4.7 Article

Electrocatalytic Production of Hydrogen Peroxide with Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) Electrodes

期刊

ADVANCED SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adsu.201800110

关键词

conducting polymers; electrocatalysis; hydrogen peroxide; oxygen reduction reaction

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2016-05990]
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation through the project The Tail of the Sun
  3. Wallenberg Centre for Molecular Medicine (WCMM) at Linkoping University
  4. AForsk foundation [17-367]
  5. Goran Gustafsson Foundation
  6. Swedish GovernmentStrategic Research Area in Materials Science on Functional Materials at Linkoping University [200900971]
  7. Vinnova in the framework of Treesearch.se

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrocatalysis for energy-efficient chemical transformations is a central concept behind sustainable technologies. Numerous efforts focus on synthesizing hydrogen peroxide, a major industrial chemical and potential fuel, using simple and green methods. Electrochemical synthesis of peroxide is a promising route. Herein it is demonstrated that the conducting polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), PEDOT, is an efficient and selective heterogeneous catalyst for the direct reduction of oxygen to hydrogen peroxide. While many metallic catalysts are known to generate peroxide, they subsequently catalyze decomposition of peroxide to water. PEDOT electrodes can support continuous generation of high concentrations of peroxide with Faraday efficiency remaining close to 100%. The mechanisms of PEDOT-catalyzed reduction of O-2 to H2O2 using in situ spectroscopic techniques and theoretical calculations, which both corroborate the existence of a chemisorbed reactive intermediate on the polymer chains that kinetically favors the selective reduction reaction to H2O2, are explored. These results offer a viable method for peroxide electrosynthesis and open new possibilities for intrinsic catalytic properties of conducting polymers.

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