4.8 Article

Atomistic Insights into the Stability of Pt Single-Atom Electrocatalysts

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 142, 期 36, 页码 15496-15504

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c07138

关键词

-

资金

  1. project CREATE within the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [721065]
  2. German (DAAD)-Slovenian (ARRS) bilateral travel funding [BI-DE/18-19-001]
  3. Slovenian research agency (ARRS) [P2-0393, N2-0106]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF2019M3D1A1079309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-atom catalysts (SACs) have quickly emerged as a new class of catalytic materials. When confronted with classical carbon-supported nanoparticulated catalysts (Pt/C), SACs are often claimed to have superior electrocatalytic properties, e.g., stability. In this study, we critically assess this statement by investigating S-doped carbon-supported Pt SACs as a representative example of noble-metal-based SACs. We use a set of complementary techniques, which includes online inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (online ICP-MS), identical location transmission electron microscopy (IL-TEM), and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). It is shown by online ICP-MS that the dissolution behavior of as-synthesized Pt SACs is significantly different from that of metallic Pt/C. Moreover, Pt SACs are, indeed, confirmed to be more stable toward Pt dissolution. When cycled to potentials of up to 1.5 V-RHE, however, the dissolution profiles of Pt SACs and Pt/C become similar. IL-TEM and XPS show that this transition is due to morphological and chemical changes caused by cycling. The latter, in turn, is a consequence of the relatively poor stability of S ligands. As monitored by online ICP-MS and XPS, significant amounts of sulfur leave the catalyst during oxidation. Hence, in case catalysts with improved stability in the anodic potential region are desired, more robust supports and ligands must be developed.

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