MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622464296 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03601-3

Unique copper and reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite toward the efficient electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide

2017· article· en· W2622464296 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Nur Hossain, Jiali Wen, Aicheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGrapheneNanocompositeCopperOxideElectrochemistryCarbon dioxideMaterials scienceReduction (mathematics)Carbon fibersElectrochemical reduction of carbon dioxideCopper oxideChemical engineeringNanotechnologyInorganic chemistryChemistryElectrodeComposite materialMetallurgyComposite numberBiochemistryOrganic chemistryMathematicsCarbon monoxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The electrochemical reduction of CO 2 to useful chemicals and fuels has garnered a keen and broad interest. Herein, we report a unique nanocomposite consisting of Cu nanoparticles (NPs) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) supported on a Cu substrate with a high catalytic activity for CO 2 reduction. The nanocomposite was optimized in terms of the composition of Cu NPs and rGO as well as the overall amount. A gas chromatograph was employed to analyze the gaseous products, whereas a chemical oxygen demand (COD) method was proposed and utilized to quantify the overall liquid products. The optimized nanocomposite could effectively reduce CO 2 to CO, HCOOH and CH 4 with a Faradaic efficiency (FE) of 76.6% at −0.4 V (vs. RHE) in a CO 2 saturated NaHCO 3 solution. The remarkable catalytic activity, high FE, and excellent stability make this Cu-rGO nanocomposite promising for the electrochemical reduction of CO 2 to value-added products to address the pressing environmental and energy challenges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations89
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCO2 Reduction Techniques and CatalystsFrench-language works237,207