4.6 Review

Rational design of Cu-based electrocatalysts for electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY CHEMISTRY
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 1050-1066

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2017.10.011

Keywords

Electrocatalysts; Copper; Alloy; Selectivity; CO2 electrochemical reduction; Electrocatalytic activity; Faradaic efficiency

Funding

  1. Natural Scientific Foundation of China [21503116]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Organic-Inorganic Composites, Beijing University of Chemical Technology [oic-201601008]
  3. Qingdao Basic & Applied Research Project [15-9-1-100-jch]
  4. Taishan Scholars Program of Shandong Province [tsqn20161004]
  5. Youth 1000 Talent Program of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent development of Cu-based electrocatalysts for electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) has attracted much attention due to their unique activity and selectivity compared to other metal catalysts. Particularly, Cu is the unique electrocatalyst for CO2 electrochemical reduction with high selectivity to generate a variety of hydrocarbons. In this review, we mainly summarize the recent advances on the rational design of Cu nanostructures, the composition regulation of Cu-based alloys, and the exploitation of advanced supports for improving the catalytic activity and selectivity toward electrochemical reduction of CO2. The special focus is to demonstrate how to enhance the activity and selectivity of Cu-based electrocatalyst for CO2 reduction. The perspectives and challenges for the development of Cu-based electrocatalysts are also addressed. We hope this review can provide timely and valuable insights into the design of advanced electrocatalytic materials for CO2 electrochemical reduction. (c) 2017 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press. All rights reserved.

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