4.8 Article

Molecular Insight in Structure and Activity of Highly Efficient, Low-Ir Ir-Ni Oxide Catalysts for Electrochemical Water Splitting (OER)

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 137, 期 40, 页码 13031-13040

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b07788

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) under Priority Program 1613
  2. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) [03SF0433A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed bimetallic oxides offer great opportunities for a systematic tuning of electrocatalytic activity and stability. Here, we demonstrate the power of this strategy using well-defined thermally prepared Ir-Ni mixed oxide thin film catalysts for the electrochemical oxygen evolution reaction (OER) under highly corrosive conditions such as in acidic proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers and photoelectrochemical cells (PEC). Variation of the Ir to Ni ratio resulted in a volcano type OER activity curve with an unprecedented 20-fold improvement in Jr mass-based activity over pure Ir oxide. In situ spectroscopic probing of metal dissolution indicated that, against common views, activity and stability are not directly anticorrelated. To uncover activity and stability controlling parameters, the Ir-Ni mixed thin oxide film catalysts were characterized by a wide array of spectroscopic, microscopic, scattering, and electrochemical techniques in conjunction with DFT theoretical computations. By means of an intuitive model for the formation of the catalytically active state of the bimetallic Ir-Ni oxide surface, we identify the coverage of reactive surface hydroxyl groups as a suitable descriptor for the OER activity and relate it to controllable synthetic parameters. Overall, our study highlights a novel, highly active oxygen evolution catalyst; moreover, it provides novel important insights into the structure and performance of bimetallic oxide OER electrocatalysts in corrosive acidic environments.

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