Jacs 6b10855

Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia
Article
Suppression of Hydrogen Evolution by Oxygen
Reduction in Nanoporous Electrocatalysts
Ellen Benn, Bernard Gaskey, and Jonah D Erlebacher
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b10855 • Publication Date (Web): 17 Feb 2017
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 18, 2017
Just Accepted
“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the
dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts
appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been
fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all
readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered
to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published
in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just
Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor
changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers
and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors
or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Journal of the American Chemical Society is published by the American Chemical

Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 22 Journal of the American Chemical Society
1
2
3
4 Suppression of Hydrogen Evolution by Oxygen Reduction in Nanoporous
5 Electrocatalysts
6
7 Ellen E. Benn1, Bernard Gaskey1, and Jonah D. Erlebacher1*
8
1
9 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
10 21218
11
12 * Corresponding Author: Jonah D. Erlebacher, Jonah.Erlebacher@jhu.edu
13
14
15
16
17
18 Abstract
19
20
21
Electroreduction of small molecules in aqueous solution often competes with the hydrogen
22 evolution reaction (HER), especially if the reaction is driven even moderately hard using a large
23
24 overpotential. Here, the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) was studied under proton diffusion-
25
26 limited conditions in slightly acidic electrolytes - a model system to study the relative transport
27
28 kinetics of protons and reactants to an electrocatalyst and the relationship between transport and
29 catalytic performance. Using dealloyed nanoporous nickel-platinum (np-NiPt) electrodes, we
30
31 find the hydrogen evolution reaction can be completely suppressed even at high overpotentials (-
32
33 400 mV vs. RHE). In addition, the mechanism of oxygen reduction can be changed by using
34
35 buffered versus unbuffered solutions, suggesting the reaction selectivity is associated with a
36
transient rise (or lack thereof) in the interface pH at the np-NiPt surface. Independently
37
38 controlling reactant transport to electrocatalyst surfaces at high overpotentials exhibited a
39
40 surprisingly rich phenomenology that may offer a generalizable strategy to increase activity and
41
42 selectivity during electroreduction reactions.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of the American Chemical Society Page 2 of 22
1
2
3
Introduction
4
5
6
7
Dealloyed nanoporous metals provide a promising platform for electrocatalysis due to a
8
9 unique combination of facile synthesis and high activities [1,2]. If specific surface area alone
10
11 determined a catalyst’s activity, dealloying would be limited to a processing tool to fabricate
12
13
14 roughened metal surfaces. However, there is growing recognition that nanoporosity itself leads to
15
16 behavior that can enhance overall activity in electrocatalysis due to the intrinsic structural
17
18 features of dealloyed metal materials. For instance, nanoporous nickel platinum (np-NiPt) is
19
20
21 highly catalytic for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) in acidic electrolytes because the
22
23 dealloying process produces ligaments with a platinum-rich skin and a nickel-containing core,
24
25 this compositional variation leading to strain and ligand effects that reduce the activation barrier
26
27
28 for ORR, analogously to nickel platinum nanoparticles [3–8].
29
30
31 Nanoporous metals also provide a framework for more complex catalyst structures that
32
33 derive unique benefits from reactant transport into and out of their bicontinuous porous
34
35
36 morphology. As an example, impregnation of the pores of np-NiPt with a hydrophobic ionic
37
38 liquid (IL) possessing a high oxygen solubility creates a composite catalyst whose aggregate
39
40 activity when under kinetic control is increased by the ratio of the oxygen solubilities in the IL to
41
42
43 the electrolyte [9,10]. Chen and co-workers extended this concept to make nanoframe NiPt
44
45 catalysts impregnated with the specific ionic liquid [MTBD][beti], which has provided one of the
46
47 highest reported ORR activity catalysts to date [11].
48
49
50
Here we show that np-NiPt can also be used to create a “diffusion selective electrocatalyst,”
51
52
53 where selectivity can be tuned by controlling the relative diffusional fluxes of reactants into the
54
55 nanoporous catalytic surface, specifically by creating a scenario where the flux of protons to the
56
57
58
surface is small relative the flux of the molecule we wish to reduce. As a model system, we are
59
60
1
2
3
focusing on the oxygen reduction due to the relatively well-known reaction mechanism.
