y.; Jiang, C. Insight into the Electrospinning Process for SOFC Cathode Nanofibers. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 7044–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Enrico, A.; Zhang, W.; Lund Traulsen, M.; Sala, E.M.; Costamagna, P.; Holtappels, P. La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Nanofiber Cathode for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Water-Based Sol-Gel Electrospinning: Synthesis and Electrochemical Behaviour. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2018, 38, 2677–2686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Li, D.; Liu, C.J.; Su, D.L.; Dai, C.S.; Xiong, Y.P. Effect of Microstructure on Electrochemical Performance of Nano-Structured La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ−Gd0.2Ce0.8O1.9 Composite Cathodes. In Proceedings of the ECS Transactions; Eguchi, K., Singhal, S.C., Eds.; Electrochemical Society Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 91, pp. 1483–1489. [Google Scholar]
  289. Zhang, W.; Wang, H.; Guan, K.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, X.; Meng, J.; Liu, X.; Meng, J. La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ/CeO2 Heterostructured Composite Nanofibers as a Highly Active and Robust Cathode Catalyst for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 26830–26841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Sanna, C.; Zhang, W.; Costamagna, P.; Holtappels, P. Synthesis and Electrochemical Characterization of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ/Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95 Co-Electrospun Nanofiber Cathodes for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 13818–13831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Bai, J.; Zhou, D.; Zhu, X.; Wang, N.; Chen, R.; Wang, B. New SOFC Cathode: 3D Core–Shell-Structured La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ@PrO2 − δ Nanofibers Prepared by Coaxial Electrospinning. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2022, 5, 11178–11190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Chen, S.-H.; Zhang, T.-T.; Zhu, D.-Y.; Wang, N.; Xu, S.; Ramakrishna, S.; Long, Y.-Z. Synthesis and Electrochemical Characterization of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ and BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 − δ Electrospun Nanofiber Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2022, 24, 2101083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Hedayat, N.; Du, Y. Micro-Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with One Closed-End Fabricated via Dip-Coating and Co-Firing. ECS Trans. 2021, 103, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Anelli, S.; Baiutti, F.; Hornés, A.; Bernadet, L.; Torrell, M.; Tarancón, A. Improved Mesostructured Oxygen Electrodes for Highly Performing Solid Oxide Cells for Co-Electrolysis of Steam and Carbon Dioxide. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 27458–27468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Yan, Z.; He, A.; Hara, S.; Shikazono, N. In-Silico Design of Functionally Graded Electrodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. In Proceedings of the ECS Transactions; Eguchi, K., Singhal, S.C., Eds.; Electrochemical Society Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 91, pp. 2055–2064. [Google Scholar]
  296. Muhoza, S.P.; Gross, M.D. Creating and Preserving Nanoparticles during Co-Sintering of Solid Oxide Electrodes and Its Impact on Electrocatalytic Activity. Catalysts 2021, 11, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Muhoza, S.P.; Taylor, T.H.; Song, X.; Gross, M.D. The Impact of Sintering Atmosphere and Temperature on the Phase Evolution of High Surface Area LSCF Prepared by in Situ Carbon Templating. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 034519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Hedayat, N.; Du, Y.; Ilkhani, H. Review on Fabrication Techniques for Porous Electrodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Sacrificial Template Methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 1221–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Kim, S.; Kim, G.; Manthiram, A. A Review on Infiltration Techniques for Energy Conversion and Storage Devices: From Fundamentals to Applications. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2021, 5, 5024–5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Vohs, J.M.; Gorte, R.J. High-Performance SOFC Cathodes Prepared by Infiltration. Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 943–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Biswas, S.; Kaur, G.; Paul, G.; Giddey, S. A Critical Review on Cathode Materials for Steam Electrolysis in Solid Oxide Electrolysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 12541–12570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. He, S.; Zou, Y.; Chen, K.; Li, N.; Li, D.; Jiang, S.P. A Critical Review of the Nano-Structured Electrodes of Solid Oxide Cells. Chem. Commun. 2022, 58, 10619–10626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. Chen, Y.; Liang, L.; Paredes Navia, S.A.; Hinerman, A.; Gerdes, K.; Song, X. Synergetic Interaction of Additive Dual Nanocatalysts to Accelerate Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Fuel Cell Cathodes. ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 6664–6671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Zhang, S.-L.; Wang, H.; Yang, T.; Lu, M.Y.; Barnett, S.A. Characteristics of Oxygen Electrode Supported Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 054504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Han, F.-Z.; Zhang, J.-H.; Zhang, S.-L.; Li, C.-X. Comparative Study on the Electrochemical Performance of Sr(Ti0.3Fe0.7)O3 − δ Fuel Electrode in Different Fuel Gases for Solid Oxide Electrochemical Cells. Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 2410–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Orera, A.; Betato, A.; Silva-Treviño, J.; Larrea, Á.; Laguna-Bercero, M.Á. Advanced Metal Oxide Infiltrated Electrodes for Boosting the Performance of Solid Oxide Cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 2022, 10, 2541–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Tian, Y.; Wu, P.; Zhang, X.; Ding, L.; Li, Y.; Wu, X. Characterization of La0.65Sr0.35MnO3-Based Double-Layered Oxygen Electrode for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. Ionics 2022, 28, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Koo, J.Y.; Mun, T.; Lee, J.; Choi, M.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, W. Enhancement of Oxygen Reduction Reaction Kinetics Using Infiltrated Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia Interlayers at the Electrolyte/Electrode Interfaces of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 472, 228606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Zhang, Y.; Yan, F.; Yan, M.; Wan, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Xia, C.; Chen, F.; Ni, M. High-Throughput, Super-Resolution 3D Reconstruction of Nano-Structured Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrodes and Quantification of Microstructure-Property Relationships. J. Power Sources 2019, 427, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Wan, S.; Yan, M.; Zhang, Y. A Numerical Study of Infiltrated Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrode with Dual-phase Backbone. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 2562–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Kim, S.J.; Koo, J.Y.; Mun, T.; Choi, M.; Lee, W. Tailoring Defect Chemistry at Interfaces for Promoted Oxygen Reduction Reaction Kinetics. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 23313–23322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Yang, T.; Kollasch, S.L.; Grimes, J.; Xue, A.; Barnett, S.A. (La0.8Sr0.2)0.98MnO3 − δ–Zr0.92Y0.16O2 − δ:PrOx for Oxygen Electrode Supported Solid Oxide Cells. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2022, 306, 121114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Lu, M.Y.; Scipioni, R.; Park, B.