4.8 Article

Catalytic CO2/CO Reduction: Gas, Aqueous, and Aprotic Phases

Journal

ACS CATALYSIS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 2561-2568

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.1c05358

Keywords

CO2 reduction; CO reduction; Fischer-Tropsch; electrochemistry; aprotic

Funding

  1. Danish National Research Foundation Centers of Excellence, The Center for High Entropy Alloys Catalysis [DNRF149]
  2. Independent Research Fund Denmark [0217-00014B]
  3. European Union [101031656]
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [101031656] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work investigates the theoretical differences and similarities of CO2/CO catalytic reduction reactions in gas, aqueous solution, and aprotic solution. The binding energy serves as a good descriptor for the gaseous and aqueous phases and allows catalysts to be categorized by reduction products. However, descriptors alone are insufficient for mapping in the aprotic phase, requiring the use of a microkinetic model.
The catalytic reduction of CO2/CO is key to reducing the carbon footprint and producing the chemical building blocks needed for society. In this work, we performed a theoretical investigation of the differences and similarities of the CO2/CO catalytic reduction reactions in gas, aqueous solution, and aprotic solution. We demonstrate that the binding energy serves as a good descriptor for the gaseous and aqueous phases and allows catalysts to be categorized by reduction products. The CO* vs O* and CO* vs H* binding energies for these phases give a convenient mapping of catalysts regarding their main product for the CO2/CO reduction reactions. However, for the aprotic phase, descriptors alone are insufficient for the mapping. We show that a microkinetic model (including the CO* and H* binding energies) allows spanning and interpreting the reaction space for the aprotic phase.

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