4.7 Article

Nitrogen-phosphorous co-doped palladium electrocatalyst for glycerol electro-oxidation reaction (GEOR): An efficient system for mesoxalic acid and dihydroxyacetone production

期刊

FUEL
卷 333, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126471

关键词

Electro-oxidation; Glycerol; Nitrogen; Phosphorous Doping; Dihydroxyacetone; Mesoxalic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the incorporation of N and P into the Pd/CNTs framework for selective oxidation of glycerol, resulting in a catalyst with superior electrocatalytic performance. The NP doped/PdCNTs exhibit better resistivity and require lower electrocatalysis voltage to achieve higher current density compared to other catalysts. The yield of 1, 3-dihydroxyacetone is significantly higher with NP doped/PdCNTs.
Electro-oxidation reaction of glycerol (GEOR) is a promising and eco-friendly technique for producing commercially valuable organic acids. In contrast to conventional non-metallic doping into single or multiwalled carbon nanotubes, our work reported the incorporation of N, and P into the Pd/CNTs framework for selective oxidation of glycerol to 1, 3-dihydroxyacetone and mesoxalic acid. Electrochemical and physicochemical char-acterization showed that the NP doped/PdCNTs has superior electrocatalytic performance for GEOR in alkaline media compared to counter catalysts. NP doped/PdCNTs exhibits better resistivity (If/Ib = 1.71) and requires only 0.09 V electrocatalysis voltage to achieve 76.67 mA cm-2 current density, demonstrating an energy-efficient and cost-competitive method to produce mesoxalic acid and dihydroxyacetone. At 0.09 V vs Ag/AgCl in 0.5 M Gly/0.5 M KOH, the Pd mass activity of NP doped/PdCNTs was 307.30 mAmg-1Pd, representing 2.45, 1.06, and 1.051 times higher than Pd/CNTs, N doped/PdCNTs, and P doped/PdCNTs, respectively. The yield of 1, 3-dihy-droxyacetone was 29.76 times higher than Pd/CNTs, 24.06 times higher than N doped/PdCNTs, and 1.06 times higher than P doped/PdCNTs.

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