4
5
6 However, we are examining ORR under unusual conditions, namely, reduction of molecular
7
8 oxygen at greater than 1.5 V overpotentials (-0.4 V vs. RHE) in aqueous media, i.e., under
9
10
11
conditions where hydrogen evolves easily. We find that when the flux of oxygen from the bulk
12
13 solution dominates the flux of protons, we observe apparent complete suppression of hydrogen
14
15 evolution. This is obviously not of practical importance for oxygen reduction, but in principle,
16
17
18 other small molecules such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen could be selectively reduced using a
19
20 similar approach.
21
22
23 Consider the four-electron oxygen reduction reaction mechanism in acidic electrolytes,
24
25
26 O 2 + 4H + + 4e − → 2H 2 O (1)
27
28
29
At sufficient overpotentials in highly acidic solutions, this mechanism becomes rate-limited by
30
31 diffusion of oxygen to the catalyst surface due to the abundance of protons. The inverted
32
33 scenario in which ORR is proton diffusion limited occurs in a less acidic solution, with the
34
35
36 transition between these regimes near pH 3.0, where the concentration of protons is close to the
37
38 solubility of oxygen in aqueous electrolytes, of order 1 mM [9,10,12]. In a deaerated non-porous
39
40 electrode at a high overpotential, one expects a plateau in the reduction current that is associated
41
42
43 with diffusion-limited proton transport. This effect has recently been studied in detail by
44
45 Auinger et al. [13,14]. They see reactions that either consume or produce protons or hydroxide
46
47 can demonstrate drastic changes of interfacial pH, particularly at moderate pH values between
48
49
50 4.0 and 10.0. This was determined via mathematical modelling of the Nernst-Planck Equation
51
52 incorporating a generalized term for the reaction rate for HER/HOR to address the
53
54
55
consumption/production of a species at the interface.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
One expects more complex behavior with nanoporous electrodes in electrolytes saturated
4
5
6 with oxygen, where there are several possible reactions, as well as multiple species for which to
7
8 account. In particular, while mechanism (1) is expected to be facile, protons in the pores of the
9
10
11
catalyst will become rapidly depleted, slowing both HER and ORR. Another possible reduction
12
13 pathway for molecular oxygen produces hydrogen peroxide, but this reaction is not catalyzed by
14
15 Pt surfaces [15–17] nor Pt3Ni alloys[18]; in fact, np-NiPt is more catalytically active towards the
16
17
18 disproportionation of H2O2 than its planar counterpart, analogously to planar versus np-Au [19].
19
20
21 Given these considerations, if proton concentrations are sufficiently depleted within the pores
22
23 of the nanoporous electrode, our expectation is that oxygen will be reduced via the aprotic
24
25 oxygen reduction mechanism,
26
27
28
29 O 2 + 2H 2 O + 4e − → 4OH − . (2)
30
31
32
33 The standard electrode potential for this reaction is +0.4 V vs. RHE, but it has been observed
34
35 primarily in alkaline solutions where it does not compete with either HER or the traditional
36
37
38
proton-consuming ORR mechanism shown in Eq. (1) [20,21]. Using a nanoporous electrode in
39
40 an oxygen-saturated and intermediate pH electrolyte, predicting catalytic selectivity rapidly
41
42 becomes complex. There is the possibility of different reactions dominating at the outer surface
43
44
45 of the catalytic layer and within the pores due to steep concentration gradients for all reactants, in
46
47 addition to relatively slow diffusion kinetics through the pores. In this study, we attempt to
48
49 elucidate the catalytic activity of np-NiPt toward the ORR in this regime, presenting this as a
50
51
52 model system of a more general electroreduction scheme in aqueous media with a nanoporous
53
54 metal catalyst possessing tunable selectivity.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Experimental Methods
4
5
6
7
High surface area catalysts. Nanoporous NiPt electrodes were formed through
8
9 electrochemical dealloying as previously described [9,10]. In summary, a precursor alloy with a
10
11 composition of 77 at.% Ni / 23 at.% Pt is machined into a 5 mm disk suitable for use in a Pine
12
13
14 Instruments Rotating Disk Electrode (RDE), and then polished and annealed under argon. The
15
16 electrode surface is dealloyed to a specified depth in the RDE by repeated cycling of the
17
18 potential from 0.0 – 1.2 V versus RHE in 0.1 M sulfuric acid (J.T. Baker, 95-98%). The resulting
19
20
21 np-NiPt catalyst disk contains ligaments 3-5 nm in diameter. Cyclic voltammetry of the
22
23 electrode (Figure 1) in indicative of an outer surface layer comprised of Pt, whereas energy
24
25 dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDAX) indicates that the average bulk composition contains 25
26
27
28 at.% residual Ni. The depth of dealloying was measured using hydrogen under potential
29
30 deposition (HUPD) to determine the effective surface area, which was then normalized by the
31
32
33 geometric surface area. Except when specified otherwise, the roughness factor R f , was
34
35 approximately 150 in all the experiments reported in this manuscript.
