Green Chemistry: Tuning The Coordination Number of Fe Single Atoms For The e Cient Reduction of CO
Green Chemistry: Tuning The Coordination Number of Fe Single Atoms For The e Cient Reduction of CO
CO2 electroreduction into valuable products holds great promise for energy supply and environmental
remediation but remains a challenge due to the lack of high-performance electrocatalysts. Herein, we
developed an efficient strategy to prepare highly active Fe single-atom catalysts (Fe–N5/Fe–N6) by tuning
the coordination number of Fe with N towards CO2 electroreduction. The faradaic efficiency of CO for
Fe–N5 exceeded 90% ranging from −0.35 to −0.65 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (vs. RHE)
towards CO2 electroreduction. The turnover frequency of CO for Fe–N5 reached 5006 h−1 at −1.05 V vs.
Received 5th August 2020, RHE, which was 3.8 times that (1324 h−1) of Fe–N6. Besides, CO was generated at an overpotential as low
Accepted 28th September 2020
as 50 mV over Fe–N5, smaller than that (90 mV) over Fe–N6. Density functional theory calculations
DOI: 10.1039/d0gc02689a demonstrated that Fe–N5 facilitated the adsorption and activation of CO2 to form the *COOH intermedi-
rsc.li/greenchem ate, thus leading to superior selectivity and activity for CO2 electroreduction.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 | 7529
View Article Online
loading of Fe in Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 was determined to be 0.57% 2.3. Electrochemical measurements
and 0.58%, respectively, by inductively coupled plasma atomic All electrochemical experiments were carried out on a
emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). The faradaic efficiency (FE) CHI760E electrochemical workstation (CHI660E, Shanghai
of CO (FECO) for Fe–N5 exceeded 90% within a wide potential CHI Instruments Company) at atmospheric pressure and
window from −0.35 to −0.65 V versus the reversible hydrogen ambient temperature. In a typical preparation procedure of the
electrode (vs. RHE). Meanwhile, the turnover frequency (TOF) working electrode, 3 mg of the catalyst and 37 μL of Nafion
of CO (TOFCO) for Fe–N5 reached 5006 h−1 at −1.05 V vs. RHE, solution was dispersed in 2.0 ml of water–ethanol solution
which was 3.8 times as high as that (1324 h−1) for Fe–N6. with a volume ratio of 1 : 3, followed by sonication for 1 hour
Besides, CO was generated at an overpotential as low as 50 mV to obtain the homogeneous catalyst ink. The ink was then uni-
over Fe–N5, smaller than that (90 mV) over Fe–N6. formly loaded onto one side of carbon paper with an area of
Experimental results and density functional theory (DFT) cal- 2 × 2 cm2, which was directly used for the electrochemical
culations demonstrated that Fe–N5 facilitated the adsorption measurements after drying. A flow-cell was used as the electro-
and activation of CO2 to form the key *COOH intermediate, lyzer for CO2 electrochemical reduction in 1.0 M KOH. The
thus leading to the superior selectivity and activity for CO2
Published on 29 September 2020. Downloaded on 3/31/2022 11:24:05 AM.
7530 | Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020
View Article Online
Fig. 1 (a) Schematic of the formation process of Fe–N6 and Fe–N5. (b) SEM, (c) TEM, and (d) HAADF-STEM images of Fe–N5. (e) and (f ) Magnified
HAADF-STEM images of Fe–N5 demonstrate the atomic dispersion of Fe atoms. (g) EDS elemental mapping reveals the homogeneous distribution of
Fe, N, and C in Fe–N5.
