4.6 Review

Recent advances in electrocatalytic chloride oxidation for chlorine gas production

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 9, 期 35, 页码 18974-18993

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1ta02745j

关键词

-

资金

  1. FH Loxton fellowship of the University of Sydney

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article summarizes the recent advances in electrocatalytic chlorine evolution reaction (CER), including history, catalytic mechanism, different types of electrocatalysts, and strategies for improving performance. Future research opportunities in materials design, structure-performance relationships, reactor technical improvements, and application scenarios extension are outlined.
Chlorine gas is one of the most basic chemicals produced through electrolysis of brine solution and is a key raw material in many areas of industrial chemistry. In the past half a century, the dimensionally stable anode (DSA) made of RuO2 and TiO2 coated on the Ti substrate is the most widely used catalytic electrode for chlorine oxidation. However, the drawbacks of the DSA such as high cost, inferior selectivity and detrimental effects on the environment cannot meet the demand of modern industries. Recently, tremendous progress has been achieved in developing low-cost and efficient electrocatalysts for the chlorine evolution reaction (CER). Herein, a concise, but comprehensive and critical review is provided to summarize the recent advances in the field of electrocatalytic CER. First, the history of the chlor-alkali process and the catalytic mechanism of CER are summarized and presented. Then, three categories, namely, noble metal-based, earth-abundant transition-metal-based, and carbon-based metal-free electrocatalysts, are reviewed together with strategies for improving the CER catalytic performance. Lastly, future opportunities in this exciting field are outlined in terms of materials design, structure-performance relationship, technical improvements for the reactor and application scenarios extension.

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