36
37
38 All of the ORR measurements, some of which lasted for days, did not change the cyclic
39
40
41 voltammetry, or lead to further dealloying. As a note, the catalyst surface was physically
42
43 unchanged throughout the experiments in either electrolyte solution. Figure 1 shows a
44
45
representative cyclic voltammogram of the np-NiPt surface before and after performing an
46
47
48 extended ORR experiment with no significant differences.
49
50
51
52
53
54 Chemicals. Solutions of 0.1 M sodium sulfate (Sigma Aldrich, ACS reagent ≥ 99.0%,
55
56 anhydrous) were buffered to the appropriate pH with 0.1 M sulfuric acid and 0.1 M sodium
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
hydroxide (Fisher Scientific, 98.7%), measured with a Mettler-Toledo SevenExcellence pH
4
5
6 meter. Solutions of 0.1 M potassium perchlorate (Acros Organics, 99+%) were buffered in a
7
8 similar manner using 0.1 M perchloric acid (Sigma Aldrich, 70%) and 0.1 M potassium
9
10
11
hydroxide (Fisher Scientific, Certified ACS). Electrolytes were prepared with Millipore Milli-Q
12
13 water. Glassware was cleaned by soaking in a solution of NoChromix (Godax Laboratories, Inc.)
14
15 and concentrated sulfuric acid overnight.
16
17
18 Electrochemical measurements. Oxygen reduction activity was measured using a Gamry
19
20
21 Interface 1000 Potentiostat and a Pine Instruments Rotating Disk apparatus. All measurements
22
23 were made potentiostatically in which data points were taken every 50 mV by holding the
24
25 samples at a fixed potential and then recording the steady state current, starting at more positive
26
27
28 potentials and stepping negatively. A mercurous sulfate reference electrode (Hach Company)
29
30 was used for all measurements, with potential scaled to the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE)
31
32
33
to account for differences in pH among solutions.
34
35
36 A Pine Instruments Rotating Ring Disk Assembly with platinum ring insert (99.99%) was
37
38 used for all rotating rink disk electrode (RRDE) measurements. The Pt ring electrode was
39
40 generally fixed at 1.1 V vs RHE, where the oxidation of hydrogen is diffusion limited, but any
41
42
43 oxygen in the electrolyte will not readily reduce.
44
45
46
47
48
49 Results and Discussion
50
51
52 We first compare catalysis behavior in deaerated and oxygen-saturated solutions to identify
53
54 currents associated with HER and ORR. Figure 2 shows potentiostatic (steady-state) HER and
55
56
57
ORR currents using np-NiPt electrocatalysts in buffered sulfate solutions. For deaerated
58
59
60
1
2
3
electrolytes, the high proton concentration results in rapid hydrogen evolution below 0.0 V vs
4
5
6 RHE at pH 1. As the pH is increased, HER becomes limited by the rate of protons reaching the
7
8 catalyst surface, resulting in plateaus of current density below 0.0 V, with HER remaining the
9
10
11
dominant reaction. The magnitude of this proton flux-limited current density decreases with the
12
13 proton concentration in solution, consistent with results seen by Strmcnik et al. for strictly
14
15 diffusion limited currents [22].
