Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anodic Catalyst Design for the Ethanol Oxidation Fuel Cell Reactions
Xiaowei Teng
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, United States
Rising demands for energy, coupled with concerns over environmental pollution and growing fossil fuels cost, pose great
needs for clean and efficient power sources. Since the energy conversion efficiency of heat engines is confined by Carnot
cycle limitation (typically < 35%), the electrochemical oxidation of small organic molecules (SOMs) becomes attractive
due to its high thermodynamic efficiency (higher than 70%) and low emission of CO2 footprint via low temperature direct
fuel cell reactions. Compared to hydrogen and methanol, ethanol is a promising fuel in the so-called the direct ethanol fuel
cell (DEFC) reaction for several reasons. First, ethanol is less toxic; Second, ethanol is easy to store and transport due to
its relatively higher boiling point; Third, ethanol has higher energy density due to the nature of twelve–electron transfer
upon complete oxidation; Fourth, ethanol has been qualified as a substantial energy source since it can be produced in
large quantities from sugar– and cellulose–containing raw materials. However, the implementation of the DEFC
technology has been hindered by the sluggish ethanol oxidation reaction (EOR) at the anode, due to the lack of an active
anode catalyst.
Platinum (Pt) is the most common catalyst in both anode and cathode fuel cell reactions because of its excellent properties
in the adsorption and dissociation of SOMs. However, the expense of Pt catalysts is a major impediment in the
commercialization of fuel cell technology, since it alone account for approximately 54% of the total fuel cell stack cost.
Many studies have reported the enhancement of the electrocatalytic performance of Pt by adding additional elements to
form Pt/M (M: Ru, Sn, Ir, Bi, Pd, Ru, Rh, Mo etc.) binary or ternary catalysts, or by developing non-Pt alternative
electrocatalysts with high activity to EOR and low–cost in order to implement the DEFC technology.
Due to the importance of this issue, this paper will report fundamental understanding of the EOR on the catalyst surface
and discuss the current anodic catalysts for the ethanol oxidation fuel cell reactions. Several binary and ternary catalysts
systems with different crystalline structures, i.e. alloyed and non-alloyed catalysts, will be discussed. Moreover, current
advances on several Pt-free anodic catalysts, such as iridium (Ir)-based catalysts for the EOR will be discussed.
Keywords: Ethanol Oxidation Reaction, Fuel Cells, Anode Catalysts, C-C splitting
1. Introduction
1.1 Ethanol as fuel for direct fuel cell reaction
Fig. 1 Production and distribution network of ethanol in U.S.
Demand for energy, coupled with concerns over environmental pollution and growing fossil fuel costs has created a
great need for clean and efficient power sources for the nations. The United States is responsible for a quarter of the
world's total carbon emissions, and Americans' per capita emissions are five times the world average. Since a major
source of carbon emissions in the United States is the transportation system, a practical path to achieve significant
emissions reductions is to find alternative fuels to gasoline, as well as alternative power devices to the internal
combustion engine from which thermodynamic efficiency is subject to Carnot cycle limitation (typically < 35%).1 Over
the last forty years, a great deal of attention has gone into developing low–temperature fuel cells, devices that can
©FORMATEX 2013
473
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
directly electro-oxidize Small Organic Molecules (SOMs) for electricity with a high thermodynamic efficiency (up to
97%), and provide an alternative path to power.2, 3
Table 1 Comparison of different fuels in low temperature direct fuel cell reaction.
Energy Density (kWh/kg)
Boiling Point (ºC)
Toxicity & Safety
Storage
Sources
Infrastructure
Efficiency at 25 ºC[c]
Hydrogen
32.8[a]
0.42 [b]
-253
Flammable
Difficult
Fossil fuels
(methane)
Not ready
83%
Formic acid
1.7
Methanol
6.1
Ethanol
8.0
101
toxic
65
Very toxic
78
Non-toxic
Easy
methanol
Easy
Fossil fuels
Not Ready
~ 100%
Not ready
97%
Easy
Sugar,
biomass
Ready
97%
[a] Theoretical energy density of hydrogen gas;
[b] Energy density of hydrogen gas compressed at a pressure of 5000 pounds per square inch (psi) or 340 atm;
[c] Thermodynamic efficiency is equal to the changes of Gibbs free energy (ΔG) per changes of enthalpy (ΔH) upon the
complete combustion.
As shown in Table 1, ethanol (CH3CH2OH) has many advantages over hydrogen (H2), methanol (CH3OH) and
formic acid (HCOOH) as a fuel in fuel cells, though the latter three are by far the most studied fuels in fuel cells
research.4, 5 Ethanol has a lower toxicity, a higher thermodynamic efficiency, and contains a higher energy density
(twelve–electron transfer in complete oxidation). Furthermore, it has a higher boiling point for safer storage in
transportation applications. More importantly, ethanol can be produced in large quantities from biomass through a
fermentation process from sugar–containing resources like from sugar cane, wheat, corn, or cellulose–containing raw
materials such as grass and straw. Bio-generated ethanol (or bio-ethanol) is thus attractive since growing crops for
biofuels absorbs much of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from fuel used to produce the biofuels, and
from burning the biofuels themselves.6, 7 This is in sharp contrast to the use of fossil fuels for harvesting energy. Thus
ethanol has been recognized as a substantial energy source in the future of ‘green’ technology, mainly in the Midwest of
U.S. Worldwide, bioethanol production exceeded 17 billion US gallons in 2008. Blends of gasoline containing 85% of
denatured ethanol (E85) have recently appeared at fuelling stations in the U.S. with a well-established production and
distribution infrastructure across the country as Figure 1 shows.
