4.6 Article

Hydrogen oxidation kinetics on model Pd/C electrodes: Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and rotating disk electrode study

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 3312-3323

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.01.060

关键词

Hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR); Palladium catalysts; Supported nanoparticles; Computational modeling

资金

  1. NATO [NATO RIG.981941]
  2. Universite de Strasbourg
  3. RFBR (Russia) [06-03-32737]
  4. ANR (France) [06-CEXC-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work reports on the kinetics of the hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR) on model Pd nanoparticles supported on a low surface area carbon substrate. Two Pd/C samples, with the average particle size 2.6 and 4.0 nm were used. The structure of the catalysts was characterized with the ex situ (electron microscopy) and in situ (electrochemical) methods. We utilized the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and the rotating disk electrode (RDE) voltammetry to study the kinetics of the HOR on Pd/C. The relevance of these techniques for elucidating the kinetics and the mechanism of the HOR on Pd/C was explored. The experimental results suggest that the catalytic activity of Pd in the HOR is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower than that of Pt, and does not depend on the particle size in the range from 2.6 to 4.0 nm. Computational modeling of the experimental steady-state (RDE) and non-steady-state (EIS) data shows that the reaction kinetics can be adequately described within Heyrovsky-Volmer mechanism, with the rate constants nu(OH) = (8.8 +/- 1.5) x 10(-10) mol cm(-2) s(-1) and nu(OV) = (1.0 +/- 0.3) x 10(-8) mol cm(-2) s(-1). The model suggests that underpotentially deposited hydrogen H-UPD is unlikely to be the active intermediate H-ad of the HOR. It is concluded that the surface coverage of H-ad deviates from that of H-UPD with increasing overpotential, and the lateral interactions within H-ad adlayer are weak. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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