4.7 Article

Boron-nitrogen-doped carbon dots on multi-walled carbon nanotubes for efficient electrocatalysis of oxygen reduction reactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 600, 期 -, 页码 865-871

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2021.05.089

关键词

Carbon dots; B, N co-doping; Oxygen reduction reaction; Electrocatalysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1804135, 52071135, 51871090, 51671080, 21905253, 51973200]
  2. Plan for Scientific Innovation Talent of Henan Province [194200510019]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M640681, 2019T120632]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three-dimensional nanocatalyst was prepared by compounding multi-wall carbon nanotubes with carbon dots as sources of B and N, exhibiting excellent ORR performance. The catalyst shows high conductivity and a large specific surface area, promoting the development of metal-free catalysts for metal-air batteries and fuel cells.
Cost-effective production of metal-free catalysts for the oxygen-reduction reaction (ORR), to supersede Pt-based catalysts, is challenging. Here, a three-dimensional nanocatalyst was prepared by compounding multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) with easily modified and doped carbon dots (CDs) as sources of B and N. The catalyst has high conductivity and a large specific surface area similar to the MWCNTs, allowing exposure of many CDs with rich edge active sites and enhancing electron transfer. The catalyst exhibits excellent ORR performance, with 0.92 V of E-onset vs reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE). The E-1/2 value exhibits a reduction of 50 mV compared with that of Pt/C (0.85 V) with a limited current density of 5.95 mA cm(-2). The enhanced catalytic performance is attributed to the synergy of pyridine N and BC3. This work describes a simple and economical strategy for metal-free catalysts, and promotes the development of such catalysts for metal-air batteries and fuel cells. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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