4.6 Article

Pitfalls and Protocols: Evaluating Catalysts for CO2 Reduction in Electrolyzers Based on Gas Diffusion Electrodes

Journal

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 2012-2023

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.2c00763

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) under its Career Development Fund [CDF 202D800033]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2021R1A2C3007280]
  3. Carbon to X Project through the National Research Foundation (NRF) of the Republic of Korea [NRF-2020M3H7A1096388]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the evaluation of catalysts on gas diffusion electrodes, highlighting the potential experimental factors that can influence the evaluation results and emphasizing the importance of establishing appropriate protocols.
The evaluation of catalysts on gas diffusion electrodes (GDEs) have propelled the progress of electrochemical CO2 reduction reaction (CO2RR) at industry-relevant activities. However, high experimental complexities exist in GDE-based flow electrolyzers, whereby various experimental factors can influence the evaluation of catalytic CO2RR performances. Not accounting for these experimental factors could result in inconsistent conclusions and thus hinder rational catalyst developments. This Perspective highlights a range of experimental factors that can affect the performance metrics for electrocatalysts. Specifically, the product faradaic efficiency can be influenced by the overestimation of the effluent gas flow rate, unaccounted losses of products, and unintended alteration of microenvironments. In addition, cathodic voltage can be inaccurately determined due to the unaccounted dynamic changes in uncompensated resistance. By raising awareness of these potential pitfalls and establishing appropriate protocols, we foresee a more meaningful benchmarking of catalytic performances across the literature.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available