1.2 Reaction kinetics of the EOR
Fig. 2 Scheme of the DEFCs in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) and Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs).
Although electrooxidation of alcohol fuels, especially ethanol, has been a subject of increasing interest, the kinetics
of alcohol oxidation are much slower than for hydrogen oxidation reaction.2, 8 Among the reactions shown in Figure 2,
oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) at cathode is basically diffusion-limited, while electrooxidation of liquid fuel at anode
is primarily catalytically driven. Therefore, identifying effective anode electro-catalysts becomes imperative to improve
474
©FORMATEX 2013
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
the overall reaction rate of the DEFCs. In addition, ethanol contains two carbons (C2). During EOR various one carbon
(C1) intermediates such as carbon monoxide (CO) and carbohydrate (CHx), as well as two carbon (C2) intermediates
such as acetaldehyde (CH3CH=O), acetic acid (CH3COOH) and CH3CO are produced. Strongly adsorbed species such
as CO and CHx could poison the Pt surface and reduce the charge transfer rate of the EOR considerably. Therefore,
designing catalysts that can mitigate the poisoning of adsorbed reaction intermediates is vital to improve the kinetics of
EOR and advance the development of DEFC technology. A significant enhancement of the electrocatalytic activity has
been reported by modifying Pt with secondary species to form Pt/M (M: Ru, Sn, Mo etc).2, 9-11 In general, M atom is
oxophilic, which acts as an oxygen supplier at low potentials and mitigates the poisoning effect by oxidizing the metastable intermediates with adsorbed water fragments.
Complete oxidation of ethanol into CO2 via C–C bond cleavage is mechanistically difficult. In-situ differential
electrochemical mass spectrometry (DEMS) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIRS) have been used to
study the electro-oxidation of ethanol by identifying the adsorbed intermediates at different potentials, mainly on the
surface of Pt-based catalysts.12-17 Results from electrochemical analysis on particle catalyst and single crystal model
catalyst prepared in ultrahigh vacuum (UHV), as well as density functional theory (DFT) calculation suggest that most
of the current from the EOR is produced from partial oxidation of ethanol to acetaldehyde or acetic acid, involving the
activation of both the C–H and O–H bonds of ethanol instead of the C–C bond as presented in Figure 3. For example,
DEMS studies showed that only 1 % of ethanol was completely oxidized into CO2 on the surface of Pt3Sn/C alloy at
room temperature, with the major products of acetaldehyde and acetic acid.16
Fig. 3 The reaction paths involved in the electrooxidation of ethanol to acetaldehyde, acetic acid and CO2.
Through the primary paths of EOR (black arrows in Figure 3), acetaldehyde forms on Pt surface in lower potentials.
Since acetaldehyde is weakly bound to Pt surface, it can readily desorb on the surface of catalysts or it can be oxidized
further to form acetate or acetic acid as primary products in EOR, which are very inert in electrocatalysis. Formations of
acetaldehyde or acetic acid deliver only 2 or 4 electrons, compared to the 12 electrons upon the formation of CO2, thus,
efficiency of incomplete EOR is low. Meanwhile, acetaldehyde can possibly be further reacted to form C1
intermediates (CO, CHx) via C–C bond cleavage, and eventually oxidized to CO2. Several DFT calculations and
experiments suggest that CO2 formation via paths of acetaldehyde, as of following equation, whereas the pathways are
marked by solid green arrows in Figure 3:
→
→
+
→2
is more favourable than direct formation of CO2 as of the pathways marked by dash green arrow:
→
+
→2
Lai et al reported a systematic study of the oxidation of ethanol and acetaldehyde on well-defined Pt single-crystal
surfaces,18 showing a strong structural sensitivity of the EOR. They found that the poisoning of defect sites (step sites)
is slow for EOR at lower potentials, leading to a positive effect of the step density on the conversion of ethanol to
acetaldehyde, and enhancing the rupture of the C–C and total oxidation to CO2. At higher potentials, however, step
sites could be covered by strongly adsorbed C1 and C2 intermediates and play a less important role in the activation of
C–C bond. The structure sensitive nature of EOR at low potential was also confirmed by DFT calculation conducted by
Neurock,19 whereas EOR over Pt (111) surface and Pt (211) surface were compared to elucidate the effort of step sites
on the C–C splitting paths. He found a clear reduction in the overall endothermicity for nearly all of the paths of EOR in
moving from Pt (111) to (211) surface, indicating the step sites are more active than the terrace site for C–C cleavage.
