4.7 Article

Synthesis of Hollow Pt-Ni Nanoboxes for Highly Efficient Methanol Oxidation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51780-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In direct methanol fuel cell technology, highly stable electrochemical catalysts are critically important for their practical utilization at the commercial scale. In this study, sub similar to 10 nm hollow Pt-Ni (1:1 at. ratio) nanoboxes supported on functionalized Vulcan carbon (Pt-Ni/C-R2) were synthesized through a facile method for the efficient electrooxidation of methanol. Two reaction procedures, namely, a simultaneous reduction and a modified sequential reduction method using a reverse microemulsion (RME) method, were adopted to synthesize solid Pt-Ni NPs and hollow nanoboxes, respectively. To correlate the alloy composition and surface structure with the enhanced catalytic activity, the results were compared with the nanocatalyst synthesized using a conventional NaBH4 reduction method. The calculated electroactive surface area for the Pt-Ni/C-R2 nanoboxes was 190.8 m(2).g(-1), which is significantly higher compared to that of the Pt-Ni nanocatalyst (96.4 m(2).g(-1)) synthesized by a conventional reduction method. Hollow nanoboxes showed 34% and 44% increases in mass activity and rate of methanol oxidation reaction, respectively, compared to solid NPs. These results support the nanoreactor confinement effect of the hollow nanoboxes. The experimental results were supported by Density Functional Theory (DFT) studies, which revealed that the lowest CO poisoning of the Pt1Ni1 catalyst among all Pt-m-Ni-n mixing ratios may account for the enhanced methanol oxidation. The synthesized hollow Pt-Ni/C (R2) nanoboxes may prove to be a valuable and highly efficient catalysts for the electrochemical oxidation of methanol due to their low cost, numerous catalytically active sites, low carbon monoxide poisoning, large electroactive surface area and long-term stability.

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