Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts
Platinum surface atom (or site) concentrations for a series of commercially available 10, 20, and 40 wt% Pt/C electrocatalysts have been determined using X-ray diffraction (XRD), high-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM), selective chemisorption, and cyclic...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Journal |
Published: |
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77954242701&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/50638 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Chiang Mai University |
id |
th-cmuir.6653943832-50638 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
th-cmuir.6653943832-506382018-09-04T04:43:44Z Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts K. Punyawudho D. A. Blom J. W. Van Zee J. R. Monnier Chemical Engineering Chemistry Platinum surface atom (or site) concentrations for a series of commercially available 10, 20, and 40 wt% Pt/C electrocatalysts have been determined using X-ray diffraction (XRD), high-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM), selective chemisorption, and cyclic voltammetry (CV) methods. Each method of analysis was repeated for a sufficient number of times to determine reproducibility and standard deviation limits. Comparison of the results shows that XRD and STEM methods give Pt surface site concentrations much higher than for chemisorption analysis due to assumptions regarding Pt particle shapes and particle size distributions. The results from CV analysis agree reasonably well with those from chemisorption if the sample amounts and methods of sample deposition preceding CV analysis can be well-controlled and there is no loss of surface exposure by the Nafion over-layer. Because both chemisorption and CV analyses more directly measure actual site concentrations with fewer assumptions, these methods should be considered superior to XRD and STEM analyses. Further, since chemisorption uses substantially larger sample sizes (up to 0.25 g) compared to CV (<0.01 g), reliability of chemisorption data is much more reliable and should be considered as the metric for surface Pt site determination. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 2018-09-04T04:43:15Z 2018-09-04T04:43:15Z 2010-07-30 Journal 00134686 2-s2.0-77954242701 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.04.062 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77954242701&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/50638 |
institution |
Chiang Mai University |
building |
Chiang Mai University Library |
country |
Thailand |
collection |
CMU Intellectual Repository |
topic |
Chemical Engineering Chemistry |
spellingShingle |
Chemical Engineering Chemistry K. Punyawudho D. A. Blom J. W. Van Zee J. R. Monnier Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
description |
Platinum surface atom (or site) concentrations for a series of commercially available 10, 20, and 40 wt% Pt/C electrocatalysts have been determined using X-ray diffraction (XRD), high-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM), selective chemisorption, and cyclic voltammetry (CV) methods. Each method of analysis was repeated for a sufficient number of times to determine reproducibility and standard deviation limits. Comparison of the results shows that XRD and STEM methods give Pt surface site concentrations much higher than for chemisorption analysis due to assumptions regarding Pt particle shapes and particle size distributions. The results from CV analysis agree reasonably well with those from chemisorption if the sample amounts and methods of sample deposition preceding CV analysis can be well-controlled and there is no loss of surface exposure by the Nafion over-layer. Because both chemisorption and CV analyses more directly measure actual site concentrations with fewer assumptions, these methods should be considered superior to XRD and STEM analyses. Further, since chemisorption uses substantially larger sample sizes (up to 0.25 g) compared to CV (<0.01 g), reliability of chemisorption data is much more reliable and should be considered as the metric for surface Pt site determination. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
format |
Journal |
author |
K. Punyawudho D. A. Blom J. W. Van Zee J. R. Monnier |
author_facet |
K. Punyawudho D. A. Blom J. W. Van Zee J. R. Monnier |
author_sort |
K. Punyawudho |
title |
Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
title_short |
Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
title_full |
Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of different methods for determination of Pt surface site concentrations for supported Pt electrocatalysts |
title_sort |
comparison of different methods for determination of pt surface site concentrations for supported pt electrocatalysts |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77954242701&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/50638 |
_version_ |
1681423625764208640 |