4.7 Article

B and N isolate-doped graphitic carbon nanosheets from nitrogen-containing ion-exchanged resins for enhanced oxygen reduction

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep05184

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21031001, 91122018, 21101061, 21201058, 21376065]
  2. Cultivation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innovation Project, Ministry of Education of China [708029]
  3. Program for Innovative Research Team in University [IRT-1237]
  4. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20112301110002]
  5. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M551285]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

B,N-codoped carbon nanostructures (BNCS) can serve as alternative low-cost metal-free electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reactions (ORR). However, the compensation effect between the p- (B atoms) and n-type (N atoms) dopants would make the covalent boron-nitride (BN) easily formed during the synthesis of BNCS, leading to a unsatisfactory ORR activity. Therefore, it has been challenging to develop facile and rapid synthetic strategies for highly active BNCS without forming the direct covalent BN. Here, a facile method is developed to prepare B and N isolate-doped graphitic nanosheets (BNGS) by using iron species for saving N element and simultaneous doping the B element from nitrogen-containing ion-exchanged resins (NR). The resulting BNGS exhibits much more onset potential (E-onset) compared with the B-doped graphitic carbon nanosheets (BGS), N-doped graphitic carbon nanosheets (NGS), as well as B, N-codoped disorder carbon (BNC). Moreover, the BNGS shows well methanol tolerance propery and excellent stability (a minimal loss of activity after 5,000 potential cycles) compared to that of commercial Pt/C catalyst. The goog performance for BNGS towards ORR is attributed to the synergistic effect between B and N, and the well electrons transport property of graphitic carbon in BNGS.

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