Extrapolation of the reaction mechanism from a single crystal surface under UHV remains elusive to rational catalyst
design for practical application. However, promotional effect of high density of stepped atoms on EOR has been
demonstrated in electrochemically synthesized tetrahexahedral Pt nanoparticles with high-index facets such as {730},
{210} and {520}.20 These tetrahexahedral Pt nanoparticles showed greatly enhanced current density for the EOR as
compared to equivalent Pt surface areas of nanoparticles with different shapes (e.g. nanospheres that have low-index
facets), which has been attributed to the increased number of step sites and dangling bonds at high-index facets.
©FORMATEX 2013
475
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.3 Principle for catalyst design
1.3.1 Effect of Size
Fig. 4 The ratios of the edge and corner
atoms on the surface of cubo-octahedron
nanoparticles as function of size.
r* =
2γVm
RT ln S
The effect of particle size on the electrocatalytic activity has been of
interest to both the heterogeneous catalysis and electrocatalysis. A
computer simulation was used to calculate the total number of atoms on
various positions of platinum nanoparticles at the given sizes (diameters
for spherical nanoparticles). To simplify the treatment, perfect cubooctahedron was used to model sphere-like particles and assumed the most
active sites locate at given positions, such as edges and corners. The
formulas used are listed in Table 2, where m is the number of atoms
located on one edge for a given particle. The total number of active sites
(e.g. atoms at edge and corners) per surface atoms with a given size is
obtained as shown in Figure 4, which showed that there is an exponential
increase in the low coordination sites as particle size increses in the range
from 10 nm to 1 nm. Although the low coordinated sites (e.g. edge and
corner) could be catalytically active, it is not trivail to synthesize
nanocatalysts with small sizes (less than a few nm) and narrow size
distributions. According to the Gibbs-Thomas equation:21
where r* is the critical radius at which the particles showing a zero growth rate, γ is the specific surface energy of
particles, Vm is molar volume of the particles, R is the gas constant, T is the reaction temperature and S is the
supersaturation of the monomer), the synthesis of small particles requires a higher reaction temperature and
supersaturation level (thermodynamic control). On the other hand, a higher temperature will result in a larger reaction
rate constant for particle growth, and therefore a larger particle size (kinetic control). Therefore, optimal experimental
parameters (e.g. precursor concentration, reaction temperature and time) are imperative to make small, uniformly
distributed nanocatalysts.
Table 2. Number of available sites at the given positions on the surfaces of Pt spherical Nanoparticles
sphere*
(100) surface
(111) surface
all surface
edge and corner
12m2-36m+30
4m2-20m+24
16m2-32m+18
24m-36
*: Modeled after cubo-octahedron.
1.3.2 Heterogeneous Structure of the Electrocatalysts
The electronic structure of materials is associated with their heterogeneous structural diversity strongly, such as phase
segregation, intermetallic alloy, random alloy, and near surface alloy (NSA) (Figure 5). Understanding heterogeneous
structure of multi-component catalysts is a key factor to advance an efficient EOR catalyst. The superior performance of
multi-component electrocatalysts for the EOR compared to its monometallic counterparts has been well demonstrated in
various Pt-based binary catalysts (Pt/TM, TM: Ru, Sn, Pd, Co, Fe, Ni and Pb etc.). The synergistic effects found in
multi-component electrocatalysts, resulting from carefully tailoring the heterogeneous structure (spatial distribution of
different atoms inside the particle), may offer the opportunity to optimize the EOR with improved kinetics and CO2
formation. At present, two types of heterogeneous electrocatalysts have been intensively studied and hold great promise
in catalysis in particular:
476
©FORMATEX 2013
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 5 Schematics of four different heterogeneous nanostructures: (a) Phase segregation (surface of metal M1 is modified by
irreversibly adsorbed M2); (b) Intermetallic alloy (atoms M1 and M2 are mixed with definite lattice proportions); (3) Random alloy
(homogeneous alloy, atoms M1 and M2 are mixed statistically in accordance with the overall concentration). (4) NSA alloy (atoms
M1 are core–rich and M2 are shell–rich)
Homogeneous AB alloys (where metals A and B are mixed within the catalyst statistically in accordance with the
overall composition): Previous results have shown that different types of atoms are in close proximity in the
homogenous alloy that may optimize the bifunctional and electronic effects between each component, delivering a
better electrochemical performance in EOR with higher current densities and lower peak potentials compared to pure Pt.