-K.; Yang, T.; Chart, Y.A.; Barnett, S.A. Mechanisms of PrOx Performance Enhancement of Oxygen Electrodes for Low and Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Mater. Today Energy 2019, 14, 100362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Zhao, X.; Yan, Y.; Li, M.; Ding, X. In-Situ Strategy to Suppress Chromium Poisoning on La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 30401–30408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Soltanizade, A.; Babaei, A.; Ataie, A.; Seyed-Vakili, S.V. Temperature Dependency of Activity of Nano-Catalysts on La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2019, 49, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Sındıraç, C.; Büyükaksoy, A.; Akkurt, S. Electrochemical Performance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3–Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 − δ Composite SOFC Cathodes Fabricated by Electrocatalyst and/or Electrocatalyst-Ionic Conductor Infiltration. J. Sol Gel Sci. Technol. 2019, 92, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Huang, Z.; Qi, H.; Zhao, Z.; Shang, L.; Tu, B.; Cheng, M. Efficient CO2 Electroreduction on a Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell with La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ–Gd0.2Ce0.8O2 − δ Infiltrated Electrode. J. Power Sources 2019, 434, 226730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Ge, L.; Sun, K.; Gu, Y.; Ni, Q.; Huang, X. Boosting the Performance of Conventional Air Electrodes for Solid Oxide Cells by In-Situ Loading of Nano Praseodymium Oxide. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 249, 114873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Brito, M.E.; Morishita, H.; Yamada, J.; Nishino, H.; Uchida, H. Further Improvement in Performances of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ—Doped Ceria Composite Oxygen Electrodes with Infiltrated Doped Ceria Nanoparticles for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. J. Power Sources 2019, 427, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Chen, X.; Ni, W.; Du, X.; Sun, Z.; Zhu, T.; Zhong, Q.; Han, M. Electrochemical Property of Multi-Layer Anode Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Fabricated through Sequential Tape-Casting and Co-Firing. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019, 35, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Zhang, Y.; Xu, N.; Fan, H.; Han, M. La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Nanoparticles Modified Ni-Based Anode for Direct Methane-Fueled SOFCs. In Proceedings of the Energy Procedia; Li, H., Yan, J., Yang, H.-X., Chen, X., Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 158, pp. 2250–2255. [Google Scholar]
  322. Fatah, A.F.B.M.A.; Murat, M.N.; Hamid, N.A. Lscf-Cuo as Promising Cathode for It Sofc. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2021, 53, 210411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Wang, Z.; Sun, H.; Li, J.; Guo, X.; Hu, Q.; Yang, Z.; Yu, F.; Li, G. Modified La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes with the Infiltration of Er0.4Bi1.6O3 for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 22932–22941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Zhang, Y.; Nicholas, J.D. Evidence That Surface-Segregated Sr Phases Can Be Removed in LSCF via Ceria Pre-Infiltration, Are Less Apt to Form in SSC. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 024522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  325. Nadeem, M.; Li, Y.; Bouwmeester, H.J.M.; Xia, C. PbO Effect on the Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 25299–25306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Qiu, P.; Yang, X.; Zou, L.; Zhu, T.; Yuan, Z.; Jia, L.; Li, J.; Chen, F. LaCrO3-Coated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Core-Shell Structured Cathode with Enhanced Cr Tolerance for Intermediateerature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 29133–29142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Park, B.-K.; Barnett, S.A. Boosting Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Performance: Via Electrolyte Thickness Reduction and Cathode Infiltration. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 11626–11631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Namgung, Y.; Hong, J.; Kumar, A.; Lim, D.-K.; Song, S.-J. One Step Infiltration Induced Multi-Cation Oxide Nanocatalyst for Load Proof SOFC Application. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2020, 267, 118374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Song, Y.-H.; Rehman, S.U.; Kim, H.-S.; Song, H.-S.; Song, R.-H.; Lim, T.-H.; Hong, J.-E.; Park, S.-J.; Huh, J.-Y.; Lee, S.-B. Facile Surface Modification of LSCF/GDC Cathodes by Epitaxial Deposition of Sm0.5Sr0.5CoO3 via Ultrasonic Spray Infiltration. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 3967–3977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Zhang, Y.; Han, M.; Sun, Z. High Performance and Stability of Nanocomposite Oxygen Electrode for Solid Oxide Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 5554–5564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  331. Akbari, Z.; Babaei, A. Electrochemical Performance of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 Oxygen Electrode Promoted by Ruddlesden-Popper Structured La2NiO4. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 103, 1332–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Khoshkalam, M.; Faghihi-Sani, M.A.; Tong, X.; Chen, M.; Hendriksen, P.V. Enhanced Activity of Pr6O11 and CuO Infiltrated Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 Based Composite Oxygen Electrodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 024505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Fatah, A.F.; Mohamad, A.A.; Muchtar, A.; Hamid, N.A. Physical Characterization of LSCF–CuO via Enhanced Modified Sol-Gel Method for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (IT-SOFCs). Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 46, 2052–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Rosli, A.Z.; Somalu, M.R.; Osman, N.; Hamid, N.A. Physical Characterization of LSCF–NiO as Cathode Material for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (IT-SOFCs). Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 46, 1895–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Ghamarinia, M.; Babaei, A.; Zamani, C. Electrochemical Characterization of La2NiO4-Infiltrated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ by Analysis of Distribution of Relaxation Times. Electrochim. Acta 2020, 353, 136520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Lu, M.Y.; Yang, T.; Scipioni, R.; Chart, Y.A.; Furlong, A.; Barnett, S.A. Sm0.5Sr0.5CoO3 − δ Surface Modification of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ−Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 − δ Composite Oxygen Electrodes for Solid Oxide Electrochemical Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020, 167, 164504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Kim, M.; Kim, D.H.; Han, G.D.; Choi, H.J.; Choi, H.R.; Shim, J.H. Lanthanum Strontium Cobaltite-Infiltrated Lanthanum Strontium Cobalt Ferrite Cathodes Fabricated by Inkjet Printing for High-Performance Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 843, 155806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Hong, J.; Bhardwaj, A.; Namgung, Y.; Bae, H.; Song, S.-J. Evaluation of the Effects of Nanocatalyst Infiltration on the SOFC Performance and Electrode Reaction Kinetics Using the Transmission Line Model. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 23473–23487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. Rehman, S.U.; Song, H.-S.; Kim, H.-S.; Hassan, M.H.; Joh, D.-W.; Song, R.-H.; Lim, T.-H.; Hong, J.-E.; Park, S.-J.; Lee, S.