Zn‐Based Oxides Anchored to Nitrogen‐Doped Carbon Nanotubes as Efficient Bifunctional Catalysts for Zn‐Air Batteries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Zn−Co oxide (ZnCoO x ), Zn−Mn oxide (ZnMnO x ), Zn−Mn−Co oxide (ZMCO), and Zn−Co−Fe oxide (ZCFO) nanoparticles were successfully synthesized on nitrogen‐doped carbon nanotubes in a one‐pot process. Porous carbon paper was simultaneously impregnated with the catalysts during synthesis and used as air electrodes for Zn‐air batteries. ZnMnO x /N‐CNT catalysts had the best ORR performance in half‐cell LSV experiments with a more positive onset potential than that of Pt−Ru/C (−0.067 V and −0.078 V vs Hg/HgO, respectively). ZCFO/N‐CNT catalysts had the best activity towards OER among the Zn‐based oxide catalysts in half‐cell linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) testing with an onset potential of 0.62 V vs Hg/HgO. Round‐trip efficiencies from battery rate tests at a current density of 20 mA cm −2 were 55.3 %, 57.5 %, 58.7 %, and 58.3 % for ZnCoO x /N‐CNT, ZnMnO x /N‐CNT, ZMCO/N‐CNT, and ZCFO/N‐CNT, respectively. Bifunctional cycling of the catalysts was done in a homemade Zn‐air battery at a current density of 10 mA cm −2 for 200 cycles. The final round trip efficiencies for ZnCoO x /N‐CNT, ZnMnO x /N‐CNT, ZMCO/N‐CNT, and ZCFO/N‐CNT were 55.8 %, 56.6 %, 54.2 %, and 55.0 %, respectively. All catalysts except ZCFO/N‐CNT compared favorably with Pt−Ru/C in terms of round‐trip efficiency after cycling (55.3 %). Incorporation of Zn into the metal oxide particles showed improved catalytic activity for ZnCoO x /N‐CNT and ZnMnO x /N‐CNT compared with MnO x /N‐CNT and CoO x /N‐CNT catalysts prepared via the same technique.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it