Formic Acid Oxidation on Composite Catalysts Made of Pt/C or Pd/C Impregnated with Phthalocyanines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oxidation of formic acid at the surface of two families of composite catalysts, Pd/C–Pc and Pt/C–Pc, where Pc represents a phthalocyanine ( –, Mn–, Fe–, Co–, Ni–, or CuPc), was studied in 10 mM HCOOH in 0.1 M electrolyte and in a fuel cell with 10 M HCOOH. For Pd/C–Pc catalysts; the impregnation of Pc onto Pd/C only resulted in lower mass activities compared to Pd/C alone. For Pt/C–Pc catalysts, the impregnation of CoPc, MnPc, or FePc onto Pt/C strongly enhanced the activity of the composite catalyst for formic acid oxidation at low potential ( vs reference hydrogen electrode) compared to Pt/C, whereas , NiPc, and CuPc had no influence. The most beneficial effect of Pc impregnation was obtained with CoPc impregnation onto Pt/C. Fuel cell testing was performed for Pd/C, Pd/C–CoPc, Pt/C, Pt/C–CoPc, and Pt–Ru/C. Similar with the results obtained in the solution, the best performing catalyst in fuel cell was Pd/C followed by Pd/C–CoPc, Pt/C–CoPc, Pt–Ru/C, and finally Pt/C. However, only Pt/C–CoPc and Pt–Ru/C were stable in fuel cell testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".