900 and 800 °C, respectively. The synthetic scheme of Fe–N5 Fe–N6 displayed a similar morphology and elemental compo-
and Fe–N6 is illustrated in Fig. 1a. The Fe-containing derivative sition (Fig. S2†).
of ZIF-8 was synthesized through the standard synthetic route To gain insights into the structure and composition infor-
of ZIF-8 except for partially substituting Zn(NO3)2 with FeCl3. mation of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6, we conducted a series of charac-
As shown by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images, terization techniques. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of
the Fe-containing derivative of ZIF-8 exhibited a homogeneous Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 exhibited two broad peaks at 24.1° and 43.3°,
rhombododecahedral morphology with an average size of which can be assigned to the (002) and (101) facets of graphite
220 nm (Fig. S1†). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), TEM, carbon, respectively (Fig. 2a).8 No characteristic peaks of Fe or
and aberration-corrected high-angle annular dark-field scan- FeOx crystals appeared in the XRD patterns of Fe–N5 and Fe–
ning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM) images N6, which further demonstrated that Fe species were atomic Fe
of Fe–N5 suggested that the original structure of the Fe-con- in Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. As displayed in Fig. 2b, the N 1s spectra of
taining derivative of ZIF-8 shrank into regular microporous Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 were deconvoluted into four distinct peaks at
rhombododecahedra with an average size of 200 nm after the 398.6, 399.7, 400.9, and 402.3 eV, which could be assigned to
pyrolysis process (Fig. 1b–d). Magnified HAADF-STEM images pyridinic N, Fe–N, pyrrolic N, and graphitic N, respectively.35,36
of Fe–N5 clearly demonstrated that individual Fe atoms were Notably, the fraction of Fe–N decreased from 15.16% for Fe–N6
uniformly dispersed in the microporous frame (Fig. 1e and f ). to 8.44% for Fe–N5, indicating that the elevated temperature
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) elemental mapping reduced the coordination number of Fe with N (Table S1†). We
of Fe–N5 displayed the homogeneous distribution of C, N, and further carried out Raman measurements to study the struc-
Fe over the entire architecture (Fig. 1g). Compared with Fe–N5, ture difference between Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. As shown in
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 | 7531
View Article Online
Fig. 2 (a) XRD patterns of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. (b) High-resolution N 1s XPS spectra of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. (c) Fe K-edge XANES spectra of Fe–N5,
Fe–N6 and Fe foil/FeCl2/FeCl3 reference materials. (d) Fe K-edge k2-weighted FT-EXAFS spectra of Fe–N5, Fe–N6, and Fe foil.
Fig. S3,† two peaks at 1350 and 1585 cm−1 are assigned to the dazolate-FeIII linkages would decompose to release CN frag-
D band and G band of graphite carbon, respectively.37,38 The ments at elevated temperatures, thus resulting in the decay of
intensity ratio of D band to G band (ID/IG) for Fe–N5 is 0.99, Fe–N bonds.
which is lower than that (1.02) for Fe–N6. This implies that a
higher temperature enhanced the graphitization of carbon in 3.2. Electrocatalytic performance towards CO2
Fe–N5. To further investigate the electronic and coordination electroreduction
structure of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6, we conducted X-ray absorption We used a flow-cell system with 1.0 M KOH as the electrolyte to
fine structure (XAFS) spectroscopy measurements. Fig. 2c evaluate the electrocatalytic performance of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6
shows the Fe K-edge X-ray absorption near-edge structure towards CO2 electroreduction (Fig. S5†). During the process of
(XANES) profiles for Fe–N5, Fe–N6, FeCl2, FeCl3, and Fe foil. chronoamperometry electrolysis, the gaseous products of H2
Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 exhibited similar energy absorption edge pro- and CO were quantified via online gas chromatograph (GC)
files with FeCl3 in the energy range between 7120 and 7124 eV, (Fig. S6a†). Meanwhile, no liquid products were detected in
indicating that the valence state of Fe species in both Fe–N5 the cathodic electrolyte via 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (1H
and Fe–N6 was ca. +3. As shown in Fig. 2d, the extended X-ray NMR) (Fig. S6b†). Fe–N5 demonstrated a significantly higher
absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra of both Fe–N5 and reduction current density than Fe–N6 throughout the potential
Fe–N6 exhibited only one prominent peak at approximately range based on the cyclic voltammograms (CVs), indicating
2.0 Å, which could be attributed to Fe–N bonds. No significant the superior electrocatalytic performance of Fe–N5 compared
contribution of the Fe–Fe bond was observed at 2.49 Å, further to Fe–N6 (Fig. S7†). Fig. 3a shows the FECO of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6
revealing the atomic dispersion of Fe atoms throughout the at various applied potentials. Fe–N5 exhibited a higher FECO
whole Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 structure. We also conducted a least- than Fe–N6 at each applied potential. In particular, the FECO of
squares EXAFS fitting. When the EXAFS fitting parameter of Fe–N5 was higher than 90% within a wide electrochemical
bond length was set to 2.00 Å with the coordination number of window from −0.35 to −0.65 V vs. RHE. Note that the FECO of
ca. 5.4 and 6.0 for Fe–N5 and Fe–N6, respectively, the fitting Fe–N5 reached nearly 100% (99%) at −0.35 V vs. RHE. More
curves of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 perfectly matched with the EXAFS importantly, CO was already detected at a low potential of
result (Table S2 and Fig. S4†). The coordination number of Fe −0.16 and −0.20 V vs. RHE for Fe–N5 and Fe–N6, respectively
with N decreased when increasing the pyrolysis temperature (Fig. S8†). Considering the CO2/CO equilibrium potential is
from 800 to 900 °C, which is due to the fact that more FeIII-imi- −0.11 V vs. RHE, the overpotential to produce CO was merely
7532 | Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020
View Article Online
Fig. 3 CO2 electroreduction catalytic performance of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. (a) Faradaic efficiency of CO at different potentials. (b) jCO in 1.0 M KOH
electrolyte. (c) TOFCO at various applied potentials. (d) 24 h stability test of Fe–N5 at −0.4 V vs. RHE and the corresponding FECO.
50 and 90 mV for Fe–N5 and Fe–N6, respectively, even outper- which is comparable to the best reported SACs for CO2 electro-
forming that for noble-metal catalysts such as Ag and Au.39–43 reduction (Table S3†). In view of the excellent selectivity and
Fig. 3b shows the partial current density of CO ( jCO) of Fe–N5 activity of Fe–N5 for CO2 electroreduction, we performed poten-
and Fe–N6. Fe–N5 exhibited higher jCO at all applied potentials. tiostatic measurements to assess its durability in 1.0 M KOH
At −1.05 V vs. RHE, the jCO of Fe–N5 was up to −20.8 mA cm−2, aqueous solution at −0.4 V vs. RHE. As shown in Fig. 3d, the
which was 3.8 times as high as that for Fe–N6. The Cdl current density and the FECO of Fe–N5 remained basically
(2.58 mF cm−2) of Fe–N5 was close to that (2.25 mF cm−2) of unchanged during the 24 h continuous electrolysis. TEM and
Fe–N6 (Fig. S9†), implying that Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 possessed HAADF-STEM images of Fe–N5 after the stability test show that
comparable electrochemical active surface area. Given the sig- the Fe single atoms were still atomically dispersed on the
nificantly higher FECO and jCO of Fe–N5 relative to Fe–N6, it is N-doped carbon support (Fig. S13†). The N1s XPS spectra of
safe to conclude that Fe–N5 had a higher intrinsic activity spent Fe–N5 resembled that of pristine Fe–N5, indicating the
towards CO2 electroreduction. To probe the active center and superior stability after the reaction (Fig. S14 and Table S4†).
