4.7 Article

Porous carbon supported Fe-N-C composite as an efficient electrocatalyst for oxygen reduction reaction in alkaline and acidic media

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 411, 期 -, 页码 487-493

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.03.150

关键词

Fuel cells; Oxygen reduction reaction; Fe-N-C catalysts; Carbon black; 6-Chloropyridazin-3-amine

资金

  1. NSFC [51431001, 21271073, 21372088]
  2. Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission [201508020010]
  3. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2015DFA51750]
  4. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2014A030311004, 2014GKXM011]
  5. Guangdong Province Universities and Colleges Pearl River Scholar Funded Scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, non-precious metal electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) have attracted tremendous attention due to their high catalytic activity, long-term stability and excellent methanol tolerance. Herein, the porous carbon supported Fe-N-C catalysts for ORR were synthesized by direct pyrolysis of ferric chloride, 6-Chloropyridazin-3-amine and carbon black. Variation of pyrolysis temperature during the synthesis process leads to the difference in ORR catalytic activity. High pyrolysis temperature is beneficial to the formation of the N-Fe active sites and high electrical conductivity, but the excessive temperature will cause the decomposition of nitrogen-containing active sites, which are revealed by Raman, TGA and XPS. A series of synthesis and characterization experiments with/without nitrogen or iron in carbon black indicate that the coordination of iron and nitrogen plays a crucial role in achieving excellent ORR performances. Electrochemical test results show that the catalyst pyrolyzed at 800 degrees C (Fe-N-C-800) exhibits excellent ORR catalytic activity, better methanol tolerance and higher stability compared with commercial Pt/C catalyst in both alkaline and acidic conditions. (C) 2017 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