4.6 Article

Efficient ORR electrocatalytic activity of peanut shell-based graphitic carbon microstructures

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 6, 期 25, 页码 12018-12028

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8ta02839g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21771192, 21631003]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2017ZB0315, ZR2017MB006]
  3. Research Foundation from China University of Petroleum (East China) [Y1510051]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [17CX06047]
  5. Taishan Scholar program of Shandong Province [ts201511019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A hierarchical microporous graphitic carbon material intrinsically doped with sulfur and extrinsically doped with dual cobalt species [Co3O4 and Co(PO3)(2), termed as CoOP] nanoparticles was prepared from a sustainable waste biomass, peanut shell, with CO2 gas as the activating agent through a thermal-reduction method. The resulting CoOP@bio-C exhibits an overall superior ORR catalytic activity, stability and resistance to methanol crossover in alkaline media to commercial Pt/C, with onset and half-wave potentials of 0.91 and 0.81V in 0.1 M KOH, a limiting current density of -5.7 mA cm(-2), and a small Tafel slope of 57 mV dec(-1), representing the best result among the biomass-based carbon electrocatalysts. In particular, comparative studies reveal the significant effect of the work function of corresponding catalytic materials on the ORR electrocatalysis. Dual-doped CoOP@bio-C with a work function of 5.42 eV, closer to that of Pt (5.65 eV), displays much better electrocatalytic activity than single-doped Co3O4@bio-C, single-doped Co(PO3)(2)@bio-C and bio-C-800 catalysts with work functions of 8.35, 6.61 and 5.02 eV, respectively, due to its good adsorption nature to O-2 and desorption nature to the reaction intermediates. The present result will be surely helpful for the design and synthesis of biomass resource-based ORR catalysts with great application potential.

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