TY - JOUR
T1 - Thermodynamic Guidelines for Maximum Solubility
AU - Anand, Shashwat
AU - Wolverton, Chris
AU - Snyder, G. Jeffrey
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge the support of award 70NANB19H005 from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, as part of the Center for Hierarchical Materials Design (CHiMaD). S.A. and G.J.S. thank NSF DMREF award # 1729487. S.A. acknowledges Vladan Stevanovic and Elif Ertekin for a helpful discussion on charged defects.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Chemical Society
PY - 2022/2/22
Y1 - 2022/2/22
N2 - When attempting to synthesize a doped compound, it is natural to prepare nominal compositions that emulate changes due to the expected defect. In systems with three or more components, simply forming multiphase samples along these intended compositions does not necessarily ensure achieving the actual maximum solubility of the added component. With several examples, we show cases where the solubility limit was mistakenly underestimated. The study of the true maximum solubility in such complex materials can be quite intensive and can benefit from simplifying initial assessments, which are guided by thermodynamics. Using defect thermodynamics, we summarize in simple graphical guidelines how the maximum dopant solubility caused by neutral and charged defects can be identified using the stoichiometry of the impurity phases in equilibrium. These predictive guidelines─applicable to systems regardless of number of elements involved─justify why the intuitive nominal (or intended) compositions should yield maximum solubility due to the expected defect but only if (a) the nominal composition is accurate (no inadvertent loss of a component) and (b) the oppositely charged defects that are more sensitive to chemical conditions form in relatively smaller amounts. In a real system where the nominal composition is not perfectly accurate, observing impurity phases whose stoichiometries are consistent with the guidelines (for the expected defect) is necessary to establish the true maximum solubility limit.
AB - When attempting to synthesize a doped compound, it is natural to prepare nominal compositions that emulate changes due to the expected defect. In systems with three or more components, simply forming multiphase samples along these intended compositions does not necessarily ensure achieving the actual maximum solubility of the added component. With several examples, we show cases where the solubility limit was mistakenly underestimated. The study of the true maximum solubility in such complex materials can be quite intensive and can benefit from simplifying initial assessments, which are guided by thermodynamics. Using defect thermodynamics, we summarize in simple graphical guidelines how the maximum dopant solubility caused by neutral and charged defects can be identified using the stoichiometry of the impurity phases in equilibrium. These predictive guidelines─applicable to systems regardless of number of elements involved─justify why the intuitive nominal (or intended) compositions should yield maximum solubility due to the expected defect but only if (a) the nominal composition is accurate (no inadvertent loss of a component) and (b) the oppositely charged defects that are more sensitive to chemical conditions form in relatively smaller amounts. In a real system where the nominal composition is not perfectly accurate, observing impurity phases whose stoichiometries are consistent with the guidelines (for the expected defect) is necessary to establish the true maximum solubility limit.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124549384&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85124549384&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c03715
DO - 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c03715
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124549384
SN - 0897-4756
VL - 34
SP - 1638
EP - 1648
JO - Chemistry of Materials
JF - Chemistry of Materials
IS - 4
ER -