Novel Dithiolene Nickel Complex Catalysts for Electrochemical Hydrogen Evolution Reaction for Hydrogen Production in Nonaqueous and Aqueous Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three molecular catalysts based on mononuclear nickel(II) complexes with square planar geometries, [BzPy]2[Ni(mnt)2] (1), [BzPy]2[Ni(i-mnt)2] (2), and [BzPy]2[Ni(tdas)2] (3) (BzPy = benzyl pyridinium) are synthesized by the reaction of NiCl2∙6H2O, [BzPy]Br, and Na2(mnt)/Na2(i-mnt)/Na2(tdas) (mnt = 1,2-dicyanoethylene-1,2-dithiolate for (1), i-mnt = 2,2-dicyanoethylene-1,1-dithiolate for (2), and tdas = 1,2,5-thiadiazole-3,4-dithiolate for (3)), respectively. The structures and compositions of these three catalysts are characterized by XRD, elemental analysis, FT-IR, and ESI-MS. The electrochemical properties and the corresponding catalytic activities of these three catalysts are studied by cyclic voltammetry. The controlled-potential electrolysis with gas chromatography analysis confirms the hydrogen production with a turnover frequency (TOF) of 116.89, 165.51, and 189.16 moles of H2per mole of catalyst per hour at a potential of − 0.99 V (versus SHE) in acetonitrile solutions containing the catalysts, respectively. In a neutral buffer solution, these three molecular catalysts exhibit a TOF of 411.85, 488.76, and 555.06 mol of H2per mole of catalyst per hour at a potential of − 0.49 V (versus SHE), respectively, indicating that Complex3constitutes the better active catalyst than Complexes1and2. For fundamental understanding, a catalytic HER mechanism is also proposed. Graphical abstract
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".