| Literature DB >> 31243269 |
Zi-You Yu1, Yu Duan1, Jian-Dang Liu2, Yu Chen1, Xiao-Kang Liu3, Wei Liu3, Tao Ma1, Yi Li1, Xu-Sheng Zheng3, Tao Yao3, Min-Rui Gao4, Jun-Fa Zhu3, Bang-Jiao Ye2, Shu-Hong Yu5,6.
Abstract
The incorporation of deEntities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31243269 PMCID: PMC6595008 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-10698-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of the preparation of VCN-mediated Ni–Fe PBA. Top: VCN forms in Ni–Fe PBA material through N2 plasma bombardment. Bottom: a full diagram of the N2 plasma apparatus
Fig. 2Characterization of VCN-mediated Ni–Fe PBA. a TEM image of PBA-60. Scale bar, 100 nm. Inset shows the corresponding selected-area electron diffraction pattern. Scale bar, 2 nm−1. b HRTEM image of PBA-60. Scale bar, 1 nm. Inset shows the atomic intensity profile along the dotted red line in b. c HAADF image of a typical PBA-60 nanorod. Scale bar, 50 nm. Inset shows the corresponding STEM elemental mappings. Scale bar, 100 nm. d PAS analysis of PBA-0 and PBA-60. e, f Schematic representation of the trapped positrons by VCN-mediated PBA-60
Fig. 3OER evaluation. a OER polarization curves of different studied catalysts. Catalyst loading: ~0.255 mg cm−2. Sweep rate: 5 mV s−1. b Tafel plots of different catalysts derived from polarization curves shown in Supplementary Fig. 13. Tafel plot of NiFe–LDH derived from the polarization curve of the cathodic sweep to avoid the interference of the redox peak. c Comparison of the current densities generated on different catalysts at overpotentials of 300 mV, 320 mV, and 340 mV, respectively. The data were extracted from the polarization curves shown in Supplementary Fig. 13. d EIS Nyquist plots of different catalysts at 400 mV overpotential without iR-correction. e Arrhenius plot of the OER kinetic current on different catalysts at 300 mV overpotential without iR-correction. f Comparison of onset potential (defined as the potential at 1 mA cm−2) and overpotential at 10 mA cm−2 for various OER catalysts with vacancy defects. Values were plotted from references where they are reported as such (Supplementary Table 3). All OER measurements were performed in O2-saturated 1 M KOH electrolyte, and the reported data were iR-corrected unless otherwise stated
Fig. 4Chemical and structure alterations of the VCN-mediated PBA catalysts. a The bulk and surface VCN contents of different VCN-mediated PBA catalysts. b Comparison of Ni–N and Fe–C coordination numbers for PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts. c Raman spectra of PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts. d, e Ni L3-edge and Fe L3-edge XAS spectra of PBA-0 and different VCN-mediated PBA catalysts, respectively. f ESR spectra of PBA-0 and different VCN-mediated PBA catalysts
Fig. 5Performance stability and Fe-leaching suppression. a Chronopotentiometric responses recorded on PBA-0 and PBA-60 at a constant current density of 10 mA cm−2. b EDX spectra of PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts that cycled for different times. The Cu signals come from Cu-based TEM grid. c FT-IR spectra of PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts that cycled for different times. d, e EDX elemental mappings of PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts that cycled for 5 h, respectively. Scale bars, 250 nm. f, g EDX elemental mappings of PBA-0 and PBA-60 catalysts that cycled for 25 h, respectively. Scale bars, 100 nm. h Illustrations of the surface reconstruction on the Ni–Fe PBA catalyst during OER, where the VCN enables the suppression of Fe loss, permitting the formation NiFeOOH surface active layer