4.8 Review

Iridium-Based Catalysts for Solid Polymer Electrolyte Electrocatalytic Water Splitting

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 1576-1590

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201802873

关键词

electrochemistry; iridium; solid polymer electrolytes; supported catalysts; water splitting

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51503187, 21504037, 51603194]
  2. Shanxi Provincial Foundation for Science and Technology Research [201601D021058, 201701D221050, 20181101006, 20181102019]
  3. NIMHD-RCMI from the National Institute of Minority Health, Health Disparities [5G12MD007595]
  4. NIGMS-BUILD [8UL1GM118967]
  5. National Science Foundation [1700429]
  6. Fluid Interface Reactions, Structures and Transport (FIRST) Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  7. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC0500OR22725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical energy conversion/storage through water splitting for hydrogen production has been recognized as the ideal solution to the transient nature of renewable energy sources. Solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) water electrolysis is one of the most practical ways to produce pure H-2. Electrocatalysts are key materials in the SPE water electrolysis. At the anode side, electrode materials catalyzing the oxygen evolution reaction (OER) require specific properties. Among the reported materials, only iridium presents high activity and is more stable. In this Minireview, an application overview of single iridium metal and its oxide catalysts-binary, ternary, and multicomponent catalysts of iridium oxides and supported composite catalysts-for the OER in SPE water electrolysis is presented. Two main strategies to improve the activity of an electrocatalyst system, namely, increasing the number of active sites and the intrinsic activity of each active site, are reviewed with detailed examples. The challenges and perspectives in this field are also 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

4.8
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