ACBS NSA alloys (where metal B atoms overlay metal A substrate, showing B shell-rich and A core-rich structure):
Experimental and theoretical efforts mainly by Adzic, Mavrikakis and Nørskov showed that Pt- and Au-skinned
structures were able to weaken the bonding between reaction intermediates and catalysts due to the electronic effect,
leading to potentially higher catalytic activities in the ORR compared to pure Pt.22-30 Although few skinned alloys have
been developed for electrooxidation of alcohol, especially ethanol, similar electronic effects could mitigate the
poisoning of reaction intermediates by weakening their bonding to catalysts’ surface, and eventually improve the
reaction kinetics. Four methods have been employed to make ACBS structures in literature: (i) deposition of a monolayer
of metal B on metal A single crystal under UHV, followed by high temperature annealing; (ii) controlled dissolution of
a less noble element (A) from noble metal alloys (AB) on the surface of electrode in an electrochemical cell; (iii)
deposition of noble metal (B) through a spontaneous irreversible redox process on a less noble metal (A) on the surface
of electrode in an electrochemical cell; and (iv) atomic layer deposition (ALD) using organometallic precursors (B) on
the thin film of another metal (A). These methods can yield fine skinned structures via precise control of synthetic
conditions. However, their intrinsic complexity in preparation demands a simple solution phase synthesis.
1.3.3 Structural Characterizations
Fig 6. (a, c) High Angle Annular Dark Field (HAADF) images and (b, d) normalized EELS line scans of PtBi and Ir-Sn/C catalysts
obtained using aberration-corrected STEM. EELS line scans indicated (c) a PtBi homogenous alloy structure and (d) an Ir-core-rich
and Sn-shell-rich skinned structure.
Since the size and heterogeneous structure and composition all play important roles in the functionality of the
catalyst, to provide new fundamental insights into the structure/property relationships of the various nanoarchitectured
materials, various techniques has be used to analyze the size, crystalline and electronic structures of the proposed
materials. In addition to conventional techniques such as Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM) and TEM (to
measure geometric features of the catalysts); Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) (to analyze the chemical
composition of the materials); X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) will be conducted to determine the degree of alloy formation
of the catalysts, two state–of–the–art techniques have been intensively studied in recent years to decipher the “real”
heterogeneous structure of the catalysts.
©FORMATEX 2013
477
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aberration-corrected Scanning Transmission Electronic Microscopy (STEM): Microscopy was revolutionised
in the 1930s by using electrons to illuminate specimens, creating images at much higher magnifications than optical
microscopes allowed. But electron lenses are inherently poor compared to optical lenses and soon the design of electron
microscopes had improved to the state where the performance was mainly limited by spherical aberration, a feature of
all round lenses that causes image distortion and limits the resolution. Although attempts to correct spherical aberration
were made as early as 1940’s, the realisation of spherical aberration correction wasn’t achieved until 1997 by Ondrej
Krivanek, Nicklas Dellby and Mick Brown. At present, the aberration-corrected STEM has been dramatically
improving spatial resolution and beam current, exhibiting a strong ability to analyze materials with single atom
resolution and providing great opportunities to interpret the real structure of individual nanomaterials with equipped
electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) and/or energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Figure 6 shows
aberration-corrected STEM measurements of Pt/Bi nanowire and carbon-supported Ir/Sn nanoparticles conducted at the
Centre for Functional Nanomaterials at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.31, 32 EELS line scans equipped with
STEM have demonstrated the ability to generate high resolution signals, so that the distribution of heterogeneous atoms
within a single particle can be determined with a resolution of ~ 1 Å. EELS line scans indicated a PtBi homogenous
alloy structure with uniformly mixed Pt and Bi spectra cross the nanowire. In contrast, for the Ir/Sn catalyst, EELS line
scan demonstrated that a higher Sn signal at the edges compared to the centre of the particle, showing Ir-core-rich and
Sn-shell-rich skinned structure.
Fig 7. Schematics of X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) presented in energy space (a) and R space (b).
Extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS): X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) is a well-established
technique which provides element specific information on the electronic and structural properties for metallic
nanostructures through its two modifications, X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) and extended X-ray
absorption fine structure (EXAFS). EXAFS is a well-established tool for investigating the element-resolved structure
of the nanomaterials, since the local environment and electronic properties of atoms of each resonant element can be
studied separately. The EXAFS region, defined as a spectrum region between several hundreds of eV to ~1000 eV
above the absorption edge, contains the structural information for coordination environment around the absorbing
element (Figure 7). Such parameters including ligand types, coordination numbers, bond distance and disorders can be
determined by EXAFS analysis. Through EXAFS, energy edges of metal component may be analysed concurrently.
Quantitative analysis will be done by computing theoretical phase and amplitude functions for both single scattering
and multiple scattering paths and by performing a nonlinear least-square fit to the data.33 Parameters describing
electronic properties (e.g. correction to the photoelectron energy origin) and local structural environment (e.g.
coordination number and bond length) around absorbing atoms will be varied in the fit. During the fitting, multiple
constraints obtained from other analyses such as TEM, XRD and EDS will be applied. Finally, coordination numbers
(N) will be obtained from the best fit for all pairs (A-A, A-B, and B-B) in binary AB catalysts to identify the
heterogeneous structure of the newly synthesized nanocatalysts (Table 3).34-36
478
©FORMATEX 2013
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3. Relationship between coordination number and heterogeneous structure in EXAFS analysis.
