4.6 Article

First-Principles Analysis of the Initial Electroreduction Steps of Oxygen over Pt(111)

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 156, 期 1, 页码 B126-B135

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1.3008005

关键词

ab initio calculations; association; charge exchange; density functional theory; electrochemical electrodes; hydrogen bonds; oxygen; platinum; proton exchange membrane fuel cells; reduction (chemical)

资金

  1. Army Research Office-MURI [DAAD19-03-1-0169]
  2. Department of Energy Basic Energy Science [DEFG02-07ER15894]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sluggish kinetics associated with the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) at the proton exchange membrane fuel cell cathode leads to high overpotentials and limits fuel cell performance. Although significant progress has been made in first-principles modeling of the ORR, the complexity of the electrified aqueous/metal interface has limited advances in the use of theory to elucidate the influence of electrode potential on the mechanism and kinetics. The first reduction step of adsorbed molecular oxygen has been speculated to be the rate-determining step in the ORR. Periodic density functional theoretical calculations are carried out with the double-reference method developed by Filhol and Neurock [Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 45, 402 (2006)] to determine the potential dependence of the reaction energy and activation barrier for the reduction of O-2(*) to OOH* on the fully hydrated Pt(111) surface. This method allows for tuning the electrode potential with a slab representation of the electrode surface. Electron transfer is found to precede the protonation of the adsorbed O-2 molecule, occurring with the proton formally residing as an H3O+ species connected to the adsorbed O-2 molecule by hydrogen bonding through two additional water molecules. The importance of the periodic representation of the metal electronic structure and the inclusion of extended solvation in considering the elementary kinetics is discussed.

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

4.6
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