-B. A Dynamic Infiltration Technique to Synthesize Nanolayered Cathodes for High Performance and Robust Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Energy Chem. 2022, 70, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  340. Zhao, H.; Li, W.; Wang, H.; Zhou, J.; Sun, X.; Wang, E.; Zhao, L.; Dong, B.; Wang, S. Surface Modification of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode by Infiltrating A-Site Deficient Non-Strontium La0.94Ni0.6Fe0.4O3 Perovskite for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2022, 572, 151382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Shi, Y.; Wen, Y.; Huang, K.; Xiong, X.; Wang, J.; Liu, M.; Ding, D.; Chen, Y.; Liu, T. Surface Enhanced Performance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes by Infiltration Pr-Ni-Mn-O Progress. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 902, 163337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Zhou, J.; Lin, X.; Long, C.; Li, Y.; Tao, Z. Performance Optimization for Proton Conducting SOFCs by Impregnating Triple-Conducting NBSCF to Form Composite Cathode. Mater. Lett. 2022, 328, 133181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Jeon, S.; Seo, J.; Shin, J.W.; Lee, S.; Seo, H.G.; Lee, S.; Tsvetkov, N.; Kim, J.; An, J.; Jung, W. Metal-Oxide Nanocomposite Catalyst Simultaneously Boosts the Oxygen Reduction Reactivity and Chemical Stability of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 455, 140611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Huang, J.; Liu, Q.; Jiang, S.P.; Zhao, L.; Ai, N.; Wang, X.; Shao, Y.; Guan, C.; Fang, H.; Luo, Y.; et al. Promotional Role of BaCO3 on the Chromium–Tolerance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2023, 321, 122080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. Tarragó, D.P.; Moreno, B.; Chinarro, E.; de Fraga Malfatti, C.; de Sousa, V.C. Deposition of Nanostructured LSM Perovskite Thin Film on Dense YSZ Substrate by Airbrushed Solution Combustion (ASC) for Application in SOFC Cathodes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 11749–11760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Kevin, B.; Abernathy, H.; Liu, M. Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Investigation of SOFC Cathodes. In Proceedings of the Advances in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells V—33rd International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites, Atlanta, GA, USA, 18–23 January 2009; Volume 30, pp. 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  347. Yoo, Y.-S.; Namgung, Y.; Bhardwaj, A.; Song, S.-J. A Facile Combustion Synthesis Route for Performance Enhancement of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ (LSCF6428) as a Robust Cathode Material for IT-SOFC. J. Korean Ceram. Soc 2019, 56, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. Tai, X.Y.; Zhakeyev, A.; Wang, H.; Jiao, K.; Zhang, H.; Xuan, J. Accelerating Fuel Cell Development with Additive Manufacturing Technologies: State of the Art, Opportunities and Challenges. Fuel Cells 2019, 19, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  349. Minary-Jolandan, M. Formidable Challenges in Additive Manufacturing of Solid Oxide Electrolyzers (SOECs) and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) for Electrolytic Hydrogen Economy toward Global Decarbonization. Ceramics 2022, 5, 761–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  350. Zouridi, L.; Garagounis, I.; Vourros, A.; Marnellos, G.E.; Binas, V. Advances in Inkjet-Printed Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2022, 7, 2101491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  351. Kawale, S.S.; Jang, I.; Farandos, N.M.; Kelsall, G.H. Inkjet 3D-Printing of Functional Layers of Solid Oxide Electrochemical Reactors: A Review. React. Chem. Eng. 2022, 7, 1692–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  352. Jang, I.; Alexander, J.C.; Farandos, N.M.; Kelsall, G.H. Predicting Optimal Geometries of 3D-Printed Solid Oxide Electrochemical Reactors. Electrochim. Acta 2022, 427, 140902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  353. Rath, M.K.; Kossenko, A.; Danchuk, V.; Shatalov, M.; Rahumi, O.; Borodianskiy, K.; Zinigrad, M.; Sahoo, T.; Mishra, S. Development of Highly Efficient and Durable Large-Area Solid Oxide Fuel Cell by a Direct-Ink-Writing Three-Dimensional Printer. J. Power Sources 2022, 552, 232225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  354. Fashalameh, K.M.; Sadeghian, Z.; Ebrahimi, R. A High-Performance Planar Anode-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with Hierarchical Porous Structure through Slurry-Based Three-Dimensional Printing. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 916, 165406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  355. Jang, I.; Kelsall, G.H. Fabrication of 3D NiO-YSZ Structures for Enhanced Performance of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and Electrolysers. Electrochem. Commun. 2022, 137, 107260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  356. Farandos, N.M.; Jang, I.; Alexander, J.C.; Kelsall, G.H. 3-D Inkjet Printed Solid Oxide Electrochemical Reactors III. Cylindrical Pillared Electrode Microstructures. Electrochim. Acta 2022, 426, 140834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  357. Anelli, S.; Rosa, M.; Baiutti, F.; Torrell, M.; Esposito, V.; Tarancón, A. Hybrid-3D Printing of Symmetric Solid Oxide Cells by Inkjet Printing and Robocasting. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 51, 102636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  358. Tian, J.; Dou, Y.; Nian, Q.; Milcarek, R.J. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with 3D Inkjet Printing Modified LSM−YSZ Interface. ECS Trans. 2022, 109, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  359. Lira, M.; Kostretsova, N.; Bernadet, L.; Morata, A.; Torrell, M.; Tarancón, A. Additive Manufacturing of Large Area SOC with Aadvanced Features. ECS Trans. 2021, 103, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  360. Qu, P.; Xiong, D.; Zhu, Z.; Gong, Z.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Fan, L.; Liu, Z.; Wang, P.; Liu, C.; et al. Inkjet Printing Additively Manufactured Multilayer SOFCs Using High Quality Ceramic Inks for Performance Enhancement. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 48, 102394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  361. Lee, J.; Byeon, J.; Lee, C. Fabrication of Thickness-Controllable Double Layer Electrolyte Using Roll-to-Roll Additive Manufacturing System. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Green Technol. 2020, 7, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  362. Østergård, M.J.L.; Clausen, C.; Bagger, C.; Mogensen, M. Manganite-Zirconia Composite Cathodes for SOFC: Influence of Structure and Composition. Electrochim. Acta 1995, 40, 1971–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  363. Li, N. The Interaction of LSM−YSZ Composite and Improvement of the Solid Oxide Cell Durability by Mn-Modified YSZ. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  364. Natoli, A.; Arias-Serrano, B.I.; Rodríguez-Castellón, E.; Żurawska, A.; Frade, J.R.; Yaremchenko, A.A. Mixed Ionic-Electronic Conductivity, Redox Behavior and Thermochemical Expansion of Mn-Substituted 5YSZ as an Interlayer Material for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. Materials 2021, 14, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  365. Niu, B.; Jin, F.; Feng, T.