Structure-activity relationship of tri-metallic Pt-based nanocatalysts for methanol oxidation reaction

Tunable Pt–NiO interaction-induced efficient electrocatalytic water oxidation and methanol oxidation

“…The lowest onset oxidation potential of NiO-Pt SA revealed the formation of weakly adsorbed CO ads on Ni and/or Pt active sites, which affected the key step of the coadsorption of *CO + *OH in the MOR to avoid self-poisoning and deactivation of the catalyst. 42,43 In addition, the ratios of the forward peak current density (I f ) to backward peak current density (I b ), i.e. I f /I b , were estimated to be 5.13, 4.30, 3.52, and 1.93 for NiO-Pt SA , NiO-Pt cluster , NiO-Pt particle and pure Pt catalysts, respectively.…”

Controlling the Synthesis Protocols of Palladium‐Based Nanostructures for Enhanced Electrocatalytic Oxidation of Carbon Monoxide: A Mini‐Review

“…There are various approaches for tailoring the morphology and composition of Pd‐based catalysts, such as chemical reduction, template‐based, galvanic replacement, hydrothermal, and microwave irradiation, following various formation mechanisms, like Kirkendall, selective‐etching, oriented attachment growth, and nucleation/growth [25,26] . These methods varied in their efficiency to produce various nanostructures (i. e., cubes, wires, dendritic, and polyhedrons), but template‐based, including soft‐templates (i. e., triblock‐copolymer surfactants and liquid‐crystals), hard template (i. e., silica, polymers, anodic oxidized metal, and carbon) and hybrid are the most effective for the production of well‐defined porous structures with controlled porosity (i. e. pore size and pore volume), shapes, and surface area [27] . However, the high cost, use of hazardous chemicals, and multiple reaction steps are the main drawbacks of template‐based methods.…”

“…[25,26] These methods varied in their efficiency to produce various nanostructures (i. e., cubes, wires, dendritic, and polyhedrons), but templatebased, including soft-templates (i. e., triblock-copolymer surfactants and liquid-crystals), hard template (i. e., silica, polymers, anodic oxidized metal, and carbon) and hybrid are the most effective for the production of well-defined porous structures with controlled porosity (i. e. pore size and pore volume), shapes, and surface area. [27] However, the high cost, use of hazardous chemicals, and multiple reaction steps are the main drawbacks of template-based methods. Despite the sensible advances in the formation methods of Pd-based catalysts, the high mass production (i. e., several kilograms per one run) remains a grand challenge and is not yet reported, which subsequently cannot meet the large-scale applications.…”

PtCu/Pt core/atomic-layer shell hollow octahedra for oxygen reduction and methanol oxidation electrocatalysis

“…Direct methanol proton exchange membrane fuel cells (DMPEMFCs) have garnered consistent attention due to their potential as energy conversion devices to mitigate fossil fuel depletion and reduce carbon emissions. 1–4 Methanol, in particular, stands out for its high volumetric energy density, ease of storage and transportation compared to hydrogen, and capacity for mass production through biomass and CO 2 hydrogenation processes. 5–8 Regarding the choice of cathode and anode catalysts for DMPEMFCs, platinum (Pt) currently stands as the favoured single metal catalyst due to its intrinsic physical and chemical properties, aligning with the Sabatier principle.…”

“…, CH x O y , CH x , and CO) and OH species. 1,18–21 To address the limitations in ORR and MOR activity, numerous strategies have been proposed, including Pt alloying with cost-effective 3d metals (M), shape control, surface engineering (strain and/or vacancy), hollow structures, core–shell structures, and atomic Pt shell layers. Among these, PtM alloy@Pt atomic shell layer core–shell structures, with the shell thickness reduced to the subnanometer scale, have generated increasing interest.…”