4.7 Review

Recent developments in metal phosphide and sulfide electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction

Journal

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
Volume 39, Issue 10, Pages 1575-1593

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(18)63130-4

Keywords

Oxygen evolution reaction; Electrocatalysis; Metal phosphide; Metal sulfide; In situ oxidation; Active component

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0101202]
  2. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [91534205, 21376283, 21576032]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oxygen evolution reaction (OER), as an important half-reaction involved in water splitting, has been intensely studied since the last century. Transition metal phosphide and sulfide-based compounds have attracted increasing attention as active OER catalysts due to their excellent physical and chemical characters, and massive efforts have been devoted to improving the phosphide and sulfide-based materials with better activity and stability in recent years. In this review, the recent progress on phosphide and sulfide-based OER electrocatalysts in terms of chemical properties, synthetic methodologies, catalytic performances evaluation and improvement strategy is reviewed. The most accepted reaction pathways as well as the thermodynamics and electrochemistry of the OER are firstly introduced in brief, followed by a summary of the recent research and optimization strategy of phosphide and sulfide-based OER electrocatalysts. Finally, some mechanistic studies of the active phase of phosphide and sulfide-based compounds are discussed to give insight into the nature of active catalytic sites. It is expected to indicate guidance for further improving the performances of phosphide and sulfide-based OER electrocatalysts. (C) 2018, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available