Coordination Number (N)
Heterogeneous Structure
NA-B = NB-A = 0 [a]
Metal A and metal B in separated phases (e.g. core/shell particle)
NA-Metal > NB-Metal > 0 [b]
Skinned alloy : Metal A core-rich, metal B shell-rich
NA-Metal = NB-Metal > 0
homogeneous alloy: A and B mixed statistically within the particle
NB-Metal > NA-Metal > 0
Non-random (skinned) alloy: B is core-rich and A is shell-rich
[a]. NA-B: average No. of B atoms surrounding A atom
NB-A: average No. of A atoms surrounding B atom
[b]. NA-Metal: average No. of A and B atoms surrounding A (NA-Metal = NA-A + NA-B)
NB-Metal: average No. of A and B atoms surrounding B (NB-Metal = NB-B + NB-A)
2. Binary and Ternary Pt-based Electrocatalysts for the EOR
2.1 Pt-based binary catalysts
Pt-based bimetallic materials (e.g., Pt/Sn, Pt/Ru) are the most commonly used catalysts in EOR.11 The increased
activity over these multicomponent catalysts compared to their monometallic Pt counterpart has predominantly been
attributed to bifunctional effect and ligand or electronic effect. In bifunctional effect, the transition metal (Sn, Ru) has a
strong interaction with water (oxophilic) to form an oxygenated species (e.g. OHads), while Pt actively adsorbs and
dissociates the ethanol; in the electronic effect, the electronic back-donation from the transition metal changes the dband structure of Pt, and therefore weakens the bonding between the adsorbents and Pt. However, the enhanced current
in Pt binary alloys results more from the formation of acetaldehyde and/or acetic acid than from the splitting of C–C
bond. Since Pt is the active metal for C–C activation, these alloyed materials with decreased surface Pt actually lower
the total conversion to CO2. In a noble metal-transition metal binary system, higher transition metal (TM) content will
generate more TM-OHads complexes, resulting from the dissociative adsorption of water, which facilitate the oxidation
of adsorbed SOMs. However, higher TM content will also decrease the occupancy of active noble metal atoms on the
surface, and consequently impair the overall performance of dissociation of adsorbed SOMs. Therefore, an optimal
composition usually exists as a result of such rival effects.
PtSn: Many studies have indicated that PtSn/C is the best catalyst for the improving the reaction kinetics of the EOR
in comparison with other Pt-based binary materials. Density function theory (DFT) calculations showed that the energy
barriers for CO oxidation on Pt3Sn/Pt (111), Pt3Sn (111), and Pt (111) surfaces are 0.64 eV, 0.68 eV, and 0.82 eV,
respectively, and water dissociation energy is lower on Sn (0.44 eV) than that on Pt (0.67 eV).37 Therefore, Sn
component can enhance CO oxidation on Pt by promoting H2O dissociation on Sn to form Sn–OH (bifunctional
mechanism), and weaken the Pt-CO interaction by altering electronic properties of Pt through Pt-Sn bonding (ligand
effect). Although Pt/Sn has been considered as the most effective catalyst for EOR, detailed rules of Sn on the Pt for
the EOR remain unclear and even controversial. Discrepancies exist primarily on the effect of alloyed and non-alloyed
Sn on the EOR kinetics. For example, Antolini and Jiang both reported non-alloyed PtSnO2/C showed faster EOR
kinetics than alloyed catalysts.38-40 However, De Souza and Godoi (Journal of Power Sources 195, 3394, 2010) showed
that alloyed PtSn has better EOR kinetics.15, 41
PtRu: The optimal ratio of Ru in Pt-Ru binary system for the electrooxidation of SOMs has been intensively studied
with various controversial results, especially for the methanol oxidation reaction (MOR). Watanabe and Loffler
reported Pt50Ru50 alloy had the best performance in MOR.42, 43 While Gasteiger et al found that for the MOR, the
optimal Ru content on the surface of polycrystalline Pt-Ru bulk alloys had strong temperature-dependency: ~10 % and
~30 % surface Ru were the optimal ratios at 25°C and 60°C, respectively.44, 45 They also proposed that the surface
enrichment of Pt could be responsible for controversial results on the optimal Ru ratios in Pt-Ru systems, which was
largely ignored by previous studies. Similarly, Iwasta and Abruna found a broad maximum in activity for MOR
between 10 to 40 % of surface Ru for Pt-Ru alloy at room temperature.46, 47 Furthermore, Cuesta studied the cyanidemodified Pt (111) electrodes for MOR, and found out that ensemble of three contiguous of Pt atoms was indispensable
