4.7 Article

Efficient Electrocatalyst Nanoparticles from Upcycled Class II Capacitors

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 12, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano12152697

关键词

electrocatalysis; nickel; electronic waste; layered double hydroxide; recycling; circular economy; re-use; nanoparticle; liquid-liquid extraction; ionic liquid; ceramic capacitor

资金

  1. SCARCE project - National Research Foundation, Singapore
  2. National Environment Agency, Singapore under its Closing the Waste Loop Funding Initiative [USS-IF-2018-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop efficient oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalysts, this study focuses on upcycling Class II BaTiO3 Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors to recover metal ions and synthesize high potential catalysts NiFe hydroxide and NiCu hydroxide, which have demonstrated faster OER kinetics than commercial c-RuO2.
To move away from fossil fuels, the electrochemical reaction plays a critical role in renewable energy sources and devices. The anodic oxygen evolution reaction (OER) is always coupled with these reactions in devices but suffers from large energy barriers. Thus, it is important for developing efficient OER catalysts with low overpotential. On the other hand, there are large amounts of metals in electronic waste (E-waste), especially various transition metals that are promising alternatives for catalyzing OER. Hence, this work, which focuses on upcycling Class II BaTiO3 Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors, of which two trillion were produced in 2011 alone. We achieved this by first using a green solvent extraction method that combined the ionic liquid Aliquat (R) 336 and hydrochloride acid to recover a mixed solution of Ni, Fe and Cu cations, and then using such a solution to synthesize high potential catalysts NiFe hydroxide and NiCu hydroxide for OER. NiFe-hydroxide has been demonstrated to have faster OER kinetics than the NiCu-hydroxide and commercial c-RuO2. In addition, it showed promising results after the chronopotentiometry tests that outperform c-RuO2.

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