16
17
18 The ORR currents are measured using the same parameters, but now in an oxygen saturated
19
20
21 solution. Using a Pt microdisk protocol to determine the oxygen solubility, Snyder et al. [9]
22
23 found these electrolytes to have an oxygen solubility of nearly 1 mM. Assuming this value is
24
25 comparable to the dilute electrolytes used here, a pH 3.0 solution will have the proton and
26
27
28 oxygen concentrations nearly equal. Above pH 3.0, the oxygen flux is no longer the limiting
29
30 species, rather the proton flux determines the reaction rate. It becomes evident from Figure 2 that
31
32
33
the current densities for HER and ORR are equal in these higher pH solutions, because under
34
35 proton diffusion control, mechanism (1) is rate limited by the 1-electron reduction of a proton.
36
37 The general limiting current density ilim in an RDE experiment is given by the Levich equation
38
39
40
41 ilim = (0.620) nFD 2 3ω 1 2ν −1 6C (3)
42
43
44 where ω is the rotation rate of the electrode (radians/s), ν is the kinematic viscosity of the
45
46
47 solution, F is Faraday’s constant, D , C are the diffusion coefficient and concentration of
48
49 species limiting the reaction, and n is the number of electrons transferred to the rate-limiting
50
51 species. After performing these measurements in a deaerated solution at potentials suitable for
52
53
54 HER at several rotation rates, we are able to determine the effective diffusion coefficient, D , for
55
56 protons in a moderate pH solution: for a pH 4.0 solution of 0.1 M sodium sulfate, DH + is equal
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 to 3.65x10 −4 cm2/s. This is similar to literature values of 2.13x10-5 cm2/s for proton diffusion in
5
6 pure water, measured by Simpson and Carr [23] using nuclear magnetic resonance free precision
7
8 techniques. Using the calculated diffusion coefficient to analyze currents measured during ORR
9
10
11 in the same pH solutions (but at positive potentials of 0.6 V; see Figure 4), Levich analysis is
12
13 consistent with one electron transfer for the diffusion limited reactant. This confirms that both
14
15
rates are controlled by the diffusion of protons.
16
17
18
19
Given the facility with which np-NiPt catalyzes HER, it is surprising that when examining
20
21 potentiostatic ORR currents at moderate pH (pH 4.0) over np-NiPt we observed that ORR
22
23 remains active via the proton diffusion limited acidic mechanism to potentials as low as -0.4 mV
24
25
26 vs. RHE, as shown in Figure 3. No hydrogen evolution was observed as bubbles during the
27
28 course of the experiment, nor was any hydrogen produced that could be detected via hydrogen
29
30 oxidation in a rotating ring-disk electrode (RRDE) measurement (Figure 3); in contrast,
31
32
33 hydrogen readily evolves in the corresponding experiment in deaerated solution. These are
34
35 potentiostatic experiments, wherein current for each potential was measured after a suitable time
36
37 for the current density to reach steady state. In this case some initial hydrogen evolution may
38
39
40 occur in the transient regime, but it is fully suppressed once the current reaches a steady-state
41
42 value.
43
44
45 Close examination of the disk current densities shown in Figure 3 reveals there is a shift in
46
47
48
the onset potential for water reduction between the deaerated and oxygen saturated solutions
49
50 occurring near -0.5 V. When oxygen is being reduced, there is a shift of 80 mV in this onset
51
52 relative to the deaerated control, corresponding to a shift in pH relative to RHE from 4.0 to 5.3.
53
54
55 This alludes to some formation of hydroxide in the transient behavior that leads to a variation in
56
57 the interface pH, a point we will return to later in this discussion.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Sodium sulfate acts as a buffer to minimize pH variations in the electrolyte, so to study
4
5
6 whether buffering effects contribute to the suppression of hydrogen evolution we compared the
7
8 ORR results to experiments performed with a perchlorate-based electrolyte, which is much more
9
10
11
weakly buffered. In perchlorate-based solution with pH 4.0, significantly different ORR behavior
12
13 was observed compared to the corresponding experiment in sulfate solution, as shown in Figure
14
15 4. At low overpotentials (from 0.6 – 0.9 V), both electrolytes promote proton diffusion limited
16
17
18 ORR (n = 1) via mechanism (1). Small variations in pH may contribute to the slight
19
20 discrepancies in current densities between 0.5 and 1.0 V, but they are primarily caused by
21
22 different effective diffusivities of protons in buffered vs non-buffered electrolytes. Using the
23
24
25 same protocol as described previously to calculate an effective DH + in sulfate-based electrolytes,
26
27
28 we determined DH + of perchlorate-based solutions to be 1.43x10−4 cm2/s at pH 4.0, less than half
29
30
of that in sulfate solutions.
