4.6 Article

Substrate Selection for Fundamental Studies of Electrocatalysts and Photoelectrodes: Inert Potential Windows in Acidic, Neutral, and Basic Electrolyte

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107942

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center of Nanostructuring for Efficient Energy Conversion, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) [DE-SC0001060]
  2. CCI Solar Fuels, a National Science Foundation Center for Chemical Innovation [CHE-1305124]
  3. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program
  4. Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  5. United Technologies Research Center fellowship in Sustainable Energy
  6. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada graduate award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The selection of an appropriate substrate is an important initial step for many studies of electrochemically active materials. In order to help researchers with the substrate selection process, we employ a consistent experimental methodology to evaluate the electrochemical reactivity and stability of seven potential substrate materials for electrocatalyst and photoelectrode evaluation. Using cyclic voltammetry with a progressively increased scan range, we characterize three transparent conducting oxides (indium tin oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, and aluminum-doped zinc oxide) and four opaque conductors (gold, stainless steel 304, glassy carbon, and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite) in three different electrolytes (sulfuric acid, sodium acetate, and sodium hydroxide). We determine the inert potential window for each substrate/electrolyte combination and make recommendations about which materials may be most suitable for application under different experimental conditions. Furthermore, the testing methodology provides a framework for other researchers to evaluate and report the baseline activity of other substrates of interest to the broader community.

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