4.3 Article

In operando activation of alkaline electrolyzer by ruthenium spontaneous deposition

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOLID STATE ELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 1019-1027

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10008-020-04857-y

关键词

Water splitting; Nickel electrodes; Bipolar electrolyzer; Hydrogen evolution; Oxygen evolution

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones en Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONICET) through FONCyT [PICT-2017-0250]
  2. Mincyt-Cordoba
  3. Project PUE-2017 CONICET [22920170100092]
  4. SeCyTUNC CONSOLIDAR-I [33620180100825CB]
  5. INTI
  6. CONICET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates in operando evidence of activation of a conventional alkaline electrolyzer using nickel electrodes modified by spontaneous deposition of ruthenium. Surface modifications and electrochemical techniques were used to reduce activation overvoltage and achieve a considerable increase in electrolysis efficiency.
Conventional alkaline electrolyzers used for water splitting can considerably increase their efficiency upon modification of the surface of the electrode. Here we present in operando evidence of activation of a conventional alkaline electrolyzer using nickel electrodes modified by spontaneous deposition of ruthenium (1 x 10(-5) M in 30% w/v KOH electrolyte). Surface modifications were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction. Conventional electrochemical techniques were used to establish the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters of hydrogen generation before and after the spontaneous deposition of Ru. Changes on the nickel electrodes by direct modification of the electrolyte allowed to reduce the potential at minimum current from 1.64 to 1.00 V under the same operating conditions. That is, a considerable increase in the electrolysis efficiency was attained by reducing the activation overvoltage. Thus, using a simple, inexpensive, and reproducible method, it is possible to increase the efficiency of conventional electrolyzers.

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

4.3
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