4.6 Article

Fabrication of a Ti-supported NiCo2O4 nanosheet array and its superior catalytic performance in the hydrolysis of ammonia borane for hydrogen generation

期刊

CATALYSIS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 11, 页码 3893-3899

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5cy01542a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51001052]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [S2013010015681]
  3. High-level Talent Project of the University in Guangdong Province [184]
  4. Characteristic and Innovative Project of the Education Department of Guangdong Province [2014KTSCX177]
  5. Foundation for Distinguished Young teachers in Higher Education of Guangdong [Yq2013154]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of low-cost nanocatalysts with high activity, high stability and good reusability towards the hydrolysis of chemical hydrides for hydrogen generation is of great importance and significance in the field of hydrogen energy. In this work, a Ti-supported NiCo2O4 thin film nanosheet array (NiCo2O4/Ti) is fabricated by a facile method, and its catalytic performance in the hydrolysis of ammonia borane for hydrogen production is investigated. It is found that the turnover frequency (TOF) of NiCo2O4/Ti can reach 50.1 mol H-2 min(-1) (mol catalyst)(-1), which is the highest TOF value reported for noble-metal-free catalysts towards the hydrolysis of ammonia borane. The apparent activation energy of ammonia borane hydrolysis in the presence of the NiCo2O4/Ti catalyst is as low as ca. 17.5 kJ mol(-1). More importantly, the NiCo2O4/Ti catalyst can retain ca. 90% of its original catalytic activity after 10 cycles, exhibiting much improved durability and reusability in contrast to many nanocatalysts recently reported in the literature. Its high catalytic activity and low-cost, together with its good durability and reusability, enable NiCo2O4/Ti to be a strong catalyst candidate for the hydrolysis of ammonia borane for hydrogen production in the practical applications.

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

4.6
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