Free-Standing Single-Atom Catalyst-Based Electrodes for CO2 Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrochemical CO 2 reduction technology could solve the CO 2 -induced climate warming by electrochemically converting atmospheric CO 2 back into fuel, essentially recycling it and building a low carbon emission economy. However, the electrochemical CO 2 reduction reaction (CO 2 RR) poses a significant challenge due to the highly stable and linear CO 2 molecules, in addition to a proton-coupled multi-electron transfer process. Thus, highly active catalysts, placed on activity bolstering materials, and permeable electrodes are crucial for CO 2 RR. Single-atom catalysts (SACs) have recently garnered increasing interest in the electrocatalysis community due to their potentially high mass efficiency and cost benefits (every atom is an active center, resulting in nearly 100% utilization) and adjustable selectivity (higher uniformity of the active sites compared to nanoparticles). However, preserving the accessibility and activity of the SACs inside the electrode poses major materials development and electrode design challenges. A conventional layered structure SAC electrode typically consists of a gas diffusion layer (GDL), a microporous layer (MPL) and a SAC catalyst layer (SACCL), fabricated by using a powder bonding process. However, this process usually encounters issues such as delamination and instability of SACs due to the weak binder-catalyst-support interface. Conversely, the free-standing SAC electrode design has the potential to overcome these issues by eliminating the GDL, MPL, and need of a binder, in contrast to the powder bonding process. This work first reviews the latest developments in experimental and modeling studies of powdered SAC electrode by the traditional powder bonding process. Next, it examines the development towards the free-standing SAC electrode for high-performance electrochemical reduction of CO 2 . The synthesis-structure-fabrication-performance relationships of SAC-based materials and associated electrodes are analyzed. Furthermore, the article presents future challenges and perspectives for high-performance SAC electrodes for CO 2 RR. 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".