MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944826525 · doi:10.1002/adma.201807166

Electrochemical CO<sub>2</sub> Reduction into Chemical Feedstocks: From Mechanistic Electrocatalysis Models to System Design

2019· review· en· W2944826525 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Golam Kibria, Jonathan P. Edwards, Christine M. Gabardo, Cao‐Thang Dinh, Ali Seifitokaldani, David Sinton, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Calgary
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesGovernment of OntarioNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsElectrocatalystMaterials scienceElectrochemistryReduction (mathematics)NanotechnologyChemical reductionElectrodePhysical chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The electrochemical reduction of CO 2 is a promising route to convert intermittent renewable energy to storable fuels and valuable chemical feedstocks. To scale this technology for industrial implementation, a deepened understanding of how the CO 2 reduction reaction (CO 2 RR) proceeds will help converge on optimal operating parameters. Here, a techno‐economic analysis is presented with the goal of identifying maximally profitable products and the performance targets that must be met to ensure economic viability—metrics that include current density, Faradaic efficiency, energy efficiency, and stability. The latest computational understanding of the CO 2 RR is discussed along with how this can contribute to the rational design of efficient, selective, and stable electrocatalysts. Catalyst materials are classified according to their selectivity for products of interest and their potential to achieve performance targets is assessed. The recent progress and opportunities in system design for CO 2 electroreduction are described. To conclude, the remaining technological challenges are highlighted, suggesting full‐cell energy efficiency as a guiding performance metric for industrial impact.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,297
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicCO2 Reduction Techniques and CatalystsFrench-language works237,207