4.8 Article

Seaweed-Derived Heteroatom-Doped Highly Porous Carbon as an Electrocatalyst for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 1755-1763

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201400049

关键词

fuel cells; mesoporous materials; oxygen; reduction; seaweed

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) [NRF 2010-0029245]
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Korea through the Global Frontier R&D Program on Center for Multiscale Energy System [NRF-2011-0031571]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the template-free pyrolysis of easily available natural seaweed, Undaria pinnatifida, as a single precursor, which results in seaweed carbon (SCup). Interestingly, thus-obtained SCup not only contains heteroatoms such as nitrogen and sulfur in its framework, but it also possesses a well-developed porous structure with high surface area. The heteroatoms in SCup originate from the nitrogen- and sulfur-containing ingredients in seaweed, whereas the porosity is created by removal of salts inherently present in the seaweed. These essential and fundamental properties make seaweed a prime choice as a precursor for heteroatom-containing highly porous carbon as a metal-free efficient electrocatalyst. As-synthesized SCup showed excellent electrocatalytic activity in the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) in alkaline medium, which can be addressed in terms of the presence of the nitrogen and sulfur heteroatoms, the well-developed porosity, and the electrical conductivity in the carbon framework. The pyrolysis temperature was a key controlling parameter that determined the trade-off between heteroatom doping, surface properties, and electrical conductivity. In particular, SCup prepared at 1000 degrees C showed the best ORR performance. Additionally, SCup exhibited enhanced durability and methanol tolerance relative to the state of the art commercial Pt catalyst, which demonstrates that SCup is a promising alternative to costly Pt-based catalysts for the ORR.

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

4.8
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