eliminate the interference of the substrate (N-doped porous
carbon), we further pyrolyzed pure ZIF-8 at 800 and 900 °C, 3.3. Mechanistic studies on CO2 electroreduction
which was denoted as ZIF-8-800 and ZIF-8-900, respectively To further investigate the origin of the intrinsically high
(Fig. S10†). It is worth noting that the FECO of ZIF-8-800 and electrocatalytic performance of Fe–N5, we conducted CO2
ZIF-8-900 was lower than 25% (Fig. S11†), demonstrating that temperature-programmed desorption (CO2-TPD). As shown in
Fe atoms in Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 are largely responsible for the Fig. 4a, the CO2 desorption peak of Fe–N5 was located at
electroreduction of CO2 to CO. Moreover, the FECO of commer- 141 °C, which was higher than that (118 °C) of Fe–N6. As such,
cial Fe nanoparticles, Fe3O4, and Fe2O3 were negligible at the binding strength of CO2 on Fe–N5 was stronger than that
−0.55 V vs. RHE, demonstrating that atomically distributed Fe on Fe–N6. The strong binding of CO2 on Fe–N5 indicated the
sites are the active center rather than bulk Fe species facilitated adsorption of CO2, thus resulting in the high activity
(Fig. S12†). As shown in Fig. 3c, the TOF of CO (TOFCO) was of Fe–N5.44,45 This is in line with the enhanced CO2 adsorption
normalized by the mass loading of Fe at different applied on Fe–N5 compared to that on Fe–N6 (Fig. S15†). To provide a
potentials. It can be seen that the TOFCO of Fe–N5 significantly theoretical insight into the relationship between the coordi-
exceeded that of Fe–N6 throughout the applied potential nation number and the reaction pathway, we calculated the
range. Particularly, for Fe–N5, the TOFCO reached 5006 h−1 at Gibbs free energy for each step involved in CO2 electroreduc-
−1.05 V vs. RHE, which was 3.8 times that for Fe–N6. All these tion (Table S5†). The structural models of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6
results strongly corroborate the intrinsically higher CO2 elec- were established via the obtained XPS and EXAFS fitting
troreduction performance of Fe–N5 relative to that of Fe–N6, results (Table S2 and Fig. S16†). The structural model of Fe–N6
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 | 7533
View Article Online
Fig. 4 (a) CO2-TPD profiles for Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. (b) Calculated Gibbs free energy diagrams for CO2 electroreduction to CO over Fe–N5 and
Fe–N6. (c) and (d) Optimized structures of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 with adsorbed *COOH, * denotes the adsorption site. The gray, green, blue, red and
yellow spheres represent C, Fe, N, O, and H atoms, respectively. (e) and (f ) Slice of calculated charge densities of Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 with adsorbed
*COOH. Bader partial atomic charges are labeled by the red numbers.
with one pyrrole ring on each side of carbon matrix was on Fe–N5 (Fig. 4e and f ).46 As such, Fe–N5 promoted the acti-
excluded after structure optimization (Fig. S17†). As shown in vation of CO2, leading to the enhanced electrocatalytic activity
Fig. 4b, the formation of *COOH required the highest energy for CO2 electroreduction relative to Fe–N6.
barrier among all the steps of CO2 electroreduction on both
Fe–N5 and Fe–N6. Therefore, the formation of *COOH serves as
the potential-limiting step over Fe–N5 and Fe–N6 towards CO2 4. Conclusions
electroreduction. Particularly, the Gibbs free energy for the for-
mation of *COOH on Fe–N5 was 1.34 eV, which was signifi- In summary, we have synthesized two Fe SACs for CO2 electro-
cantly lower than that on Fe–N6 (2.35 eV). As shown in Fig. 4c reduction. Compared with Fe–N6, Fe–N5 demonstrated a lower
and d, the C–Fe bond length of adsorbed *COOH for Fe–N5 onset potential (−0.16 V vs. RHE), higher turnover frequency
and Fe–N6 increased from 2.09 to 2.26 Å, respectively, further (5006 h−1), and remarkable faradaic efficiency (99%) for CO
revealing that Fe–N5 was more beneficial for *COOH adsorp- production. This was attributed to the facile adsorption and
tion relative to Fe–N6. Apart from that, the C atom of adsorbed activation of CO2 arising from the favourable coordination
*COOH on Fe–N5 displays higher electron density compared to structure. This work should pave a promising avenue to ration-
that on Fe–N6, confirming the stronger stabilization of *COOH ally design novel single-atom electrocatalysts with a tunable
7534 | Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020
View Article Online
coordination environment in energy and environment related 15 W. Zhu, Y. J. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Lv, Q. Li, R. Michalsky,
fields. A. A. Peterson and S. Sun, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136,
16132–16135.
16 M. Liu, Y. Pang, B. Zhang, P. D. Luna, O. Voznyy, J. Xu,
X. Zheng, C. T. Dinh, F. Fan, C. Cao, F. P. G. de Arquer,
Conflicts of interest T. S. Safaei, A. Mepham, A. Klinkova, E. Kumacheva,
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- T. Filleter, D. Sinton, S. O. Kelley and E. H. Sargent, Nature,
cial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared 2016, 537, 382–386.
to influence the work reported in this paper. 17 Y. Chen, S. Ji, Y. Wang, J. Dong, W. Chen, Z. Li, R. Shen,
L. Zheng, Z. Zhuang, D. Wang and Y. Li, Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed., 2017, 56, 6937–6941.
18 H. T. Chung, D. A. Cullen, D. Higgins, B. T. Sneed,
Acknowledgements E. F. Holby, K. L. More and P. Zelenay, Science, 2017, 357,
479–484.
