4.7 Article

Formic acid oxidation reaction on a PdxNiy bimetallic nanoparticle catalyst prepared by a thermal decomposition process using ionic liquids as the solvent

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 39, 期 14, 页码 7326-7337

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.026

关键词

Thermal decomposition; PdxNiy bimetallic nanoparticles; Formic acid oxidation reaction; Electrocatalysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21173066]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of China [B2011205014]
  3. US National Science Foundation [EAGER:CBET 11-37441]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nano-catalysts of PdxNiy, bimetallic nanoparticles (NPs, the nominal atomic ratios of Pd to Ni are 2:1, 3:2 and 1:1) supported on multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (denoted as PdxNiy/MWCNTs) have been synthesized by a thermal decomposition process using room temperature ionic liquids (RTILs) of N-butylpyridinium tetrafluoroborate (BPyBP4) as the solvent. X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscope (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were employed to characterize the morphology of the samples, revealing that the prepared PdxNiy NPs were quite uniformly dispersed on the surface of MWCNTs with an average particle size of similar to 8.0 nm. Formic acid oxidation reaction (FAOR) was investigated on the as-prepared catalysts by using cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), demonstrating that the peak current on the Pd3Ni2/MWCNTs catalyst was about three times higher than that on the Pd/MWCNTs. The lower electrode potential and easier hydrogen evolution, based on the results obtained from chronopotentiometry and CV, respectively, were thought as the main reasons for the excellent electrocatalysis of the Pd3Ni2/MV/CNTs toward formic acid oxidation reaction (FAOR) when compared to other samples. Copyright (C) 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据