4.6 Article

Two-dimensional phthalocyanine-based covalent organic frameworks as high-performance electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction and oxygen evolution

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.107157

关键词

Covalent organic frameworks; Oxygen reduction reaction; Oxygen evolution reaction; Catalytic activity; Density functional theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient catalysts for ORR and OER are crucial in energy conversion devices. This study systematically investigates the catalytic activity of MPc-PI-COF-1 and MPc-PICOF-2 (M = Mn, Fe, Co) based on DFT methods. The results indicate that different M-N4 sites can adjust the binding strength of oxygen-containing intermediates, affecting the catalysis activity. FePc-PI-COF-1 shows exceptional resistance to poisoning.
It is crucial to use efficient catalysts for oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) and oxygen evolution reaction (OER) in energy conversion devices, aiming to mitigate energy crises. The catalytic activity of MPc-PI-COF-1 and MPc-PICOF-2 (M = Mn, Fe, Co) towards ORR and OER is investigated systematically based on DFT methods. Different M-N4 sites can adjust the binding strength of oxygen-containing intermediates to effect catalysis activity, while the different linkers have only a minor effect. FePc-PI-COF-1 and MnPc-based COFs have low ORR overpotential (eta ORR) values, even lower than Pt(111). For OER, CoPc-based COFs have comparable OER overpotential (eta OER) values to that on RuO2(110). To sum up, MnPc-based COFs are efficient ORR catalysts, and CoPc-based COFs have high OER activity. FePc-PI-COF-1 could be served as an effective bifunctional catalyst with a eta ORR value of 0.38 V and eta OER value of 0.56 V. Moreover, FePc-PI-COF-1 exhibits exceptional resistance to various impurity gases, indicating its strong tolerance against poisoning. These study offer valuable insights for the rational discovery of reticular materials as highly efficient 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

4.6
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