4.6 Article

Vertically Aligned Porous Nickel(II) Hydroxide Nanosheets Supported on Carbon Paper with Long-Term Oxygen Evolution Performance

Journal

CHEMISTRY-AN ASIAN JOURNAL
Volume 12, Issue 5, Pages 543-551

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/asia.201601590

Keywords

electrocatalysis; nanostructures; nickel; oxygen evolution reaction; water splitting

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation of Science & Technology (FCT) [IF/01595/2014, IF/01595/2014/CP1247/CT0001]
  2. Marie Curie COFUND program under the FP7 framework [600375]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015T80847]
  4. European Commission Horizon project CritCat [686053]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [IF/01595/2014/CP1247/CT0001] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vertically aligned Ni(OH)(2) nanosheets were grown on carbon paper (CP) current collectors through a simple and cost-effective hydrothermal approach. The as-grown nanosheets are porous and highly crystallized. If used as a monolithic electrode for electrochemical water oxidation in alkaline solution, the carbon paper supported Ni(OH)(2) nanosheets [CP@Ni(OH)(2)] exhibit high electrocatalytic activity and excellent long-term stability. The electrode can attain an anodic current density of 20 mAcm(-2) at a low overpotential of 338 mV, comparable to that of state-of-the-art RuO2 nanocatalysts supported on CP (CP/RuO2) with the same catalyst loading. Significantly, CP@Ni(OH)(2) shows much better long-term stability than CP/RuO2 upon continuous galvano-static electrolysis, particularly at a high industry-relevant current density such as 100 mAcm(-2). CP@Ni(OH)(2) can sustain water oxidation at 100 mAcm (2) for 50 h without any degradation, whereas the performance of CP/RuO2 is much poorer and deteriorates gradually over time. CP@Ni(OH)(2) electrodes hold substantial promise for use as low-costing water oxidation anodes in electrolyzers.

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