4.7 Article

High-efficient CO2 electrocatalysis over nanoporous Au film enabled by a combined pore engineering and ionic liquid-mediated approach

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 425, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.131663

关键词

Nanoporous Au; Electrochemical reduction; CO2; Ionic liquids; Faradaic efficiency; Density functional theory

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21972027]
  2. Fund for Key Laboratory Construction of Hubei Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrochemical reduction of CO2 in ionic liquid-based electrolytes with a nanoporous Au film electrode in combination with EMIMBF4 ionic liquid-based binary electrolyte shows increased CO2 reduction activity and selectivity. The use of EMIMBF4 ionic liquid enhances both the CO2 reduction activity and selectivity, achieving high Faradaic efficiency and mass activity for CO production at -0.55 V (vs RHE) in ionic liquid/water electrolyte.
Electrochemical reduction of CO2 in ionic liquid-based electrolytes has received increasing interest due to its high selectivity and low overpotential. However, it has been plagued with a low yield rate due to the typically lower conductivity and higher viscosity of the electrolytes compared to aqueous electrolytes. Here, we report a rational electrode-electrolyte design by using nanoporous Au film electrode in combination with a 1-ethyl-3methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate (EMIMBF4) ionic liquid-based binary electrolyte for electrochemical CO2 conversion. The CO2 reduction activity increases with the increase of the pore size of Au film, which is attributed to the increase in electrocatalytic surface area and enhancement in mass transport. Experimental and density functional theory studies show that EMIMBF4 ionic liquid increases the CO2 reduction activity and selectivity. Electrocatalytic reduction of CO2 with Faradaic efficiency up to 92.5% and mass activity of 3.0 A/g for CO is achieved at -0.55 V (vs RHE) in ionic liquid/water electrolyte.

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