4.8 Review

Oxygen Reduction Electrocatalysts toward Practical Fuel Cells: Progress and Perspectives

期刊

ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION
卷 60, 期 33, 页码 17832-17852

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202016977

关键词

electrocatalysts; fuel cells; oxygen reduction; Pt alloy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22075092]
  2. Program for HUST Academic Frontier Youth Team [2018QYTD15]
  3. National 1000 Young Talents Program of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fuel cells show great potential as a renewable energy technology, but face challenges due to high cost and poor reliability of cathodic electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR). This review emphasizes recent progress of ORR electrocatalysts in fuel cells and highlights issues with activity translation from laboratory testing to practical applications. Future efforts should focus on large-scale preparation, unified assessment criteria, advanced interpretation techniques, advanced simulation and artificial intelligence to advance efficient ORR electrocatalysts in fuel cells.
Fuel cells are an incredibly powerful renewable energy technology, but their broad applications remains lagging because of the high cost and poor reliability of cathodic electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR). This review focuses on the recent progress of ORR electrocatalysts in fuel cells. More importantly, it highlights the fundamental problems associated with the insufficient activity translation from rotating disk electrode to membrane electrode assembly in the fuel cells. Finally, for the atomic-level in-depth information on ORR catalysts in fuel cells, potential perspectives are suggested, including large-scale preparation, unified assessment criteria, advanced interpretation techniques, advanced simulation and artificial intelligence. This review aims to provide valuable insights into the fundamental science and technical engineering for efficient ORR electrocatalysts in fuel cells.

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