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; He, T. A-Site Deficient (La0.6Sr0.4)1 − xCo0.2Fe0.6Nb0.2O3 − δ Symmetrical Electrode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Electrochim. Acta 2018, 270, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  366. Bucher, E.; Sitte, W.; Klauser, F.; Bertel, E. Oxygen Exchange Kinetics of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 at 600 °C in Dry and Humid Atmospheres. Solid State Ion. 2011, 191, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  367. Kostogloudis, G.C.; Ftikos, C. Properties of A-Site-Deficient La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ-Based Perovskite Oxides. Solid State Ion. 1999, 126, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  368. Yang, Y.; Bao, H.; Ni, H.; Ou, X.; Wang, S.; Lin, B.; Feng, P.; Ling, Y. A Novel Facile Strategy to Suppress Sr Segregation for High-Entropy Stabilized La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ Cathode. J. Power Sources 2021, 482, 228959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  369. Shi, Y.; Ni, N.; Ding, Q.; Zhao, X. Tailoring High-Temperature Stability and Electrical Conductivity of High Entropy Lanthanum Manganite for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathodes. J. Mater. Chem. A 2022, 10, 2256–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  370. Dąbrowa, J.; Olszewska, A.; Falkenstein, A.; Schwab, C.; Szymczak, M.; Zajusz, M.; Moździerz, M.; Mikuła, A.; Zielińska, K.; Berent, K.; et al. An Innovative Approach to Design SOFC Air Electrode Materials: High Entropy La1 − xSrx(Co,Cr,Fe,Mn,Ni)O3 − δ (x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3) Perovskites Synthesized by the Sol–Gel Method. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 24455–24468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  371. Xu, H.; Dang, L.; Yan, J.; Wan, F.; Gong, W. A New (La0.2Nd0.2Gd0.2Sr0.2Ba0.2)Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ High-Entropy Oxide Cathode for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Solid State Ion. 2023, 397, 116233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  372. Khan, M.S.; Xu, X.; Zhao, J.; Knibbe, R.; Zhu, Z. A Porous Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia Layer to Eliminate the Delamination of Air Electrode in Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. J. Power Sources 2017, 359, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  373. Wang, S. Promoting Effect of YSZ on the Electrochemical Performance of YSZ+LSM Composite Electrodes. Solid State Ion. 1998, 113–115, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  374. Rehman, S.U.; Song, R.-H.; Lee, J.-W.; Lim, T.-H.; Park, S.-J.; Lee, S.-B. Effect of GDC Addition Method on the Properties of LSM–YSZ Composite Cathode Support for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 11772–11779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  375. Nielsen, J.; Hjelm, J. Impedance of SOFC Electrodes: A Review and a Comprehensive Case Study on the Impedance of LSM:YSZ Cathodes. Electrochim. Acta 2014, 115, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  376. Agbede, O.O.; Hellgardt, K.; Kelsall, G.H. Electrical Conductivities and Microstructures of LSM, LSM–YSZ and LSM–YSZ/LSM Cathodes Fabricated on YSZ Electrolyte Hollow Fibres by Dip-Coating. Mater. Today Chem. 2020, 16, 100252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  377. Chen, K.; Ai, N.; Jiang, S.P. Reasons for the High Stability of Nano-Structured (La,Sr)MnO3 Infiltrated Y2O3–ZrO2 Composite Oxygen Electrodes of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. Electrochem. Commun. 2012, 19, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  378. Wang, J.X.; Sun, J.L.; He, C.R.; Wang, Q.; Wang, W.G. Mass Synthesis of High Performance (La0.75Sr0.25)0.95MnO3±δ Nano-Powder Prepared via a Low-Carbon Chemical Solution Method. J. Power Sources 2014, 253, 424–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  379. Sun, K.; Piao, J.; Zhang, N.; Chen, X.; Xu, S.; Zhou, D. Fabrication and Performance of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3/YSZ Graded Composite Cathodes for SOFC. Rare Met. 2008, 27, 278–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  380. Jørgensen, M. Effect of Sintering Temperature on Microstructure and Performance of LSM–YSZ Composite Cathodes. Solid State Ion. 2001, 139, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  381. Yeh, C.-Y.; Lin, T.-N.; Kuo, H.-Y.; Liao, M.-W.; Chen, Y.-M.; Kao, W.-X.; Lee, R.-Y.; Lee, S.-W. Microstructure Modification in the Electrodes to Enhance Performance of the Anode-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. In Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings; Salem, J., Koch, D., Mechnich, P., Kusnezoff, M., Bansal, N., LaSalvia, J., Balaya, P., Fu, Z., Ohji, T., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 113–121. ISBN 978-1-119-54334-3. [Google Scholar]
  382. Taylor, T.H.; Muhoza, S.P.; Gross, M.D. Lowering the Impedance of Lanthanum Strontium Manganite-Based Electrodes with Lanthanum Oxychloride and Lanthanum Scavenging Chloride Salts. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 114508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  383. Lee, E.; Jeong, H.; Shin, T.H.; Myung, J.-H. Determination of the Rate-Determining Step of the Oxygen Reduction Reaction of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3(LSM)-8mol% Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia(YSZ): Composition and Microstructure. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 1792–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  384. Burmistrov, I.; Agarkov, D.; Bredikhin, S.; Nepochatov, Y.; Tiunova, O.; Zadorozhnaya, O. Multilayered Electrolyte-Supported SOFC Based on NEVZ-Ceramics Membrane. ECS Trans. 2013, 57, 917–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  385. Khan, M.S.; Xu, X.; Knibbe, R.; Zhu, Z. Porous Scandia-Stabilized Zirconia Layer for Enhanced Performance of Reversible Solid Oxide Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 25295–25302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  386. Nagasawa, T.; Hanamura, K. Particle-Scaled Visualization of Active Sites in LSM/ScSZ Composite Cathode of SOFC through Oxygen Isotope Labeling. ECS Trans. 2017, 78, 855–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  387. Yaroslavtsev, I.Y.; Bronin, D.I.; Vdovin, G.K.; Isupova, L.A. Oxide Cathodes for Electrochemical Devices Made with the Use of a Nanostructured Composition Material. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2012, 48, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  388. Sadykov, V.; Alikina, G.; Lukashevich, A.; Muzykantov, V.; Usoltsev, V.; Boronin, A.; Koscheev, S.; Krieger, T.; Ishchenko, A.; Smirnova, A.; et al. Design and Characterization of LSM/ScCeSZ Nanocomposite as Mixed Ionic–Electronic Conducting Material for Functionally Graded Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2011, 192, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  389. Osinkin, D.A.; Bogdanovich, N.M.; Beresnev, S.M.; Pikalova, E.Y.; Bronin, D.I.; Zaikov, Y.P. Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cell for Power Accumulation and Generation. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2018, 54, 644–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  390. Jeong, H.; Sharma, B.; Jo, S.; Kim, Y.H.; Myung, J. Electrochemical Characteristics of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 (LSM)–Scandia-Stabilized Zirconia (ScSZ) Composite Cathode. J. Korean Ceram. Soc. 2022, 59, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  391. Sanna, C.; Squizzato, E.; Costamagna, P.; Holtappels, P.; Glisenti, A. Electrochemical Study of Symmetrical Intermediate Temperature—Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Based on La0.6Sr0.4MnO/Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95 for Operation in Direct Methane/Air. Electrochim. Acta 2022, 409, 139939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  392. Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Xu, Z.; Deng, H.; Dong, W.; Wang, B.; Feng, C.; Liu, X.; Wang, H. Semiconductor-Ionic Nanocomposite La0.1Sr0.9MnO3 − δ−Ce0.8Sm0.2O2 − δ Functional Layer for High Performance Low Temperature SOFC. Materials 2018, 11, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  393. Baiutti, F.; Chiabrera, F.; Acosta, M.; Diercks, D.; Parfitt, D.; Santiso, J.; Wang, X.; Cavallaro, A.; Morata, A.; Wang, H.; et al. A High-Entropy Manganite in an Ordered Nanocomposite for Long-Term Application in Solid Oxide Cells. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  394. Pajot, M.; Duffort, V.; Capoen, E.; Mamede, A.-S.; Vannier, R.