for CO formation through dehydrogenation of methanol, strongly indicating Pt3Ru1 might be the perfect surface
composition to mitigate the CO poisoning, which is consistent with above reported results for MOR.48
2.2 Pt-based ternary catalyst
In addition to bimetallic catalysts, ternary catalysts such as PtRuSn, PtRhSn, PtIrMo, PtRuMo and PtSnMo, become a
subject of increasing interest for the EOR.49-51 The addition of a third component further modifies the structure and
electronic states of the alloys, with a hope of leading to a better catalyst for the EOR. Although many ternary alloys
demonstrate an enhancement of current density of the EOR, their ability to cleave C–C bond of ethanol to form CO2 is
©FORMATEX 2013
479
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
controversial. For example, addition of Mo to PtRu catalyst increased the current density of the EOR, accompanied with
high yields of C2 products instead of improving CO2 formation. On the other hand, Kowal et al showed that PtRh/SnO2
electrocatalysts made by the under potential deposition (UPD) technique on the surface of the working electrode yielded
not only a higher current density over EOR, but also a high level of CO2 formation compared to Pt.52 Although
mechanistic details remain obscure, the prevailing view indicates that Rh increases the yield of CO2 by helping break
C–C bond, while Sn supplies the oxygenated species needed to oxidize the blocking intermediates. Thus, formation of
an alloyed structure where Pt, Rh and Sn atoms are in close proximity could be favorable because the cooperative effect
from Rh and Sn in the vicinity of Pt sites could provide high activity toward ethanol oxidation and better tolerance for
poisoning species. In particular, DFT calculations indicated that interactions between the PtRh alloy and SnO2 play a
crucial role in C–C bond breaking, whereas Rh with highly-lying d band accelerated the C–C activation of Pt and SnO2
provided OHads species that oxidized the C1 intermediate formed at Rh and Pt sites. The results from these ternary
systems are encouraging. However, most of the studies were unable to synthesize and/or verify the ternary alloyed
structure. A PtRu, PtRh and PtIr binary alloy mixed with SnO2 or MoO2 were often observed. Therefore, the reported
ternary systems might not be as optimized as homogeneous alloys, in which synergic effect between Pt, Rh/Ir and
Sn/Mo could be further reinforced. In this regard, advanced synthesis and characterization procedures which can
produce and validate the ternary homogeneously alloyed catalysts will be highly plausible for optimizing the reaction
kinetics and CO2 formation for the EOR.
Table 4. EXAFS analysis results for Pt52Sn(36-x)Rh12–SnxO2x /C, Pt36Rh10–Sn54O108/C and Pt30Rh30–Sn40O80/C
Samples
Pt52Sn(36-x)Rh12–SnxO2x /C
Pt36Rh10–Sn54O108/C
Pt30Rh30–Sn40O80/C
NPt–Pt
7.0 + 0.2
6.3 + 0.2
4.8 + 0.3
NPt–Sn
0.4 + 0.3
NPt–Rh
1.1+ 0.2a
1.5 + 0.2
3.2 + 0.3 a
NPt–M
8.5 + 0.4
7.8 + 0.3
8.0 + 0.4
1.1 + 0.7
1.5 + 0.7
NRh–Rh
NRh–O
2.5 + 2.8
0.9 + 0.8
1.6 + 0.6
NRh–Pt
4.7 + 0.8
5.3 + 0.7
3.2 + 0.3
NRh–Sn
1.9 + 1.0
NRh–M
6.6 + 1.3
NSn–Sn
NSn–O
2.9+ 0.7
NSn–Pt
5.4 + 2.3
NSn–Rh
1.0 + 0.6
NSn–M
6.4 + 2.4
1.4 + 1.2
6.4 + 1.0
6.1 + 2.2
2.1 + 0.2
1.7 + 0.2
6.4 + 0.5
5.0 + 0.5
1.0 + 0.9
0
1.0 + 0.9
In a recent effort, EXAFS has been used to verify, for the first time, the ternary alloyed structure of Pt/Rh/Sn
systems.53 Table 4 shows the best fit values of coordination numbers of various Pt/Rh/Sn nanoparticles, indicating
clearly that heterogeneous bonds were formed between Rh–Sn, Pt–Sn as well as Pt–Rh. In a typical Pt52Rh12Sn36/C
catalyst, the coordination numbers of Rh–Rh (NRh-Rh) and Sn–Sn (NSn-Sn) were very small, even though distinct Sn–Pt
coordination was observed (NSn-Pt = 5.4 + 2.3). This might be due to the low concentration of metallic Rh and Sn,
evident also by the less distinct Sn–Rh coordination number (NSn-Rh = 1.0 + 0.6). On the other hand, the strong Sn–O
coordination (NSn–O = 2.9 + 0.7) unambiguously indicated the formation of tin oxide clusters. Meanwhile, whether Rh is
also present as oxide is unclear due to the high uncertainty of the Rh–O coordination (NRh–O = 2.5 + 2.8). By analyzing
the metal–metal total coordination number, the metal placement pattern within Pt52Rh12Sn36/C catalyst is examined.
