Application of Hydrogenated Graphitic Supports in Electrocatalysts: Effects on Carbon Support Surface Chemistry, Nanoparticle Growth, and Electrocatalytic Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key technical challenges before the widespread adoption of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) is increasing the durability of the platinum catalyst layer to meet a target of 8000 operating hours with only a 10% loss of performance. Carbon corrosion, one of the primary mechanisms of degradation in fuel cells, has attracted attention from researchers interested in solving the durability problem. As such, the development of catalyst supports to avoid this issue has been a focus in recent years, with interest in hydrophobic supports such as highly graphitized carbons. In this research, we propose a method to increase the durability of carbon supports by way of exploiting hydrogenated graphene’s hydrophobic properties. By performing a Birch reduction on graphene nanoplatelets, we were able to synthesize hydrogenated graphene nanoplatelets which were used as support for hollow porous PtNi nanoparticles. The structure of these nanoparticle–carbon composites was characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy dispersive spectroscopy coupled with scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM-EDS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), Raman spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). We found that hydrogenation can strongly affect the morphology of nanoparticles formed as well as increase the electrochemical stability of the composites. Accelerated stress tests for 6000 cycles between 1.0 and 1.6 V vs RHE at 25 °C demonstrated that a hydrogenated support for PtNi increased the retained electrochemical surface from 36.8% to 61.9% when compared to the pristine graphene nanoplatelets. Moreover, the retained activity was increased from 26.6% to 53.0% by use of the hydrogenated carbon support. To confirm that hydrogenation enhanced durability, stress tests combined with Raman spectroscopy showed minimal change in the I D / I G ratio of the hydrogenated composite. Finally, identical location transmission electron microscopy (IL-TEM) was used to support the results of the electrochemical stress tests.
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 | 0.000 | 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".