MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2311327908 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-01/13/609

On the Controversial Role of the Metal in Fe/N/C or Co/N/C Electrocatalysts for the Reduction of Oxygen in the Acidic Medium of PEM Fuel Cells

2014· article· en· W2311327908 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pol Dodelet

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellCatalysisPlatinumChemistryNoble metalElectrochemistryMetalInorganic chemistryOxygenElectrodeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proton-exchange membrane hydrogen/air (PEM) fuel cell constitutes an efficient and environmentally-harmless alternative to the gasoline-dependent technology used today for transportation. However, the replacement of platinum-based catalysts, used at their electrodes and accounting for a large fraction of the fuel cell stack cost, is one of their challenges to reach full commercialization. Today, Fe/N/C-catalysts and perhaps also Co/N/C-catalysts obtained from the pyrolysis of molecular precursors are the most promising non-platinum-group-metal (non-PGM) catalysts for the electrochemical reduction of oxygen (air) to water in an acidic medium such as that of PEM fuel cells. Despite decades of research on Fe- (or Co) -based electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR), the role of the metal is still one that raises a great deal of controversy. Consequently, the nature of the catalytic site in these non-noble metal ORR catalysts is still a topic of debate. One camp within the scientific community believes that the metal is an integral and electrochemically active part of the catalytic site, while the other believes that the metal is merely a chemical catalyst for the formation of special oxygen-reducing N-doped carbon structures. After presenting the case for the importance of non-noble catalysts at the cathode of PEM fuel cells, we will introduce the three models of active sites that were advocated during the 1980’s by van Veen, Yeager, and Wiesener, and discuss how they have evolved, especially that of Yeager. Wiesener’s model will be analyzed in detail through the work of several research groups that have been staunch supporters. It will be shown that all the active sites proposed by van Veen, Yeager and Wiesener in the 1980’s, while different, are in fact simultaneously present in Fe- (or Co)-based catalysts active for ORR in acidic medium, except that their activity and relative population in these catalysts is different, depending on the choice of the metal precursor, nitrogen precursor, structural properties of the carbon support and the synthesis procedure. A good knowledge of the nature and structure of the catalytic sites is important to further improve catalyst activity and site stability, especially for the Fe/N/C cathode catalysts that lead to the highest power densities reported to date for non-PGM-based catalysts able to reduce oxygen at meaningful cell voltages in PEM fuel cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→