Since Rh and Sn can be present in both oxides and metallic (alloy) phases, the values of Rh–metal coordination number
(NRh–M = 6.6 + 1.3), and Sn–metal coordination number (NSn–M = 6.4 + 2.4) have meanings of average results over the
alloy and oxide phases. If these values are compared with the Pt–M coordination numbers directly, such comparison
will result in underestimating the distribution of Rh–M and Sn–M in the alloy phase. Had EXAFS been able to extract
these numbers for the metal alloy phase separately, they would have been higher and thus closer to the Pt–metal
480
©FORMATEX 2013
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
coordination number (NPt–M = 8.5 + 0.4), indicating a more homogeneous alloy than the average coordination numbers
indicate. Therefore, it strongly suggests that the coexistence of bi–phase throughout the Pt52Rh12Sn36/C catalyst: a
homogeneous alloy containing Pt, Sn and Rh, and tetragonal SnO2 clusters in segregated phase. Combined with overall
chemical composition obtained from EDS, the stoichiometry of the bi–phase can be expressed as Pt52Rh12Sn36/C.
3. Non-Pt based Alternative Electrocatalysts for the EOR
In addition to Pt based materials, theoretical and experimental efforts have studied other metals catalysts, seeking an
alternative electrocatalyst with even higher activity and selectivity toward EOR compared to Pt. Ferrin et al recently
studied the decomposition of ethanol on the close-packed facets of ten metals (Cu, Pt, Pd, Ni, Ir, Rh, Co, Os, Ru, and
Re). They calculated the C–C and C–O bond-breaking Turnover Frequencies (TOF) on various metals using DFT
method and found that Ir, Rh and Ru metals could decompose ethanol with higher kinetics (quickly removing CO
intermediates via C–O cleavage) and selectivity to CO2 formation (via C–C cleavage) compared to Pt. These results
indicate strongly that Ir, Rh and Ru have great potential as new class of electrocatalysts for the EOR with a faster
reaction kinetics (breaking the C–O bond easily) and a better tendency to form CO2 (breaking C–C bond easily).
Catalysts containing Pt, Rh and Ru have been well demonstrated for the EOR. A few Ir-M (M: Se, V, Co, Sn) catalysts
have also been tested for ORR and electrooxidation of various SOMs.
In recent efforts, Du et al have synthesized and tested several carbon supported Pt-based (e.g. Pt-Bi, Pt-Sn, PtRhSn/C)
and Ir-based (Ir-Sn/C and Ir-Ru) alloyed nanocatalysts for the EOR.31, 32, 53, 54 Results shown in Figure 8 indicate that the
Ir and Ir-based alloys exhibit an unusually high electrocatalytic response compared to commercial Pt/C (ETEK) and
PtRu/C (Johnson Matthey, JM). In particular, IrSn/C showed much lower onset potential in polarization curves and
compared to Pt/C (Figure 9a). The chronoamperometric (CA) analysis (Figure 9b) conducted to analyze the chemical
stability of the anode electrocatalyst for one hour shows that Ir-Sn catalysts have at least 15 times higher current density
after one hour measurement compared to pure Ir, Pt and PtRu electrodes. In addition, (111) surfaces of Ir, Pd, Pt and an
Ir-M (M: Sn, Ru, Rh) clusters were modelled for the reaction:
CH2COads CH2-ads + COads
which has been considered as a key step toward C–C bond scission. It was found that the reaction energy for CH2CO is
exothermic over all considered surfaces, but the Ir and Ir alloy surfaces have more exothermic reaction energies than the
Pt surface. These calculations were conducted in the gas phase on model metal surfaces, and ignored the effect of
aqueous environment, or dielectric background. Although this is different from the realistic reaction environment, this
simplification is often used as a starting point to understand the real catalytic reactions.
Fig 8. (a) Polarization curves and (b) CA curves (at 0.2 V) of Ir, Ir-Sn, Ir-Ru, Pt-Sn, PtRhSn, and commercial Pt (ETEK) and PtRu
(Johnson Matthey, JM). The measurements were conducted in 0.5 M H2SO4 and 0.5 M ethanol at room temperature. (c) Reaction
energies for breaking of CH2CO over the different surfaces. Lower energy values indicate more likely reaction pathways.
4. EOR Catalysts for Alkaline Ethanol Fuel cell
In alkaline fuel cells (AFCs), where a high pH medium functions as an electrolyte, the kinetics of the EOR can be
greatly accelerated. This might be due to the excellent interaction between the catalysts and the hydroxyl group in an
alkaline medium, which facilitates the dehydrogenation of ethanol as indicated by experimental results and Density
Functional Theory (DFT) calculations. As one of the platinum group metals, Pd has similar catalytic properties to Pt,
but is much lower in materials cost (Table 5). In particular, the abundance of Pd on the Earth’s crust is 200 times higher
than Pt (0.6 part per billion [ppb] vs. 0.003 ppb), making it very attractive for long-term industrial applications.
©FORMATEX 2013
481
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig 9. Electrochemical measurements of Pd/SnO2/C and Pd/C (ETEK) catalysts for the EOR. (a) CVs from –6 V~ -0.3 V (forward
scans). (b) IT measurements at -0.1 V. (c) Tafel plot for the EOR at a scan rate of 1 mV s-1.
Despite its good activity, complete oxidation of ethanol in an alkaline medium on Pd surface remains difficult.
