Recommended practices and benchmarking of foam electrodes in water splitting

In the version of this article initially published, authors regret that a mistake was made in Equation 2 ‘Surface area and current density normalization’ section on page 1069: denominator equation should have been ‘specific capacitance’ not ‘roughness factor’. This has corrected as well text underneath 2, which now refers to specific capacitance (CS) values instead for roughness factor (Rf). Corrected 2:ECSA=electrochemical capacitancespecific capacitance,[2] where depends nature catalyst and, metal catalysts, CS varies from 22 mF cm–2 130 alkaline media [34.Tao B. et al.An MoS2/NiCo2O4 composite supported Ni foam bifunctional electrocatalyst efficient overall water splitting.J. Phys. Chem. Solids. 2020; 150109842Google Scholar,38.Kang Z. al.Engineering an Earth-abundant elementbased highly durable splitting.Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019; 291807031Crossref Scopus (123) Google Scholar]. An average 60 is usually used oxides, but exact value each type unknown, requiring more in-depth studies [58.Stevens M.B. al.Measurement techniques study thin film heterogeneous oxidation electrocatalysts.Chem. 2017; 29: 120-140Crossref (402) The also wish amend statements pages 1066, 1068, 1072 were missing relevant citations [31.Zheng W.R. al.Best practices using foam-type electrodes electrocatalytic performance benchmark.ACS Energy Lett. 5: 3260-3264Crossref (64) Scholar] and/or [32.Wei C. al.Recommended benchmark activity hydrogen oxygen electrocatalysis splitting fuel cells.Adv. 311806296Crossref (652) affected sentences read: On 1066: Generally, overpotentials at fixed 10 mA cm−2 or 100 (denoted η10 η100) are evaluation comparison Based our literature search others Scholar], we found even pure electrodes, reported data HER/OER vary (Tables 1 2), only blurring scientific implication, rendering direct difficult. 1068: Although determining real active surface (SReal) challenging because porosity, methods estimate concomitant technical challenges discussed (Figure 2A) Scholar,32.Wei 1072: As described detail by Zheng colleagues nearly all experiments conducted fixing them holder dipping into electrolyte fully partially 4A). add [1.Li L.G. al.Metallic nanostructures with low dimensionality electrochemical splitting.Chem. Soc. Rev. 49: 3072-3106Crossref PubMed [85.Pasandideh-Fard M. al.Capillary effects during droplet impact solid surface.Phys. Fluids. 1996; 8: 650-659Crossref (989) 1072. Partial immersion introduces problems like capillary action If substrate, materials can be formed possibly alter environment. There two parameters concerning Scholar]: (i) porosity (ii) hydrophobic hydrophilic properties For instance, when mm thick Cu compressed 0.5 mm, wicking height increases due small pore size [83.Shum al.Enhancing microflows metallic foams.Microfluid. Nanofluid. 21: 177Crossref (18) Scholar,85.Pasandideh-Fard Coating CuO better hydrophilicity than Fortunately, some researchers aware effect tried prevent it filling paraffin wax [86.Nyström G. al.Self-assembled three-dimensional compressible interdigitated thin-film supercapacitors batteries.Nat. Commun. 2015; 6: 7259Crossref (227) Finally, amended following statement 1074 citation [94.Jin S. Are chalcogenides, nitrides, phosphides evolution catalysts catalysts?.ACS 2: 1937-1938Crossref (775) sentence reads: Therefore, species oxides/hydroxides rather original electrocatalysts Recommended benchmarking splittingHuang al.Trends ChemistryOctober 25, 2022In BriefGeneration H2 O2 sustainable strategy greener society. Recently, attention paid designing 3D porous Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, C substrates obtain larger densities (>500 cm−2) industrial applications. However, oversimplification experimental quantitative processes difficult understand develop proper catalysts. Full-Text PDF