-N. Influence of the Strontium Content on the Performance of La1 − xSrxMnO3/Bi1.5Er0.5O3 Composite Electrodes for Low Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 450, 227649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  395. Zhang, C.; Huang, K. A New Composite Cathode for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Zirconia-Based Electrolytes. J. Power Sources 2017, 342, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  396. Timurkutluk, B.; Altan, T.; Toros, S.; Genc, O.; Celik, S.; Korkmaz, H.G. Engineering Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrode Microstructure by a Micro-Modeling Tool Based on Estimation of TPB Length. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 13298–13317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  397. Kim, S.J.; Dayaghi, A.M.; Kim, K.J.; Choi, G.M. Er0.4Bi1.6O3 − δ–La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 − δ Nano-Composite as a Low-Temperature Firing Cathode of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Power Sources 2017, 344, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  398. Lee, K.T.; Jung, D.W.; Yoon, H.S.; Camaratta, M.; Sexson, N.; Wachsman, E.D. High Performance LSM-ESB Cathode on ESB Electrolyte for Low to Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. ECS Trans. 2011, 35, 1861–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  399. Yun, B.-H.; Kim, K.J.; Joh, D.W.; Chae, M.S.; Lee, J.J.; Kim, D.; Kang, S.; Choi, D.; Hong, S.-T.; Lee, K.T. Highly Active and Durable Double-Doped Bismuth Oxide-Based Oxygen Electrodes for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells at Reduced Temperatures. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 20558–20566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  400. Dotelli, G.; Mari, C.; Ruffo, R.; Pelosato, R.; Sora, I. Electrical Behaviour of LSGM–LSM Composite Cathode Materials. Solid State Ion. 2006, 177, 1991–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  401. Pelosato, R.; Sora, I.N.; Dotelli, G.; Ruffo, R.; Mari, C.M. Characterization of (1 − x)La0.83Sr0.17Ga0.83Mg0.17O2.83−xLa0.8Sr0.2MnO3 (0 ≤ x ≤ 1) Composite Cathodes. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2005, 25, 2587–2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  402. Shahrokhi, S.; Babaei, A.; Zamani, C. Reversible Operation of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 Oxygen Electrode Infiltrated with Ruddlesden-Popper and Perovskite Lanthanum Nickel Cobaltite. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 23091–23100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  403. Liu, Z.; Liu, M.; Yang, L.; Liu, M. LSM-Infiltrated LSCF Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Energy Chem. 2013, 22, 555–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  404. Ai, N.; Chen, K.; Jiang, S.P. A La0.8Sr0.2MnO3/La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Core-Shell Structured Cathode by a Rapid Sintering Process for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 7246–7251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  405. Seyed-Vakili, S.V.; Babaei, A.; Ataie, M.; Heshmati-Manesh, S.; Abdizadeh, H. Enhanced Performance of La0.8Sr0.2MnO3 Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Co-Infiltration of Metal and Ceramic Precursors. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 737, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  406. Khellaf, N.; Kahoul, A.; Naamoune, F.; Cheriti, M. Impact of the Synthesis Method on Electrochemical Performance of La0.5Sr0.5MnO3 Perovskite Oxide as a Cathode Material in Alkaline Fuel Cells. Russ. J. Electrochem. 2022, 58, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  407. Leng, Y.; Chan, S.; Liu, Q. Development of LSCF–GDC Composite Cathodes for Low-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Thin Film GDC Electrolyte. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 3808–3817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  408. Liu, Q.L.; Khor, K.A.; Chan, S.H. Optimization of LSCF–GDC Composite Cathodes for Thin Film GDC Electrolyte Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Materials Processing for Properties and Performance (MP3), Singapore, 24–26 November 2004; Khor, K.A., Ramanujan, R.V., Ooi, C.P., Zhao, J., Eds.; Institute of Materials (East Asia): Singapore, 2004; pp. 657–666. [Google Scholar]
  409. Dusastre, V.; Kilner, J.A. Optimisation of Composite Cathodes for Intermediate Temperature SOFC Applications. Solid State Ion. 1999, 126, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  410. Perry Murray, E. Electrochemical Performance of (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3–(Ce,Gd)O3 Composite Cathodes. Solid State Ion. 2002, 148, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  411. Chen, J.; Liang, F.; Yan, D.; Pu, J.; Chi, B.; Jiang, S.P.; Jian, L. Performance of Large-Scale Anode-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Impregnated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ+Y2O3 Stabilized ZrO2 Composite Cathodes. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 5201–5205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  412. Han, M.F.; Liu, Z.; Qian, J. Fabrication and Characterization of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3-δ–Yttria Stabilized Zirconia Composites Cathode Prepared by Infiltration Method. ECS Trans. 2011, 35, 2295–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  413. Ko, H.J.; Myung, J.; Lee, J.-H.; Hyun, S.-H.; Chung, J.S. Synthesis and Evaluation of (La0.6Sr0.4)(Co0.2Fe0.8)O3 (LSCF)–Y0.08Zr0.92O1.96 (YSZ)–Gd0.1Ce0.9O2 − δ (GDC) Dual Composite SOFC Cathodes for High Performance and Durability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 17209–17216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  414. Gong, J.; Shi, H.; Yu, Y.; Yue, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tan, W. Restrictions of Nitric Oxide Electrocatalytic Decomposition over Perovskite Cathode in Presence of Oxygen: Oxygen Surface Exchange and Diffusion. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2022, 628, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  415. Xi, X.; Kondo, A.; Kozawa, T.; Naito, M. LSCF–GDC Composite Particles for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Cathodes Prepared by Facile Mechanical Method. Adv. Powder Technol. 2016, 27, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  416. Gao, C.; Liu, Y.; Xi, K.; Jiao, S.; Tomov, R.I.; Kumar, R.V. Improve the Catalytic Property of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3/Ce0.9Gd0.1O2 (LSCF/CGO) Cathodes with CuO Nanoparticles Infiltration. Electrochim. Acta 2017, 246, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  417. Zhao, E.; Liu, X.; Liu, L.; Huo, H.; Xiong, Y. Effect of La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Morphology on the Performance of Composite Cathodes. Progr. Nat. Sci. Mater. Inter. 2014, 24, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  418. Zhao, L.; Amarasinghe, S.; Jiang, S.P. Enhanced Chromium Tolerance of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Electrode of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells by Gd0.1Ce0.9O1.95 Impregnation. Electrochem. Commun. 2013, 37, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  419. Li, N.; Verma, A.; Singh, P.; Kim, J.-H. Characterization of La0.58Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ–Ce0.8Gd0.2O2 Composite Cathode for Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Ceram. Int. 2013, 39, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  420. Zhang, N.; Li, J.; Ni, D.; Sun, K. Preparation of Honeycomb Porous La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ–Gd0.2Ce0.8O2 − δ Composite Cathodes by Breath Figures Method for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2011, 258, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  421. Zhi, M.; Lee, S.; Miller, N.; Menzler, N.H.; Wu, N. An Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with Electrospun Nanofiber Cathode. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 7066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  422. Shen, F.; Lu, K. La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 Cathodes Incorporated with Sm0.2Ce0.8O2 by Three Different Methods for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2015, 296, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  423. Hu, B.; Wang, Y.; Xia, C. Oxygen Incorporation at the Three-Phase Boundary of LSCF–SDC Composite. J. Power Sources 2014, 269, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  424. Lee, S.; Song, H.S.; Hyun, S.H.; Kim, J.; Moon, J. LSCF–SDC Core–Shell High-Performance Durable Composite Cathode. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  425. Nie, L.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, M. La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes Infiltrated with Samarium-Doped Cerium Oxide for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2010, 195, 4704–4708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  426. Wang, S. Performance of a La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3–Ce0.8Gd0.2O1.9–Ag Cathode for Ceria Electrolyte SOFCs. Solid State Ion. 2002, 146, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  427. Liu, W.; Zhao, Z.; Tu, B.; Cui, D.; Ou, D.; Cheng, M. Enhanced Performance and Stability of Interlayer-Free La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ−Ce0.8Zr0.2O2 − δ Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 4861–4867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  428. Guo, W.; Liu, J.; Jin, C.; Gao, H.; Zhang, Y. Electrochemical Evaluation of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ–La0.9Sr0.1Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ Composite Cathodes for La0.9Sr0.1Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ Electrolyte SOFCs. J. Alloys Compd. 2009, 473, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  429. Lin, Y.; Barnett, S. La0.9Sr0.1Ga0.8Mg0.2O3 − δ−La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Composite Cathodes for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2008, 179, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  430. Giuliano, A.; Carpanese, M.P.; Panizza, M.; Cerisola, G.; Clematis, D.; Barbucci, A. Characterisation of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ–Ba0.5Sr0.5Co0.8Fe0.2O3 − δ Composite as Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Electrochim. Acta 2017, 240, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  431. Świerczek, K. Electrolyte-Supported IT-SOFC with LSCF–SCFN Composite Cathode. Solid State Ion. 2011, 192, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  432. Burye, T.E.; Nicholas, J.D. Improving La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Infiltrated Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cathode Performance through Precursor Solution Desiccation. J. Power Sources 2015, 276, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  433. Wang, L.; Wang, P.; Geng, C.; Cao, H.; Xu, C.; Cheng, J.; Hong, T. A Novel Core-Shell LSCF Perovskite Structured Electrocatalyst with Local Hetero-Interface for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 11824–11833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  434. Fasquelle, D.; Chi, Z.; Belakry, S. Impregnation of Gadolinium-Doped Ceria Backbone Electrodes Modified by Addition of Pore-Formers for SOFC Application. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2023, 27, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  435. Wei, M.; Chen, H.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Li, W.; Kang, K.; Wang, C. High Performance La2NiO4+δ Impregnated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Solid State Ion. 2022, 387, 116065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  436. Liu, Y.; Pan, Z.; Zhao, X.; Zhong, S.; Chen, X.; Wang, C. Performance of PrBaCo2O5+δ Impregnated La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Composites as Potential Cathode Materials for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Alloys Compd. 2021, 886, 161155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  437. Zheng, Z.; Jing, J.; Yu, H.; Yang, Z.; Jin, C.; Chen, F.; Peng, S. Boosting and Robust Multifunction Cathode Layer for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 6817–6825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  438. Wang, J.; Yang, T.; Wen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, C.; Huang, K. Performance and Stability of SrCo0.9Nb0.1O3 − δ–(La0.60Sr0.40)0.95(Co0.20Fe0.80)O3 − δ Bilayer Cathode for Intermediate-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2019, 414, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  439. Chen, J.; Liang, F.; Chi, B.; Pu, J.; Jiang, S.P.; Jian, L. Palladium and Ceria Infiltrated La0.8Sr0.2Co0.5Fe0.5O3 − δ Cathodes of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2009, 194, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  440. Ji, Y.; Kilner, J.; Carolan, M. Electrical Properties and Oxygen Diffusion in Yttria-Stabilised Zirconia (YSZ)–La0.8Sr0.2MnO3±δ (LSM) Composites. Solid State Ion. 2005, 176, 937–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  441. Agbede, O.O.; Kelsall, G.H.; Hellgardt, K. A Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with Molten Tin Anode for Electricity Generation and Methane Reforming. J. Power Sources 2020, 474, 228577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  442. Harboe, S.; Sohn, Y.J.; Guillon, O.; Menzler, N.H. Investigation of LSM–8YSZ Cathode within an All Ceramic SOFC. Part I: Chemical Interactions. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 3608–3617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  443. Matte, E.; Holzlechner, G.; Epple, L.; Stolten, D.; Lupetin, P. Impact of Silicate Substrate and Cosintering on Cathode Performance in an Inert Substrate-Supported Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. J. Power Sources 2019, 413, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  444. Wu, X.; Tian, Y.; Zhou, X.; Kong, X.; Zhang, J.; Zuo, W.; Ye, X. High Performance Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia Based Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells with Double Nano Layer Composite Cathode. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 1093–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  445. Celikbilek, O.; Dessemond, L.; Djurado, E. State-of-the-Art La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 − δ Cathode for SOFC: Microstructural and Electrochemical Properties. ECS Trans. 2017, 78, 747–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  446. Sohal, M.S.; O’Brien, J.E.; Stoots, C.M.; Sharma, V.I.; Yildiz, B.; Virkar, A. Degradation Issues in Solid Oxide Cells during High Temperature Electrolysis. In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 8th International Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology Conference, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA, 1 January 2010; ASMEDC: Houston, TX, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  447. Pan, Z.; Liu, Q.; Yan, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Bi, L.; Chan, S.H.; Zhong, Z. On the Delamination of Air Electrodes of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: A Mini-Review. Electrochem. Commun. 2022, 137, 107267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  448. Kim, S.J.; Kim, S.W.; Park, Y.M.; Kim, K.J.; Choi, G.M. Effect of Gd-Doped Ceria Interlayer on the Stability of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell. Solid State Ion. 2016, 295, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  449. Jang, I.; Kim, S.; Kim, C.; Lee, H.; Yoon, H.; Song, T.; Paik, U. Interface Engineering of Yttrium Stabilized Zirconia/Gadolinium Doped Ceria Bi-Layer Electrolyte Solid Oxide Fuel Cell for Boosting Electrochemical Performance. J. Power Sources 2019, 435, 226776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  450. Kim, S.J.; Kim, K.J.; Choi, G.M. Effect of Ce0.43Zr0.43Gd0.1Y0.04O2 − δ Contact Layer on Stability of Interface between GDC Interlayer and YSZ Electrolyte in Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell. J. Power Sources 2015, 284, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  451. Ni, N.; Xiao, W.; Zheng, C.; Jiang, J.; Yu, Y.; Hao, W.; Tang, M.; Shen, H.; Peng, D. Flash Cosintering of a Lanthanum Strontium Cobalt Ferrite Nanofibre/Gd-Doped Ceria Bilayer Structure. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 42, 2870–2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  452. He, A.; Onishi, J.; Gong, J.; Shikazono, N. Three-Dimensional Optimization of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 Cathode Microstructure with Particle Radius Constraint. Electrochim. Acta 2021, 398, 139287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  453. He, A.; Onishi, J.; Gong, J.; Shikazono, N. Microstructure Optimization of Porous Mixed Ionic and Electronic Conducting Cathode for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2020, 478, 228771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  454. He, A.; Onishi, J.; Shikazono, N. Numerical Optimization of the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Electrode-Electrolyte Interface Structure with Adjoint Method. In Proceedings of the ECS Transactions; Eguchi, K., Singhal, S.C., Eds.; Electrochemical Society Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 91, pp. 2045–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  455. Sharma, S.; Stanley, R.; Kumari, N. Electrochemical Modeling and Simulation of CO2 Reduction in Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2022, 26, 04022005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  456. Yang, T.; Liu, J.; Lei, Y.; Li, W.; Cheng, T.-L.; Finklea, H.; Wen, Y.-H.; Liu, X.; Abernathy, H.W.; Lee, S.; et al. Investigation of LSM−YSZ Composite Cathode Performance Degradation with a Multistep Charge Transfer Model. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2019, 166, F448–F457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  457. Ananyev, M.V.; Farlenkov, A.S.; Eremin, V.A.; Kurumchin, E.K. Degradation Kinetics of LSM–YSZ Cathode Materials for SOFC. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  458. Cook, K.; Wrubel, J.; Ma, Z.; Huang, K.; Jin, X. Modeling Electrokinetics of Oxygen Electrodes in Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168, 114510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  459. Yan, Z.; He, A.; Hara, S.; Shikazono, N. Modeling of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Electrodes from Fabrication to Operation: Correlations between Microstructures and Electrochemical Performances. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 190, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  460. He, A.; Shimura, T.; Gong, J.; Shikazono, N. Numerical Simulation of La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3−Gd0.1Ce0.9O1.95 Composite Cathodes with Micro Pillars. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 6871–6885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  461. Subramanian, Y.; Veena, R.; Muhammed Ali, S.A.; Kumar, A.; Gubediran, R.K.; Dhanasekaran, A.; Gurusamy, D.; Muniandi, K. Artificial Intelligence Technique Based Performance Estimation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 80, 2573–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  462. Donazzi, A.; De Pascali, S.; Garavaglia, F.; Bracconi, M. A Quasi 2D Model for the Interpretation of Impedance and Polarization of a Planar Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with Interconnects. Electrochim. Acta 2021, 365, 137346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  463. Iwai, H.; Maejima, K.; Kishimoto, M.; Saito, M.; Yoshida, H.; Kishimoto, H.; Yamaji, K.; Yokokawa, H. Numerical Model of Sulfur Poisoning on LSCF Cathode and Its Application to a 2-D Single Cell Simulation. In Proceedings of the ECS Transactions; Eguchi, K., Singhal, S.C., Eds.; Electrochemical Society Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 91, pp. 2115–2125. [Google Scholar]
  464. Effori, E.; Laurencin, J.; Tezyk, V.; Montella, C.; Dessemond, L.; Siebert, E. A Physically-Based Modelling to Predict the Cyclic Voltammetry Response of LSCF-Type Electrodes: Impact of the Ohmic Losses and Microstructure. Solid State Ion. 2021, 371, 115765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Thematic map of co-occurring author keywords in the Scopus dataset for (La,Sr)MnO3 (LSM).
Figure 1. Thematic map of co-occurring author keywords in the Scopus dataset for (La,Sr)MnO3 (LSM).
Materials 16 04967 g001
Figure 2. Thematic map of co-occurring author keywords in the Scopus dataset for (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 − δ (LSCF).
Figure 2. Thematic map of co-occurring author keywords in the Scopus dataset for (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 − δ (LSCF).
Materials 16 04967 g002
Figure 3. Network map of bibliographic coupling in the Scopus dataset for LSM.
Figure 3. Network map of bibliographic coupling in the Scopus dataset for LSM.
Materials 16 04967 g003
Figure 4. Network maps of bibliographic coupling in the Scopus dataset for cited documents of [33].
Figure 4. Network maps of bibliographic coupling in the Scopus dataset for cited documents of [33].
Materials 16 04967 g004
Figure 5. Schemes of methods used to apply electrode layers: (a) slurry application; (b) spraying; (c) screen printing; (d) film casting ((a) is reproduced from [225] with permission of IOP Publishing; (b) is reproduced from [226] with permission of Taylor and Francis; (c) is reproduced from [227]; (d) is reproduced from [228] with permission of J. Wiley and Sons).
Figure 5. Schemes of methods used to apply electrode layers: (a) slurry application; (b) spraying; (c) screen printing; (d) film casting ((a) is reproduced from [225] with permission of IOP Publishing; (b) is reproduced from [226] with permission of Taylor and Francis; (c) is reproduced from [227]; (d) is reproduced from [228] with permission of J. Wiley and Sons).
Materials 16 04967 g005
Figure 6. Air electrode activation method for electrochemical devices: (a) electronic conductor with localization of the TPB at the electrode–electrolyte interface; (b) nanosized electrode; (c) composite conductor/electronic conductor; (d) nanocomposite electrode; (e) mixed ionic-electronic conductor with extended TPB; (f) thin film active layer at the electrode–electrolyte interface; (g) electronic conductor in a porous ionic conductor matrix obtained by infiltration; (h) nanoparticle exfoliation on the surface of the electronic conductor.
Figure 6. Air electrode activation method for electrochemical devices: (a) electronic conductor with localization of the TPB at the electrode–electrolyte interface; (b) nanosized electrode; (c) composite conductor/electronic conductor; (d) nanocomposite electrode; (e) mixed ionic-electronic conductor with extended TPB; (f) thin film active layer at the electrode–electrolyte interface; (g) electronic conductor in a porous ionic conductor matrix obtained by infiltration; (h) nanoparticle exfoliation on the surface of the electronic conductor.
Materials 16 04967 g006
Figure 7. Effect of activation on the properties of composite electrodes of different composition applied by screen printing on SDC electrolyte: (a) temperature dependences of polarization conductivity for basic and praseodymium oxide (m) modified 50 wt% LSM20 based electrodes; (b) SEM micrograph showing diffusion of bismuth-based fusible components from 95LSM40–5YDB collector into 50LSM20–50SDC functional layer and YSZ electrolyte (Bi-containing phases are denoted by 3, 3a and 5, 5a); (c,d) polarization resistance of 50LSM20–50SDC and 50LSM20–50ScSZ electrodes with LSM40 collector as a function of its YDB content (x) ((a) is reproduced from [149] with permission of Springer; (bd) are reproduced from [151] with permission of Springer).
