4.7 Review

Amorphous nanomaterials in electrocatalytic water splitting

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 1287-1296

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(20)63740-8

关键词

Amorphous; Electrocatalysis; Water splitting; Synthesis; Nanomaterials

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21701122]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City [17JCJQJC44700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the recent progress in amorphous electrocatalysts for water splitting, including synthesis strategies, characterization tools, the origin of enhanced activity and stability, as well as current challenges and opportunities in this research area.
Electrochemical water splitting, as a promising method for hydrogen production, has attracted significant attention. However, the lack of an electrocatalyst with a small energy loss and fast reaction kinetics has hindered the development of this technology. Amorphous nanomaterials with short-range order and long-range disorder features have recently shown superior activity compared to their crystalline counterparts in water electrolysis. The enhanced activity arising from their intrinsic disordered structure results in more active sites and a higher intrinsic activity of such sites. In this regard, this review is aimed at summarizing the progress in amorphous electrocatalysts for water splitting. First, the synthesis strategies for amorphous electrocatalysts are discussed. Characterization tools for amorphous nanomaterials are then summarized. Moreover, the origin of the enhanced activity and stability of amorphous nanomaterials is analyzed. Finally, the current challenges and promising opportunities in this research area are discussed. This review aims to provide a guide for designing and developing amorphous nanomaterials with a fascinating electrocatalytic water splitting performance. (C) 2021, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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