4.8 Article

Is the higher current density, the better performance for CO2 electrochemical reduction reaction?

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 572, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233106

Keywords

CO 2 electrochemical reduction; Oxygen crossover; Pseudo -high current density; Zero -gap electrolyzer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In our latest experiments, we accidentally observed a sharp increase in the current density of CO2 electrochemical reduction reaction (CO2RR) in a zero-gap electrolyzer operating at a constant cell voltage. This was found to be due to an undesirable oxygen reduction reaction on the cathode, caused by oxygen crossover from the anode. Oxygen crossover is an inevitable issue in zero-gap electrolyzers and can lead to inaccurate evaluation of CO2RR performance. To address this, we qualitatively measured O2 permeation flux and permeability and systematically investigated the impact of materials, electrode designs, and operating conditions.
Higher current density and faradaic efficiency are always the goals for CO2 electrochemical reduction reaction (CO2RR) over the years. However, in our latest experiments, we inadvertently observe a sharp increase of current density of CO2RR in a zero-gap electrolyzer operating at a constant cell voltage. Based on rigorous investigation, it is found that the high current density results from an undesirable oxygen reduction reaction on cathode, due to the oxygen crossover from anode. As oxygen crossover is inevitable for zero-gap electrolyzers, obviously, the pseudo-high current density may lead to an inaccurate evaluation of CO2RR performance. To comprehensively illuminate the oxygen crossover behavior and effect, we qualitatively measure the O2 permeation flux and O2 permeability, and systematically investigate the influence of materials, electrode designs, and operating conditions. The results suggest that oxygen crossover is a critical issue that should be reflected in CO2RR.

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