4.8 Article

Structural transformation between rutile and spinel crystal lattices in Ru-Co binary oxide nanotubes: enhanced electron transfer kinetics for the oxygen evolution reaction

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 13, 期 32, 页码 13776-13785

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1nr02244j

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2020R1A2B5B01001984]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2018R1A6A1A03025340]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A variety of binary Ru-Co mixed oxide nanotubes were successfully synthesized via electrospinning, showing excellent oxygen evolution reaction (OER) activity and improved stability, making them a promising and cost-effective OER catalyst.
A variety of binary Ru-Co mixed oxide nanotubes (RuxCo1-xOy with x = 0.19, 0.33, 0.47, 0.64 and 0.77) were readily synthesized via electrospinning and subsequent calcination. RuxCo1-xOy nanotubes (0 < x < 0.77) were composed of both rutile (Ru in RuO2 is replaced with Co) and spinel (Co in Co3O4 is replaced with Ru) structures. This elemental substitution created oxygen vacancies in the rutile structure and also resulted in the incorporation of Ru3+ in the octahedral sites of the spinel structure. The as-prepared RuxCo1-xOy nanotubes were investigated for oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalytic activity in 1.0 M HClO4 aqueous solution. RuxCo1-xOy nanotubes with x >= 0.47 presented an excellent OER activity comparable to pure RuO2, known to be the best OER catalyst. Even after more than half of the noble/active Ru content was replaced with cheap/less-active Co, Ru0.47Co0.53Oy showed a good OER activity and a greatly improved stability compared to RuO2 under the continuous OER. These attractive catalytic properties of RuxCo1-xOy can be attributed to the relatively large surface area of the tubular morphology and the substituted structures, presenting feasibility as a practical and economical OER catalyst.

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