MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116979700 · doi:10.1149/ma2020-02372392mtgabs

Supported Transition Metal Phosphides: Activity Survey for HER, ORR, OER, and Corrosion Resistance in Acid and Alkaline Electrolytes

2020· article· en· W3116979700 on OpenAlexaff
Andrés Parra-Puerto, Kai Ling Ng, Kieran F. Fahy, Angela E. Goode, Mary P. Ryan, Anthony Kucernak

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsCatalysisChemistryElectrolyteElectrochemistryCorrosionInorganic chemistryHydrogen peroxideAlkaline fuel cellMetalElectrochemical energy conversionOxygen evolutionTransition metalOrganic chemistryElectrodePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main bottle necks for the introduction of fuel cell technology in the market, is their dependency on precious metals as catalyst. Focusing on the electrochemical reactions involved, the most sluggish is the Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR). Significant research has been performed to optimize for the amount of the precious metal used, whilst keeping the same activity. On the other hand, many investigations have been carried out to find non-precious metal catalysts with the same performance for ORR, Oxygen Evolution Reaction (OER), Hydrogen Evolution Reaction (HER) and Hydrogen Oxidation Reaction (HOR) [1]. One of those candidates are the metal phosphides [2], however, these catalysts nowadays only are active for ORR, HER, OER and they have very poor activity towards the HOR [3]. Here we present the work done related to the simple synthesis of different MP catalysts (M = Ni, Co, W, Cr and Mo) [4]; their catalytic activity towards H 2 and O 2 reactions; and their corrosion resistance in acidic and alkaline electrolytes. Co 2 P was found to have a very interesting ORR catalytic behaviour and peroxide generation under alkaline and acidic conditions respectively. To understand the activity of Co 2 P, an HRTEM analysis was done to understand the changes in the morphology before and after the ORR reaction. References [1] M. S. Faber and S. Jin, “Earth-abundant inorganic electrocatalysts and their nanostructures for energy conversion applications,” Energy Environ. Sci. , vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 3519–3542, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1039/C4EE01760A. [2] A.-M. Alexander et al. , “Alternative catalytic materials: carbides, nitrides, phosphides and amorphous boron alloys,” Chem. Soc. Rev. , vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 4388–4401, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1039/b916787k. [3] R. Prins and M. E. Bussell, “Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity,” Catal. Letters , vol. 142, no. 12, pp. 1413–1436, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7. [4] A. Parra-Puerto, K. L. Ng, K. Fahy, A. E. Goode, M. P. Ryan, and A. Kucernak, “Supported Transition Metal Phosphides: Activity Survey for HER, ORR, OER, and Corrosion Resistance in Acid and Alkaline Electrolytes,” ACS Catal. , vol. 9, pp. 11515–11529, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1021/acscatal.9b03359. Figure 1

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207