Iridium−Rhodium Nanoparticles for Ammonia Oxidation: Electrochemical and Fuel Cell Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study reports the use of carbon‐supported IrRh/C electrocatalysts with different iridium‐to‐rhodium atomic ratios (0 : 100, 50 : 50, 70 : 30, 90 : 10, and 100 : 0) for ammonia electro‐oxidation (AmER) in alkaline media. The materials prepared by using the sodium borohydride method showed a mean diameter of 4.5, 4.8, 4.2, and 4.5 nm for Ir/C, Ir90Rh10/C, Ir70Rh30/C, and Ir50Rh50/C, respectively. According to electrochemical and fuel cell experiments, the Ir50Rh50/C catalyst was the most promising towards AmER. This catalyst, which consisted predominantly of the metallic Ir/Rh phases, showed a 500 % higher current density and 55 % higher maximum power than that obtained for Ir/C. After 8 h galvanostatic electrolysis, 93 % of initial ammonia was degraded when using Ir50Rh50/C, whereas it was only 70 % with Ir/C. The high activity of the Ir50Rh50/C is attributed to a synergic effect of two metals at this iridium‐to‐rhodium ratio, which enhances the kinetics of AmER contributing towards ammonia dehydrogenation at lower potentials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".