Published on 29 September 2020. Downloaded on 3/31/2022 11:24:05 AM.
This work was supported by the National Science Fund for 19 L. Fan, P. F. Liu, X. Yan, L. Gu, Z. Z. Yang, H. G. Yang,
Distinguished Young Scholars (21925204), China Postdoctoral S. Qiu and X. Yao, Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 10667.
Science Foundation (2019M662192), NSFC (U1932146 and 20 Y. Xing, J. Ku, W. Fu, L. Wang and H. Chen, Chem. Eng. J.,
U19A2015), National Key Research and Development Program 2020, 395, 125149.
of China (2019YFA0405600), Key Research Program of Frontier 21 Y.-N. Gong, L. Jiao, Y. Qian, C.-Y. Pan, L. Zheng, X. Cai,
Sciences of the CAS (QYZDB-SSW-SLH017), Fundamental B. Liu, S.-H. Yu and H.-L. Jiang, Angew. Chem., 2020, 59,
Research Funds for the Central Universities, and USTC 2705–2709.
Research Funds of the Double First-Class Initiative 22 L. Liu and A. Corma, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 4981–
(YD2340002002). 5079.
23 M. Jia, S. Hong, T.-S. Wu, X. Li, Y.-L. Soo and Z. Sun, Chem.
Commun., 2019, 55, 12024–12027.
References 24 E. Zhang, T. Wang, K. Yu, J. Liu, W. Chen, A. Li, H. Rong,
R. Lin, S. Ji and X. Zheng, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2019, 141,
1 M. Ding, R. W. Flaig, H.-L. Jiang and O. M. Yaghi, Chem. 16569–16573.
Soc. Rev., 2019, 48, 2783–2828. 25 W. Ren, X. Tan, W. Yang, C. Jia, S. Xu, K. Wang, S. C. Smith
2 A. Goeppert, M. Czaun, G. S. Prakash and G. A. Olah, and C. Zhao, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2019, 58, 6972–6976.
Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 7833–7853. 26 C. Zhang, S. Yang, J. Wu, M. Liu, S. Yazdi, M. Ren, J. Sha,
3 T. Zheng, K. Jiang and H. Wang, Adv. Mater., 2018, 30, J. Zhong, K. Nie and A. S. Jalilov, Adv. Energy Mater., 2018,
1802066. 8, 1703487.
4 J. Qiao, Y. Liu, F. Hong and J. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2014, 27 X. Wang, Z. Chen, X. Zhao, T. Yao, W. Chen, R. You,
43, 631–675. C. Zhao, G. Wu, J. Wang, W. Huang, J. Yang, X. Hong,
5 R. Kortlever, J. Shen, K. J. P. Schouten, F. Calle-Vallejo and S. Wei, Y. Wu and Y. Li, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2018, 57,
M. T. Koper, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2015, 6, 4073–4082. 1944–1948.
6 D. D. Zhu, J. L. Liu and S. Z. Qiao, Adv. Mater., 2016, 28, 28 K. Mou, Z. Chen, X. Zhang, M. Jiao, X. Zhang, X. Ge,
3423–3452. W. Zhang and L. Liu, Small, 2019, 15, 1903668.
7 Y. Chen, C. W. Li and M. W. Kanan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 29 Y. Chen, S. Ji, C. Chen, Q. Peng, D. Wang and Y. Li, Joule,
2012, 134, 19969–19972. 2018, 2, 1242–1264.
8 Z. Geng, X. Kong, W. Chen, H. Su, Y. Liu, F. Cai, G. Wang 30 X. Su, X.-F. Yang, Y. Huang, B. Liu and T. Zhang, Acc. Chem.
and J. Zeng, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2018, 57, 6054–6059. Res., 2018, 52, 656–664.
