4.8 Review

Molecular Design of Single-Atom Catalysts for Oxygen Reduction Reaction

期刊

ADVANCED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 10, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201903815

关键词

coordination modulation; oxygen reduction reaction; porosity control; single-atom catalysts

资金

  1. office of Naval Research [N000141812155]
  2. National Science Foundation [1800580]
  3. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) [N000141812155] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1800580] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1800580] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fuel cells are highly attractive for direct chemical-to-electrical energy conversion and represent the ultimate mobile power supply solution. However, presently, fuel cells are limited by the sluggish kinetics of the cathodic oxygen reduction reaction (ORR), which requires the use of Pt as a catalyst, thus significantly increasing the overall cost of the cells. Recently, nonprecious metal single-atom catalysts (SACs) with high ORR activity under both acidic and alkaline conditions have been recognized as promising cost-effective alternatives to replace Pt in fuel cells. Considerable efforts have been devoted to further improving the ORR activity of SACs, including tailoring the coordination structure of the metal centers, enriching the concentration of the metal centers, and engineering the electronic structure and porosity of the substrate. Herein, a brief introduction to fuel cells and fundamentals of the ORR parameters of SACs and the origin of their high activity is provided, followed by a detailed review of the recently developed strategies used to optimize the ORR activity of SACs in both rotating disk electrode and membrane electrode assembly tests. Remarks and perspectives on the remaining challenges and future directions of SACs for the development of commercial fuel cells are also presented.

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