31
32
33
34
At high overpotentials, the different electrolytes showed very different behavior.
35
36 Specifically, np-NiPt in perchlorate clearly exhibits a mechanism limited by 4-electron reduction
37
38 of oxygen, as confirmed by the Levich equation, Eq. (3). Using values of C and D for the oxygen
39
40
41 solubility and diffusivity in 0.1 M HClO4 from Ref [9], the calculated number of electrons
42
43 transferred (n) is about n ~ 4. This result implies that the ORR is no longer limited by the
44
45 diffusion of protons to the catalyst, but since the solution concentration of protons remains
46
47
48 relatively unchanged, mechanism (1) can no longer explain the current density observed. We
49
50 conclude that the perchlorate-based solution appears to strongly favor the proton-free oxygen
51
52
reduction mechanism, Eq. (2), while in sulfate-based media this mechanism is not observed in
53
54
55 steady-state measurements. This mechanistic change indicates that while activity is a property
56
57 largely dictated by the catalyst, the matters of selectivity and product formation are influenced by
58
59
60
1
2
3
electrolyte choice. In fact, in this extreme case there appears to be a total shift from one reaction
4
5
6 to another caused exclusively by the electrolyte.
7
8
9 This is not to say mechanism 2 (proton free ORR) is never present in sulfate electrolytes; the
10
11
12 increased shift in local pH gathered from Figure 3 illustrates the formation of hydroxide is likely
13
14 in order to change the surface pH. However, by the time steady state current values are achieved,
15
16
the proton free mechanism (2) is effectively switched off in the sulfate-buffered solutions, while
17
18
19 becoming dominant in the perchlorate-based solutions. To further understand the ORR
20
21 differences in strongly and weakly buffered electrolytes, it is necessary to address not only the
22
23
24 steady-state results, but also the time-dependent evolution of the system to such an equilibrium.
25
26 At short times, perchlorate and sulfate solutions appear to have identical behaviors, but it is clear
27
28 from the potentiostatic measurements that the two electrolytes behave differently when the
29
30
31 potential is held over a longer time period. The perchlorate-based system reaches steady state
32
33 quite quickly with a simple exponential-type decay across the entire potential range which is
34
35 associated with simple double layer charging, as shown in Figure 5 with the measured current
36
37
38 plotted versus time. In sulfate solution, the decay behavior is the same over the range where the
39
40 ORR is dominated by the proton consuming mechanism (above 0.6 V vs RHE), but in the range
41
42
43
where ORR shifts reaction mechanism in the perchlorate solutions to a 4-electron reduction
44
45 (below 0.6 V vs RHE), there is a longer transient in sulfate solutions that cannot be explained by
46
47 double layer charging, with the current decaying slowly back to the proton-limited ORR current
48
49
50 between several potential steps and over the course of more than an hour before reaching the
51
52 final steady state behavior. Thus, when sufficient time is allowed for the transient currents to
53
54 dissipate, the result is the same as shown in Figure 3 – proton diffusion limited reduction of
55
56
57 oxygen suppressing hydrogen evolution at large overpotentials.
58
59
60
1
2
3
The onset of the transient period in sulfate matches the potential where the proton-free ORR
4
5
6 mechanism becomes operational, but we see no evidence of this mechanism at steady state,
7
8 suggesting that the transient current is associated with self-limiting hydroxide-evolving ORR.
