(Invited) Oxide-Encapsulated (Photo)Electrocatalysts for Solar Fuels Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encapsulating active electrocatalysts with permeable oxide overlayers offers additional “control knobs” for tuning electrocatalyst selectivity and/or activity in ways that are not possible with conventional electrocatalysts.[1] In particular, nanoscopic oxide overlayers can possess selective transport characteristics that allow them to behave as ultrathin membranes that can block impurities and undesirable reactants while still permitting desired reactants and products to pass between the bulk electrolyte and active sites at the overlayer/catalyst buried interface.[1,2] In this presentation, I will describe recent investigations of silicon and titanium oxide-encapsulated thin film electrodes that allow for quantification of species permeabilities and to establish general design principles that govern the structure-property-performance relationships for nanoscopic oxide overlayers. First, I will show how the porosity and chemical composition of silicon oxide overlayers can be systematically tuned to control the relative permeabilities of protons and molecular oxygen, both of which are of great importance for water splitting.[3] Next, the selective transport properties of these coatings are reported in the presence of redox mediator species that are of interest for photocatalytic H2 production from Z-scheme water splitting.[4] Both silicon and titanium oxide overlayers are shown to be capable of selectively facilitating the desirable oxygen and hydrogen evolution reactions with selectivities of > 80% in the presence of a reversible redox mediator. Importantly, this work highlights the ability of ultrathin oxide overlayers to dramatically alter reaction selectivities, and presents design rules for overlayers that can be extended to many other (photo)electrocatalytic materials and reactions of interest to the solar fuels community. References [1] D.V. Esposito, ACS Catalysis, 2018, vol. 8, 457–465. [2] N. Y. Labrador, et al. , ACS Catalysis, 2018, vol. 8, 1767–1778. [3] M.E. Beatty, et al., ACS Applied Energy Materials, (Articles ASAP), doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.0c02359 [4] Bala Chadran, et al., Energy & Environmental Science, 2018. vol. 1, 115-135
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".