4.6 Article

Impact of Surface Defects on LaNiO3 Perovskite Electrocatalysts for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 58, 页码 14418-14426

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202102672

关键词

electrocatalysts; oxygen evolution reaction; perovskite; surface defects

资金

  1. University of Sydney Research Fellowship [G197582]
  2. ARC [DP200100313]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under the Ramon y Cajal fellowship [RYC2018-024947-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the formation of oxygen vacancies on the surface of LaNiO3 perovskite electrocatalysts enhanced their OER activity and stability, leading to different activity characteristics, which occurred under hydrogen reduction at 700 degrees Celsius.
Perovskite oxides are regarded as promising electrocatalysts for water splitting due to their cost-effectiveness, high efficiency and durability in the oxygen evolution reaction (OER). Despite these advantages, a fundamental understanding of how critical structural parameters of perovskite electrocatalysts influence their activity and stability is lacking. Here, we investigate the impact of structural defects on OER performance for representative LaNiO3 perovskite electrocatalysts. Hydrogen reduction of 700 degrees C calcined LaNiO3 induces a high density of surface oxygen vacancies, and confers significantly enhanced OER activity and stability compared to unreduced LaNiO3; the former exhibit a low onset overpotential of 380 mV at 10 mA cm(-2) and a small Tafel slope of 70.8 mV dec(-1). Oxygen vacancy formation is accompanied by mixed Ni2+/Ni3+ valence states, which quantum-chemical DFT calculations reveal modify the perovskite electronic structure. Further, it reveals that the formation of oxygen vacancies is thermodynamically more favourable on the surface than in the bulk; it increases the electronic conductivity of reduced LaNiO3 in accordance with the enhanced OER activity that is observed.

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

4.6
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