ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative computational and experimental insights into the structural, electrical, and biological properties of CeO
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sol-gel synthesis and comprehensive characterization of MgO nanostructures: structural, optical, and dielectric insights.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Linking Defect-Controlled Grain Growth and Band-Edge Optical Response in Chymosin-Assisted Pechini-Derived CeOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cerium-based nanoparticles for neurodegeneration: emerging redox therapeutics beyond pharmaceuticals.RSC advances · 2025Review
- Temperature dependent microstructural defects and surface charge effects on antioxidant activity of green synthesized nanoceria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comprehensive comparative study was conducted on synthesized (CS) and commercially procured (CP) cerium oxide (CeO₂) samples, and evaluating their computational, structural, microstructural, biocompatibility, and electrical properties. First-principles computational studies revealed that CS exhibited greater volume optimization than CP, although both samples demonstrated a band gap of 2.4–2.5 eV, consistent with the semiconducting nature of CeO₂. The density of states analysis indicated a strong hybridization between Ce-4f and O-2p orbitals, with CS, displaying enhanced electronic density near the Fermi level. X-ray diffraction studies followed by Rietveld refinement confirmed the fluorite structure. Microstructural analysis showed dense, agglomerated morphologies in both samples. However, CS exhibited a higher oxygen content than CP, implying variation in defect concentrations. FTIR confirmed phase purity with characteristic Ce–O vibrations at 435 and 1631 cm¹, while Raman spectroscopy supported this by revealing the F₂g mode (~ 465 cm¹) typical of fluorite-structured CeO₂. Electrical impedance spectroscopy revealed higher ionic conductivity in CS, with a lower grain boundary blocking factor (αgb = 0.42) compared to CP (αgb = 0.62), likely due to differences in defect density and microstructure. Biocompatibility tests showed that CeO₂-300 (CS) had the highest inhibitory efficacy (IC₅₀ ≈ 65.94 µg/ml), followed by CeO₂-800 (≈ 74.1 µg/ml) and CeO₂-Pure (CP) (≈ 86.88 µg/ml), indicating the influence of synthesis on biological response. These results highlight the critical impact of synthesis methods on the biocompatibility and electrical performance of CeO₂ materials useful as solid electrolyte in IT-SOFCs application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.