Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:25:29.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Segregation in the MgO–MgAl2O4 system processed from nitrate precursors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Tania Bhatia ,
K. Chattopadhyay  and
Vikram Jayaram
Tania Bhatia*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study, Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India
K. Chattopadhyay
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study, Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India
Vikram Jayaram
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study, Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. Present address: Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Institute of Materials Science, Box U-136, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269–3136.
Get access

Abstract

The occurrence of segregation and its influence on microstructural and phase evolution have been studied in MgO–MgAl2O4 powders synthesized by thermal decomposition of aqueous nitrate precursors. When the nitrate solutions of Mg and Al were spray-pyrolyzed on a substrate held at 673 or 573 K, homogeneous mixed oxides were produced. Spraying and drying the nitrate solutions at 473 K resulted in the formation of compositionally inhomogeneous, segregated oxide mixtures. It is suggested that segregation in the dried powders was caused by the difference in solubility of the individual nitrate salts in water which caused Mg-rich and Al-rich salts to precipitate during dehydration of the solutions. The occurrence of segregation in the powders sprayed at 473 K and not 573 or 673 K is ascribed to the sluggish rate at which the early stages of decomposition occurred during which the cations segregated. The phase evolution in segregated and segregation-free MgO–MgAl2O4 powders has been compared. The distinguishing feature of the segregated powders was the appearance of stoichiometric periclase grain dimensions in excess of 0.3 μm at temperatures as low as 973 K. By comparison, the segregation-free powders displayed broad diffraction peaks corresponding to fine-grained and nonstoichiometric periclase. The grain size was in the range 5–30 nm at temperatures up to 1173 K. The key to obtaining fine-grained periclase was the ability to synthesize (Mg Al)O solid solutions with the rock salt structure. In the temperature range 973–1173 K, spinel grain size varied from 5 to 40 nm irrespective of its composition and did not appear to be influenced by segregation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 1999 , pp. 3319 - 3327
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Wefers, K. and Bell, G. M., Oxides and Hydroxides of Aluminum, Technical Paper No. 19 (Alcoa Research Laboratories, Alcoa Center, PA, 1972) as quoted in ref 2.Google Scholar
2.Balmer, M.L., Lange, F.F., and Levi, C.G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77, 2069 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Balmer, M.L., Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara (1993).Google Scholar
4.Bhatia, T., Chattopadhyay, K., and Jayaram, V., Mater. Sci. Eng. A A226–228, 930 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Jayaram, V., DeGraef, M., and Levi, C.G., Acta Metall. 42, 1829 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Polli, A.D., Lange, F.F., Levi, C.G., and Mayer, J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 79, 1745 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Levi, C.G., Acta Mater 46, 787 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Mishra, R.S., Jayaram, V., Majumdar, B., Lesher, C.E., and Mukherjee, A.K., Colloids and Surfaces A133, 25 (1998).Google Scholar
9.Gandhi, A.S., Jayaram, V., and Chokshi, A.H., Mater Sci. Forum 243–245, 227s (1997).Google Scholar
10.Nyman, M., Caruso, J., and Hampden-Smith, M.J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 80, 1231 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hallstedt, B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 75, 1497 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Bhatia, T., Chattopadhyay, K., and Jayaram, V., (unpublished).Google Scholar
13.Alper, A.M., McNally, R.N., Ribbe, P.H., and Doman, R.C., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 45, 263 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Jenkins, R. in Reviews in Minerology, edited by Bish, D.L. and Post, J.E., (Minerological Society of America) Vol. 20, p. 66.Google Scholar
15.Cullity, B.D., Elements of X-ray Diffraction, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978).Google Scholar
16.Stubican, V.S. and Roy, R., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 26, 1293 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Yu, N., Sickafus, K. E., and Nastasi, M., Phil. Mag. Lett. 70, 235 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Chen, S.P., Yan, Y., Gale, J.D., Grimes, R.W., Devanathan, R., Sickafus, K.E., Yu, N., and Nastasi, M., Phil. Mag. Lett. 73, 51 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Devanathan, R., Sickafus, K.E., Yu, N., and Nastasi, M., Phil. Mag. Lett. 72, 155 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar