4.8 Article

Highly Selective Electrocatalytic Reduction of CO2 into Methane on Cu-Bi Nanoalloys

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 7261-7266

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c01261

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51572062, 81771903, 21972034]
  2. Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, a DOE Energy Innovation Hub - Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0004993]
  3. National Science Foundation [ACI-1053575]
  4. Fund for Collaborative Innovation Center of Suzhou Nano Science Technology
  5. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  6. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  7. National Research Council (NRC)
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  9. Government of Saskatchewan
  10. University of Saskatchewan
  11. the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methane (CH4), the main component of natural gas, is one of the most valuable products facilitating energy storage via electricity conversion. However, the poor selectivity and high overpotential for CH4 formation with metallic Cu catalysts prevent realistic applications. Introducing a second element to tune the electronic state of Cu has been widely used as an effective method to improve catalytic performance, but achieving high selectivity and activity toward CH4 remains challenging. Here, we successfully synthesized Cu-Bi NPs, which exhibit a CH4 Faradaic efficiency (FE) as high as 70.6% at -1.2 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE). The FE of Cu-Bi NPs has increased by approximately 25-fold compared with that of Cu NPs. DFT calculations showed that alloying Cu with Bi significantly decreases the formation energy of *COH formation, the rate-determining step, which explains the improved performance. Further analysis showed that Cu that has been partially oxidized because of electron withdrawal by Bi is the most possible active site.

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