Benchmarking Three Ruthenium Phosphide Phases for Electrocatalysis of the Hydrogen Evolution Reaction: Experimental and Theoretical Insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The outstanding electrocatalytic activity of ruthenium (Ru) phosphides toward the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) has received wide attention. However, the effect of the Ru phosphide phase on the HER performance remains unclear. Herein, a two‐step method was developed to synthesize nanoparticles of three types of Ru phosphides, namely, Ru 2 P, RuP, and RuP 2 , with similar morphology, dimensions, loading density, and electrochemical surface area on graphene nanosheets by simply controlling the dosage of phytic acid as P source. Electrochemical tests revealed that Ru 2 P/graphene shows the highest intrinsic HER activity, followed by RuP/graphene and RuP 2 /graphene. Ru 2 P/graphene affords a current density of 10 mA cm −2 at an overpotential of 18 mV in acid media. Theoretical calculations further showed that P‐deficient Ru 2 P has a lower free energy of hydrogen adsorption on the surface than other two, P‐rich Ru phosphides (RuP, RuP 2 ), which confirms the excellent intrinsic HER activity of Ru 2 P and is consistent with experiment results. The work reveals for the first time a clear trend of HER activity among three Ru phosphide phases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".