4.8 Article

Investigation of sulfur poisoning of CNx oxygen reduction catalysts for PEM fuel cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
Volume 285, Issue 1, Pages 145-151

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2011.09.027

Keywords

CNx; X-ray absorption spectroscopy; Oxygen reduction; Sulfur poisoning; Active site

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences [DE-FG02-07ER15896]
  2. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.
  3. Dow Chemical Company
  4. State of Illinois
  5. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  6. NSF [0114098]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of the transition metal used during the growth of non-noble metal electrochemical oxygen reduction CNx catalysts was investigated through sulfur treatment, a well-known poison for transition metal-based catalysts. The intent of sulfur poisoning was to show the existence of an electrocatalytic active site in CNx that did not depend on iron. The sulfur treatment was shown to be effective on a platinum catalyst, as seen by the decreasing onset potential. The same treatment, however, not only showed no negative effect on the CNx catalyst, but enhanced its performance, as seen by the increase in the onset potential. This suggests that, if there are iron-based active sites in these catalysts, they are either sulfur tolerant or they do not participate in the electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. The deposition of sulfur onto CNx catalyst was verified by temperature-programmed oxidation and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Iron K-edge X-ray absorption near edge structural analysis of the CNx catalyst suggested that the iron phase, which was primarily composed of nanometer-sized metallic particles, was unchanged by sulfur poisoning, suggesting that the residual iron left in these materials is not catalytically accessible. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available