4.8 Article

Breaking the scaling relations of oxygen evolution reaction on amorphous NiFeP nanostructures with enhanced activity for overall seawater splitting

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 302, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120862

关键词

Seawater splitting; Amorphous phosphide; Oxygen evolution reaction; Hydrogen evolution reaction; Electrocatalysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22072051, 21972051, 21801005, 21901008, 22073033, 21873032, 21673087, 21903032]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2021A1515012343]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019kfyRCPY116]
  4. Innovation and Talent Recruitment Base of New Energy Chemistry and Device [B21003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By controlling the morphology of amorphous nickel-iron phosphides, we have successfully reduced the adsorption energy gap of key intermediates in the redox reactions, resulting in low overpotential electrocatalytic performance in simulated alkaline seawater.
The instinct scaling relations between the adsorption energies of key intermediates during OER lead to large overpotential for water/seawater splitting. Herein, we develop a new strategy to fabricate amorphous nickel-iron phosphides (NiFeP) with controllable morphologies as high-performance catalysts for overall seawater splitting. The ligand effect of P tunes the electronic states of the oxidized NiFe sites, thus breaks the scaling relations for OER and reduce the adsorption energy gap between HO* and HOO* from 3.08 eV to 2.62 eV. The NiFeP nanostructures exhibit extraordinarily low overpotentials of 129 mV for OER and 126 mV for HER at 100 mA cm-2 in simulated alkaline seawater, which outperform the best reported electrocatalysts. They could also be operated at 1.57 V with 100 mA cm-2 in a two-electrode electrolyzer and work for more than 500 h. Our work may provide a universal guidance for the design of highly active seawater splitting electrocatalysts.

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