9 Y. Li and Q. Sun, Adv. Energy Mater., 2016, 6, 1600463. 31 X. Rong, H.-J. Wang, X.-L. Lu, R. Si and T.-B. Lu, Angew.
10 Z. W. Seh, J. Kibsgaard, C. F. Dickens, I. Chorkendorff, Chem., 2020, 59, 1961–1965.
J. K. Nørskov and T. F. Jaramillo, Science, 2017, 355, 32 C. Zhao, X. Dai, T. Yao, W. Chen, X. Wang, J. Wang,
eaad4998. J. Yang, S. Wei, Y. Wu and Y. Li, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2017,
11 E. E. Benson, C. P. Kubiak, A. J. Sathrum and J. M. Smieja, 139, 8078–8081.
Chem. Soc. Rev., 2009, 38, 89–99. 33 N. Leonard, W. Ju, I. Sinev, J. Steinberg, F. Luo, A. S. Varela,
12 C. G. Margarit, N. G. Asimow, C. Costentin and B. R. Cuenya and P. Strasser, Chem. Sci., 2018, 9, 5064–
D. G. Nocera, ACS Energy Lett., 2020, 5, 72–78. 5073.
13 R. Daiyan, X. Tan, R. Chen, W. H. Saputera, H. A. Tahini, 34 H. Zhang, J. Li, S. Xi, Y. Du, X. Hai, J. Wang, H. Xu, G. Wu,
E. Lovell, Y. H. Ng, S. C. Smith, L. Dai, X. Lu and R. Amal, J. Zhang, J. Lu and J. Wang, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2019,
ACS Energy Lett., 2018, 3, 2292–2298. 58, 14871–14876.
14 Y. Chen, C. W. Li and M. W. Kanan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 35 J. Gu, C.-S. Hsu, L. Bai, H. M. Chen and X. Hu, Science,
2012, 134, 19969–19972. 2019, 364, 1091–1094.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 | 7535
View Article Online
36 H. Zhang, S. Hwang, M. Wang, Z. Feng, S. Karakalos, 41 S. Zhao, R. Jin and R. Jin, ACS Energy Lett., 2018, 3, 452–462.
L. Luo, Z. Qiao, X. Xie, C. Wang and D. Su, J. Am. Chem. 42 Y. S. Ham, S. Choe, M. J. Kim, T. Lim, S. K. Kim and
Soc., 2017, 139, 14143–14149. J. J. Kim, Appl. Catal., B, 2017, 208, 35–43.
37 V. Strauss, K. Marsh, M. D. Kowal, M. El-Kady and 43 S. M. Lee, H. Lee, J. Kim, S. H. Ahn and S. T. Chang, Appl.
R. B. Kaner, Adv. Mater., 2018, 30, 1704449. Catal., B, 2019, 259, 118045.
38 Z. Ma, C. Tsounis, P. V. Kumar, Z. Han, R. J. Wong, 44 Z. Geng, Y. Cao, W. Chen, X. Kong, Y. Liu, T. Yao and
C. Y. Toe, S. Zhou, N. M. Bedford, L. Thomsen and Y. Lin, Appl. Catal., B, 2019, 240, 234–240.
Y. H. Ng, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2020, 30, 1910118. 45 J. Zhang, R. Yin, Q. Shao, T. Zhu and X. Huang, Angew.
39 M. Ma, K. Liu, J. Shen, R. Kas and W. A. Smith, ACS Energy Chem., Int. Ed., 2019, 58, 5609–5613.
Lett., 2018, 3, 1301–1306. 46 F. Y. Gao, S. J. Hu, X. L. Zhang, Y. R. Zheng, H. J. Wang,
40 C. Kim, T. Eom, M. S. Jee, H. Jung, H. Kim, B. K. Min and Z. Z. Niu, P. P. Yang, R. C. Bao, T. Ma and Z. Dang, Angew.
Y. J. Hwang, ACS Catal., 2017, 7, 779–785. Chem., 2020, 132, 8784–8790.
Published on 29 September 2020. Downloaded on 3/31/2022 11:24:05 AM.
7536 | Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7529–7536 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020