4.6 Article

Hydrogen Storage in Untreated/Ammonia-Treated and Transition Metal-Decorated (Pt, Pd, Ni, Rh, Ir and Ru) Activated Carbons

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11146604

关键词

activated carbon; metal decoration; hydrogen storage and spillover

资金

  1. National Plan for Science, Technology, and Innovation (MAARIFAH), King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [11-ENE1472-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research focused on improving hydrogen storage performance of activated carbon through methods like ammonia treatment and metal decoration. It was found that metal decoration had different effects on hydrogen storage at different temperatures, potentially overcoming hydrogen spillover at low temperatures but having the opposite effect at room temperature.
Hydrogen storage may be the bottle neck in hydrogen economy, where hydrogen spillover is in dispute as an effective mechanism. In this context, activated carbon (AC) was doped with nitrogen by using ammonia gas, and was further decorated with platinum, palladium, nickel, rhodium, iridium and ruthenium, via an ultrasound-assisted impregnation method, with average particle sizes of around 74, 60, 78, 61, 67 and 38 nm, respectively. The hydrogen storage was compared, before and after modification at both ambient and cryogenic temperatures, for exploring the spillover effect, induced by the decorating transition metals. Ammonia treatment improved hydrogen storage at both 298 K and 77 K, for the samples, where this enhancement was more remarkable at 298 K. Nevertheless, metal decoration reduced the hydrogen uptake of AC for all of the decorated samples other than palladium at cryogenic temperature, but improved it remarkably, especially for iridium and palladium, at room temperature. This observation suggested that metal decoration's counter effect overcomes hydrogen spillover at cryogenic temperatures, while the opposite takes place at ambient temperature.

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