Figure 7. Effect of activation on the properties of composite electrodes of different composition applied by screen printing on SDC electrolyte: (a) temperature dependences of polarization conductivity for basic and praseodymium oxide (m) modified 50 wt% LSM20 based electrodes; (b) SEM micrograph showing diffusion of bismuth-based fusible components from 95LSM40–5YDB collector into 50LSM20–50SDC functional layer and YSZ electrolyte (Bi-containing phases are denoted by 3, 3a and 5, 5a); (c,d) polarization resistance of 50LSM20–50SDC and 50LSM20–50ScSZ electrodes with LSM40 collector as a function of its YDB content (x) ((a) is reproduced from [149] with permission of Springer; (bd) are reproduced from [151] with permission of Springer).
Materials 16 04967 g007
Figure 8. SEM micrograph of the 50(LS)0.95M25–50YSZ electrode of 20 µm thickness, prepared by nanopowder suspension spraying followed by sintering at 1000 °C, 2 h (a); YSZ ceramic matrix followed by heat treatment at 600 and 1100 °C (arrows indicate LSM particles) (b); SEM micrograph of the 75LSM20–25GDC electrode obtained by GDC infiltration into the LSM ceramic matrix (arrows indicate GDC particles) (c); polarization resistance of the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathodes on the GDC10 content at 600 °C by Leng et al. [407], Liu et al. [408], Dusastre et al. [409], Murray et al. [410], (d); temperature dependencies of the polarization resistance for LSCF–NGCO cathodes characterized in symmetrical cells (e); scheme of migration paths of conducting species in LSCF–BZCY (i), LSCF–SCO (ii), LSCF–LCO (iii) composite cathodes on BZCY electrolyte (f) ((a) is reproduced from [378] with permission of Elsevier; ((b) is reproduced from [377] with permission of Elsevier; (c) is reproduced from [198] with permission of Elsevier (d) is reproduced from [407] with permission of Elsevier; (e) is reproduced from [166]; (f) is reproduced from [185] with permission of Elsevier).
Figure 8. SEM micrograph of the 50(LS)0.95M25–50YSZ electrode of 20 µm thickness, prepared by nanopowder suspension spraying followed by sintering at 1000 °C, 2 h (a); YSZ ceramic matrix followed by heat treatment at 600 and 1100 °C (arrows indicate LSM particles) (b); SEM micrograph of the 75LSM20–25GDC electrode obtained by GDC infiltration into the LSM ceramic matrix (arrows indicate GDC particles) (c); polarization resistance of the LSCF–GDC10 composite cathodes on the GDC10 content at 600 °C by Leng et al. [407], Liu et al. [408], Dusastre et al. [409], Murray et al. [410], (d); temperature dependencies of the polarization resistance for LSCF–NGCO cathodes characterized in symmetrical cells (e); scheme of migration paths of conducting species in LSCF–BZCY (i), LSCF–SCO (ii), LSCF–LCO (iii) composite cathodes on BZCY electrolyte (f) ((a) is reproduced from [378] with permission of Elsevier; ((b) is reproduced from [377] with permission of Elsevier; (c) is reproduced from [198] with permission of Elsevier (d) is reproduced from [407] with permission of Elsevier; (e) is reproduced from [166]; (f) is reproduced from [185] with permission of Elsevier).
Materials 16 04967 g008
Figure 9. The schemes for the alternate infiltration: LSM electrode (A), SDC infiltrated LSM (B), SSC infiltrated LSM (C), SDC and SSC alternately infiltrated LSM (D), SSC and SDC alternately infiltrated LSM (E) (reproduced from [148] with permission of Elsevier).
Figure 9. The schemes for the alternate infiltration: LSM electrode (A), SDC infiltrated LSM (B), SSC infiltrated LSM (C), SDC and SSC alternately infiltrated LSM (D), SSC and SDC alternately infiltrated LSM (E) (reproduced from [148] with permission of Elsevier).
Materials 16 04967 g009
Figure 10. Examples of functional-layer electrodes based on LSM: (a) scheme and (b) SEM micrograph of three-layer electrode with 60LSM20–40YSZ functional layer, 80LSM20–20YSZ interlayer and LSM20 collector layer (1200 °C, 2 h), obtained by screen printing [379]; (c) scheme and (d) SEM micrograph of four-layer electrode with 50LSM18–50GDC functional layer, 25LSM18–25LSCF–50GDC and 50LSCF–50GDC interlayers and LSCF collector layer (900 °C, 2 h), obtained by sol–gel slurry deposition ((a,b) are reproduced from [379] with permission of Springer; (c,d) are reproduced from [199] with the permission of Elsevier).
Figure 10. Examples of functional-layer electrodes based on LSM: (a) scheme and (b) SEM micrograph of three-layer electrode with 60LSM20–40YSZ functional layer, 80LSM20–20YSZ interlayer and LSM20 collector layer (1200 °C, 2 h), obtained by screen printing [379]; (c) scheme and (d) SEM micrograph of four-layer electrode with 50LSM18–50GDC functional layer, 25LSM18–25LSCF–50GDC and 50LSCF–50GDC interlayers and LSCF collector layer (900 °C, 2 h), obtained by sol–gel slurry deposition ((a,b) are reproduced from [379] with permission of Springer; (c,d) are reproduced from [199] with the permission of Elsevier).
Materials 16 04967 g010
Figure 11. Modeling the degradation of the LSM–YSZ cathode (a); 3PB (surface) and 2PB (bulk) pathways of the electrode reaction for LSM–YSZ cathodes (b); the predicted evolution trend of the LSM/air interface, where surface adsorption and dissociation steps occur (c); the changes in the contributions of the 3PB and 2PB pathways due to structural degradation (d); Equivalent Circuit Model for the fit of the impedance data and their attribution to each layer for electrolyte-supported (*) and anode-supported (**) cells with LSCF cathode (e); single and bilayer LSCF-based electrode configurations (f) ((ad) are reproduced from [456]; (e) is reproduced from [116], (f) is reproduced from [458]).
Figure 11. Modeling the degradation of the LSM–YSZ cathode (a); 3PB (surface) and 2PB (bulk) pathways of the electrode reaction for LSM–YSZ cathodes (b); the predicted evolution trend of the LSM/air interface, where surface adsorption and dissociation steps occur (c); the changes in the contributions of the 3PB and 2PB pathways due to structural degradation (d); Equivalent Circuit Model for the fit of the impedance data and their attribution to each layer for electrolyte-supported (*) and anode-supported (**) cells with LSCF cathode (e); single and bilayer LSCF-based electrode configurations (f) ((ad) are reproduced from [456]; (e) is reproduced from [116], (f) is reproduced from [458]).
Materials 16 04967 g011
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Filonova, E.; Pikalova, E. Overview of Approaches to Increase the Electrochemical Activity of Conventional Perovskite Air Electrodes. Materials 2023, 16, 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16144967

AMA Style

Filonova E, Pikalova E. Overview of Approaches to Increase the Electrochemical Activity of Conventional Perovskite Air Electrodes. Materials. 2023; 16(14):4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16144967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Filonova, Elena, and Elena Pikalova. 2023. "Overview of Approaches to Increase the Electrochemical Activity of Conventional Perovskite Air Electrodes" Materials 16, no. 14: 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16144967

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop