4.8 Article

Robust Interface Ru Centers for High-Performance Acidic Oxygen Evolution

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.201908126

关键词

acidic electrolytes; DFT calculations; electrocatalysis; interface active centers; oxygen evolution reaction

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFA0204100, 2016YFA0200200]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21890753, 21988101, 21703274]
  3. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [QYZDB-SSW-JSC020]
  4. DNL Cooperation Fund, Chinese Academy of Sciences [DNL180201, DNL201918]
  5. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M642562]
  6. National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents [BX201700140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RuO2 is considered as the state-of-the-art electrocatalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction (OER) in acidic media. However, its practical application is largely hindered by both the high reaction overpotential and severe electrochemical corrosion of the active centers. To overcome these limitations, innovative design strategies are necessary, which remains a great challenge. Herein, robust interface Ru centers between RuO2 and graphene, via a controllable oxidation of graphene encapsulating Ru nanoparticles, are presented to efficiently enhance both the activity and stability of the acidic OER. Through precisely controlling the reaction interface, a much lower OER overpotential of only 227 mV at 10 mA cm(-2) in acidic electrolyte, compared with that of 290 mV for commercial RuO2, but a significantly higher durability than the commercial RuO2, are achieved. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations reveal that the interface Ru centers between the RuO2 and the graphene can break the classic scaling relationships between the free energies of HOO* and HO* to reduce the limiting potential, rendering an enhancement in the intrinsic OER activity and the resistance to over-oxidation and corrosion for RuO2.

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