4.8 Article

Benchmarking of oxygen evolution catalysts on porous nickel supports

Journal

JOULE
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 1281-1300

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.022

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. TOTAL S.A.
  2. Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP) multidisciplinary program PARI
  3. Paris-IdF region SESAME [12015908]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study selected nine highly active transition metal-based catalysts and used porous nickel foam and a new nickel-based dendritic material as supports. A standardized protocol was designed to characterize and compare the catalysts in terms of structure, activity, density of active sites, and stability. The NiFeSe- and CoFeSe-derived oxides showed the highest activities on the dendritic support with low overpotentials, while stability evaluation showed no surface leaching for 8 hours of electrolysis.
Active and inexpensive oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysts are needed for energy-efficient electrolysis applications. Objective comparison between OER catalysts has been blurred by the use of different supports and methods to evaluate performance. Here, we selected nine highly active transition-metal-based catalysts and described their synthesis, using a porous nickel foam and a new Ni-based dendritic material as the supports. We designed a standardized protocol to characterize and compare the catalysts in terms of structure, activity, density of active sites, and stability NiFeSe- and CoFeSe-derived oxides showed the highest activities on our dendritic support, with low overpotentials of eta(100 )approximate to 247 mV at 100 mA cm(-2) in 1 M KOH. Stability evaluation showed no surface leaching for 8 h of electrolysis. This work highlights the most active anode materials and provides an easy way to increase the geometric current density of a catalyst by tuning the porosity of its support.

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