9
10
11
The transient formation of hydroxide should drive a pH increase at the catalyst/electrolyte
12
13 interface, and in sulfate we indeed see a shift in the onset for water reduction associated with a
14
15 moderate rise in interface pH, as discussed above. Such a shift is not seen in the unbuffered
16
17
18 perchlorate solution, where although proton transport is slower relatively, we expect the solution
19
20 cannot sustain steep pH gradients. We do not think, however, that interface basification alone
21
22 causes the difference in reaction mechanism. In fact, we would expect mechanism (2) to operate
23
24
25 more robustly in a buffered solution, such as sulfate where such local pH changes are mitigated,
26
27 rather than in an unbuffered solution like perchlorate. Since in reality the opposite behavior is
28
29
observed, it suggests the proton-free ORR mechanism (2) is limited kinetically in sulfate-based
30
31
32 media rather than strictly due to a solution buffering effect. The long duration of the transient
33
34 could be associated with the porous nature of the catalyst providing a large surface area that
35
36
37 requires passivation before the mechanistic change takes place.
38
39
40 In support of the hypothesis that some passivation of the high surface area is necessary to
41
42
43
switch mechanisms, the transient behavior shown in Figure 5 was observed only the first time a
44
45 long-duration ORR experiment was run on the catalyst, with subsequent runs displaying a much
46
47 shorter transient period, as shown in Figure 6. Operating the same catalyst in a strongly acidic
48
49
50 electrolyte where the reaction is diffusion-limited by oxygen rather than protons can mitigate this
51
52 behavior. After this “recovery” protocol, the transient behavior returned to that originally
53
54 observed when the same catalyst was transferred back to mildly acidic sulfate solution, behaving
55
56
57 as a new sample would for 2-3 cycles before reaching true steady state behavior. This suggests
58
59
60
1
2
3
an additional control of the selectivity of the catalyst, as well as reversibility. At these high
4
5
6 overpotentials with the electrocatalyst surface at such negative potentials, there likely no anion
7
8 adsorption. Therefore, our results point to a hypothesis that, depending on the electrolyte, the
9
10
11
surface structure of np-NiPt might be modified. Such subtle surface modifications or
12
13 reconstructions have been seen in other catalytic dealloyed metals, such as a faceting transition
14
15 seen in nanoporous gold in a carbon monoxide reactant stream [24], but to our knowledge has
16
17
18 not been seen in np-NiPt and warrants further investigation.
19
20
21 Conclusions
22
23
24
25 This work presents an unusual application of nanoporous electrocatalysts. While porous
26
27 catalysts have been shown to have high activity for a variety of reactions similar to other metal-
28
29
30
based electrocatalysts, the porosity itself has not been explicitly utilized. Through careful control
31
32 of diffusion rates to the catalytic surface, oxygen reduction can be driven in place of hydrogen
33
34 evolution in a potential regime where HER usually dominates, and on a catalyst that is also be
35
36
37 highly active for HER. Furthermore, by changing the electrolyte solution the dominant reaction
38
39 can be changed, in our case, from the acidic or alkaline mechanism for ORR. The transient
40
41 behavior observed provides another interesting potential application, because the duration of the
42
43
44 transient combined with the ability to recondition the catalyst means that reactions which occur
45
46 only transiently could be performed with acceptable efficiency by cycling the electrolyte
47
48
environment of the catalyst.
49
50
51
52 This collection of results opens the door for a new generation of multifunctional
53
54 electrocatalysts where multiple reactions can be performed with high selectivity and excellent
55
56
57 catalytic activity over the same catalyst surface. The strategy here is not specific to nanoporous
58
59
60
1
2
3
NiPt, as many different nanoporous metals can be made from a wide variety of constituents to
4
5
6 selectively target particular reactions. Reactions could be cycled or performed alternately in the
7
8 same electrochemical system and even at the same potential by controlling the electrolyte
9
10
11
environment, the fluxes of reactant species to the interface and taking full advantage of the
12
13 porous nature of the catalyst material. Our strategy might be particularly effective for
14
15 electrochemical CO2 reduction, for which hydrogen evolution competing with the
16
17
18 electroreduction is endemic.
