4.8 Article

A comparative study of the electrogeneration of hydrogen peroxide using Vulcan and Printex carbon supports

Journal

CARBON
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 2842-2851

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.03.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CNPq [577292/2008-0]
  2. FAPESP [2005/59992-6, 2008/58789-0, 2009/09145-6, 2009/07859-1, 2010/04539-3, 2007/04759-0, 2010/07831-7]
  3. UFABC [2010/07831-7]
  4. CAPES [2005/59992-6, 2008/58789-0, 2009/09145-6, 2009/07859-1, 2010/04539-3, 2007/04759-0, 2010/07831-7]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparative study of two different conductive carbon-black pigments, Vulcan XC-72 R and Printex L6, for the electrogeneration of hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) by reducing dissolved oxygen in an alkaline solution was performed. The materials were physically characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared attenuated total reflection (ATR-FTIR) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). XRD shows the presence of SO(2) and ATR-FTIR technique indicates a difference in NO and SO(2) functional groups between the two carbon pigments. XPS indicated presence of SO and NO and more oxygenated acid species on Printex L6. A rotating ring-disk electrode was used for electrochemical analysis of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR). The results showed that the Printex L6 was better than Vulcan XC-72 R for H(2)O(2) production. Results also indicate that the number of electrons transferred in the ORR for Printex L6 and Vulcan XC-72 R were 2.2 and 2.9, respectively, while the percentages of H(2)O(2) formed were 88% and 51%. Scanning electrochemistry microscopy images confirmed the higher amount of H(2)O(2) formed in the Printex L6 pigment. Printex L6 was shown to be a more promising for H(2)O(2) production than Vulcan XC-72 R, while the latter was shown to have more potential for fuel cells. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available