4.8 Article

Bond Electronegativity as Hydrogen Evolution Reaction Catalyst Descriptor for Transition Metal (TM = Mo, W) Dichalcogenides

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 1224-1234

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b04377

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of Chinese, NSFC [21973107, 18511109400, 18520723000]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two-dimensional transition metal (TM) disulfides have emerged as promising nonprecision catalysts for hydrogen evolution reactions (HERs) because they have exhibited tunable electrocatalytic activity at different sites. However, the design of efficient catalytic sites is still limited to the trial-and-error stage, largely due to the lack of rational design principles. Here, we present a universal principle to evaluate HER catalytic activity of the various MoS2 structures such as TM-substitute, S-vacancy, Mo-edge, and S-edge, based on high-throughput first-principles calculations. We reveal that their catalytic activity has a fundamental relationship with the bonding characteristics of the local environment, such as valence electron number, bond electronegativity, and bond distance. Some catalytic activity predicted by the design principle is consistent with the available experimental data. The design principle elucidates the intrinsic nature of electrocatalysis is electron transfer capacity from a catalytic structure to a hydrogen atom. More importantly, the design principle based on MoS2 can be extended to other transition metal disulfides with the same valence electron amounts. Through the design principle, we find many possible catalysts such as Zn@S-vacancy@MoS2, Zn@Mo-edge@MoS2, Y@S-edge@MoS2, Zn/Ag@W-edge@WS2, Ru/Zn@substitute-W@WS2, and Pd@S-vacanay@WS2, which may achieve a highly efficient catalytic activity. These findings provide important insight toward understanding catalytic properties and serve as design principles for new catalysts.

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