19
20
21
22
23 Acknowledgements
24
25 This work is supported by US Department of Energy under grant DE-SC0008686. Special
26
27
28 thanks to I.M. for his superior knowledge of color schemes and endless figure critiques.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
References
4
5
6
(1) Erlebacher, J.; Aziz, M. J.; Karma, a; Dimitrov, N.; Sieradzki, K. Nature 2001, 410
7 (6827), 450.
8
9
(2) Mccue, I.; Benn, E.; Gaskey, B.; Erlebacher, J. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2016, 46, 1.
10 (3) Greeley, J.; Stephens, I. E. L.; Bondarenko, a S.; Johansson, T. P.; Hansen, H. a;
11
12 Jaramillo, T. F.; Rossmeisl, J.; Chorkendorff, I.; Nørskov, J. K. Nat. Chem. 2009, 1 (7),
13 552.
14
15 (4) Xin, H.; Holewinski, A.; Linic, S. ACS Catal. 2012, 2 (1), 12.
16
17
(5) Nørskov, J. K.; Rossmeisl, J.; Logadottir, A.; Lindqvist, L.; Kitchin, J. R.; Bligaard, T.;
18 Jónsson, H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108 (46), 17886.
19
20
(6) Stamenkovic, V. R.; Fowler, B.; Mun, B. S.; Wang, G.; Ross, P. N.; Lucas, C. A.;
21 Marković, N. M. Science 2007, 315 (5811), 493.
22
23 (7) Stephens, I. E. L.; Bondarenko, A. S.; Perez-Alonso, F. J.; Calle-Vallejo, F.; Bech, L.;
24 Johansson, T. P.; Jepsen, A. K.; Frydendal, R.; Knudsen, B. P.; Rossmeisl, J.;
25 Chorkendorff, I. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133 (14), 5485.
26
27 (8) Koh, S.; Strasser, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129 (42), 12624.
28
29 (9) Snyder, J.; Fujita, T.; Chen, M. W.; Erlebacher, J. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9 (11), 904.
30
31 (10) Benn, E.; Uvegi, H.; Erlebacher, J. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2015, 162 (10), H759.
32
(11) Chen, C.; Kang, Y.; Huo, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Huang, W.; Xin, H. L.; Snyder, J. D.; Li, D.;
33
34 Herron, J. a; Mavrikakis, M.; Chi, M.; More, K. L.; Li, Y.; Markovic, N. M.; Somorjai, G.
35 a; Yang, P.; Stamenkovic, V. R. Science 2014, 343 (6177), 1339.
36
37 (12) Battino, R.; Rettich, T. R.; Tominaga, T. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1983, 12 (2), 163.
38
39
(13) Auinger, M.; Katsounaros, I.; Meier, J. C.; Klemm, S. O.; Biedermann, P. U.; Topalov, A.
40 a; Rohwerder, M.; Mayrhofer, K. J. J. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13 (36), 16384.
41
42 (14) Katsounaros, I.; Meier, J. C.; Klemm, S. O.; Topalov, A. A.; Biedermann, P. U.; Auinger,
43 M.; Mayrhofer, K. J. J. Electrochem. commun. 2011, 13 (6), 634.
44
45 (15) Damjanovic, a.; Brusic, V. Electrochim. Acta 1967, 12 (6), 615.
46
47
(16) Nenad M. Markovic; Gasteiger, H. a.; Ross, P. N. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99 (11), 3411.
48 (17) Sepa, D. B.; Vojnovic, M. V.; Damjanovic, A. Electrochim. Acta 1981, 26 (6), 781.
49
50 (18) Ferreira De Morais, R.; Franco, A. A.; Sautet, P.; Lo, D. ACS Catal. 2016, 6 (9), 5641.
51
52 (19) Zeis, R.; Lei, T.; Sieradzki, K.; Snyder, J.; Erlebacher, J. J. Catal. 2008, 253 (1), 132.
53
54 (20) Gasteiger, H. a; Ross, P. N. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100 (16), 6715.
55
56 (21) Ramaswamy, N.; Mukerjee, S. Adv. Phys. Chem. 2012, 2012, 1.
57
58 (22) Strmcnik, D.; Uchimura, M.; Wang, C.; Subbaraman, R.; Danilovic, N.; van der Vliet, D.;
59
60
1
2
3
Paulikas, A. P.; Stamenkovic, V. R.; Markovic, N. M. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5 (4), 300.
