4.8 Review

Recent Trends and Perspectives in Electrochemical Water Splitting with an Emphasis on Sulfide, Selenide, and Phosphide Catalysts of Fe, Co, and Ni: A Review

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 8069-8097

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b02479

关键词

water splitting; hydrogen evolution; oxygen evolution; overpotential; Tafel analysis; metal chalcogenides; metal phosphides; electrolysis

资金

  1. CSIR, New Delhi
  2. UGC, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing demand for finding eco-friendly and everlasting energy sources is now totally depending on fuel cell technology. Though it is an eco-friendly way of producing energy for the urgent requirements, it needs to be improved to make it cheaper and more eco-friendly. Although there are several types of fuel cells, the hydrogen (H-2) and oxygen (O-2) fuel cell is the one with zero carbon emission and water as the only byproduct. However, supplying fuels in the purest form (at least the H-2) is essential to ensure higher life cycles and less decay in cell efficiency. The current large-scale H-2 production is largely dependent on steam reforming of fossil fuels, which generates CO2 along with H-2 and the source of which is going to be depleted. As an alternate, electrolysis of water has been given greater attention than the steam reforming. The reasons are as follows: the very high purity of the H-2 produced, the abundant source, no need for high-temperature, high-pressure reactors, and so on. In earlier days, noble metals such as Pt (cathode) and Ir and Ru (anode) were used for this purpose. However, there are problems in employing these metals, as they are noble and expensive. In this review, we elaborate how the group VIII 3d metal sulfide, selenide, and phosphide nanomaterials have arisen as abundant and cheaper electrode materials (catalysts) beyond the oxides and hydroxides of the same. We also highlight the evaluation perspective of such electrocatalysts toward water electrolysis in detail.

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