4
5 (23) Simpson, J. H.; Carr, H. Y. Phys. Rev. 1958, 111 (5), 1201.
6
7 (24) Fujita, T.; Guan, P.; McKenna, K.; Lang, X.; Hirata, A.; Zhang, L.; Tokunaga, T.; Arai,
8 S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Tanaka, N.; Ishikawa, Y.; Asao, N.; Yamamoto, Y.; Erlebacher, J.;
9
10
Chen, M. Nat. Mater. 2012, 11 (9), 775.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
For Table of Contents Only
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Figure 1. Cyclic voltammograms of np-NiPt before (black) and after (blue) ORR measurements in 0.1 M
31 H2SO4 using a sweep rate of 5 mV/s. (Approximately 72 hours of measurement).
32 231x156mm (150 x 150 DPI)
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Figure 2. Differences in steady-state ORR and HER current densities as they vary with pH. (solid
41 circles): HER current density versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) potential in N2 saturated 0.1
42 M Na2SO4 electrolyte; (hollow circles) ORR current density versus RHE in O2 saturated 0.1 M Na2SO4
43 electrolyte. All data were taken at 1600 rpm, sweeping from positive to negative potentials. (dashed lines)
44 proton-diffusion limited current densities for pH 3.5, 4.0, and 5.0.
45
46 228x230mm (150 x 150 DPI)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Figure 3. Potentiostatic ORR current densities and simultaneous ring current densities in 0.1 M Na2SO4
33 electrolytes at pH 4.0, in deaerated (N2 saturated) and O2 saturated conditions at 1600 rpm versus the disk
34 potential. The Pt ring was held at a potential of 1.1 V vs RHE, while the np-NiPt disk was stepped the
35 negatively in potential with 16 min step holds at each potential until the current reached a steady
36 state. Note the rise in ring current below 0.0 V vs. RHE in deaerated electrolyte, indicating HOR at the ring,
37 and that this is not observed in oxygen-saturated electrolyte. Note also the shift in the onset of water
38 reduction in oxygen-saturated electrolyte compared to oxygen-saturated electrolyte.
39
695x526mm (150 x 150 DPI)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 4. Comparison of electrolyte effects on ORR behavior at steady state in buffered pH 4 electrolytes (a).
46 Below in (b) and (c) are Levich plots and calculated number of electrons transferred for each electrolyte at
47 the potential ranges as marked in (a). By varying rotation rate and substituting known values for the
48 diffusion coefficient and concentration of the limiting species, the number of electrons transferred, n, is
49 calculated to determine the reaction mechanism for oxygen reduction dominating for each potential regime,
50 dependent on the electrolyte employed.
51
512x593mm (150 x 150 DPI)
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 5. Potentiostatic ORR current densities in buffered 0.1 M Na2SO4 (green) and buffered 0.1 M KClO4
41 (purple) electrolytes to pH 4.0 at 1600 rpm versus time. Shown in black is the potential versus the
42 reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) applied for at each time. Note, the final time step corresponds to a
potential near 0.3 V vs RHE that was held for an extended time. This was done so as to ensure no
43
complications associated with the competing HER below 0.0 V.
44
45 406x403mm (150 x 150 DPI)
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Figure 6. Transient behavior of oxygen reduction current vs. potential. When ORR is measured initially in 0.1
31 M Na2SO4 electrolytes, there is a significant transient measured beginning near 0.5 V vs RHE, resulting in
an apparent current wave seen until the potential drops below 0.0 V. After multiple sweeps, this transient
32 becomes less severe and recovers to steady state much more rapidly (dashed line); eventually, this
33 behavior is not seen at all (as in Figure 2). After holding the np-NiPt in a highly acidic 0.1 M H2SO4 solution
34 at 0.25 V vs RHE for several hours, the original behavior can be recovered after this “recovery” step as
35 shown with the dotted line.
36
37 677x456mm (150 x 150 DPI)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Jacs 6b10855

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Jacs 6b10855

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacs 6b10855

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia

Journal of the American Chemical Society is published by the American Chemical

You might also like