In-situ DEMS and FTIR results indicated the ability of Pd for breaking the C–C bond of ethanol was slightly better than
that of Pt under the same conditions. However, the overall selectivity for ethanol oxidation to CO2 species in alkaline
media was still low (around 2.5%). Acetic acid is still the major product, and the rate-determining step is the removal
of the adsorbed ethoxy (CH3COads) by adsorbed hydroxyl (OHads). To study and develop AFCs technology using
ethanol as a fuel and Pd-based materials as anode catalysts, a better understanding of the structure-electroactivity
relationship in the EOR is needed. While several Pd-based binary catalysts (Pd-M, M: Ir, Fe, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Au, Ag)
have been studied as alternatives to Pt in the oxygen reduction reaction (cathode reaction) and the oxidation of SOMs
(anode reaction) in AFCs, there are a large number of unanswered questions regarding the role of atomic structure in
determining electroactivities.
In a recent effort, Du et al have investigated the electroactivity of Pd/SnO2/C catalysts in a half-cell in 0.5 M KOH
and 0.5 M ethanol electrolyte (Figure 9).54 The CV curves (after 100 cycles) demonstrated that Pd/SnO2/C had 4.2 times
higher current density than commercial Pd/C (ETEK). Pd/SnO2/C also showed superior long-term activity from IT
measurements compared to Pd/C (Figure 9b). Moreover, a linear region of the Tafel plots shows that Pd/SnO2/C had a
slope of 131 mV/dec, indicating the EOR in the range from -0.5 V to -0.2 V (vs. Hg/HgO) was dominated by the
adsorption of hydroxyl on the Pd-SnO2 surface (Figure 9c).
Table 5. Price of platinum group metals as of Feb, 2013
Metal
Price ($/oz)
Rhodium
2000
Platinum Iridium
1740
1050
Palladium
785
Osmium
380
Ruthenium
180
5. Summary
The catalytic response depends on the structure of the material which, in turn, is a function of the material’s
morphology, composition and atom distribution that are all very intricately affected by the synthesis and processing
methods. It is therefore critical that the complicated EOR processes should be understood at the nanoscale level using
new capabilities in materials synthesis, structure characterization and functionality measurement. Armed with this
knowledge, it will be possible to synthesize a new genre of materials with controlled structures and desired electrocatalytic properties, namely, a class of electrocatalysts with high efficiency to the complete oxidation of the ethanol.
Several critical needs that could require new design rules for EOR catalysts are enumerated:
 Novel Nanostructured Anodic Electrocatalysts that can minimize accumulation of strongly-adsorbed
reaction intermediates to increase EOR kinetics (higher current density), meanwhile activating C–C bond of
ethanol to increase EOR efficiency (higher current density from CO2 formation).
 Rigorous Synthetic Approach that can synthesize desired materials with precisely controlled composition,
size/size distribution, morphology and heterogeneous nanostructure.
 Advanced Characterizations both in situ and ex situ that can comprehensively describe the structures of
catalyst and the generation of reaction intermediates during EOR using photon- (e.g., X-ray), spectroscopic-,
and imaging- techniques.
 Novel Computer Modelling that can investigate the structure and dynamics of the catalysts surface to provide
an understanding of factors contributing to electrocatalytic reactions, validated by experiments on model
systems to ensure reliability of computational simulations, especially in collaboration with characterizations
using X-ray, electron, electrochemical and spectroscopic techniques.
482
©FORMATEX 2013
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements This work is support by the University of New Hampshire and National Science Foundation (CBET-1159662,
CHE-1152771).
References
[1]. Kheshgi HS, Prince RC.Marland G,The potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate change: Focus on
transportation fuels. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 2000; 25: 199-244.
[2]. Acres GJK,Recent advances in fuel cell technology and its applications. Journal of Power Sources. 2001; 100: 60-66.
[3]. Parsons R.Vandernoot T,The Oxidation of Small Organic-Molecules - a Survey of Recent Fuel-Cell Related Research. Journal
of Electroanalytical Chemistry. 1988; 257: 9-45.
[4]. Brown LF,A comparative study of fuels for on-board hydrogen production for fuel-cell-powered automobiles. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2001; 26: 381-397.
[5]. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O'Hare M.Kammen DM,Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental
goals. Science. 2006; 311: 506-508.
[6]. Wyman CE,Biomass ethanol: Technical progress, opportunities, and commercial challenges. Annual Review of Energy and the
Environment. 1999; 24: 189-226.
[7]. Lave LB, Griffin WM.MacLean H,The ethanol answer to carbon emissions. Issues in Science and Technology. 2001; 18: 73-78.
[8]. Lamy C, Belgsir EM.Leger JM,Electrocatalytic oxidation of aliphatic alcohols: Application to the direct alcohol fuel cell
(DAFC). Journal of Applied Electrochemistry. 2001; 31: 799-809.
[9]. Hable CT.Wrighton MS,Electrocatalytic Oxidation of Methanol and Ethanol - a Comparison of Platinum-Tin and Platinum
Ruthenium Catalyst Particles in a Conducting Polyaniline Matrix. Langmuir. 1993; 9: 3284-3290.
[10]. Antolini E,Formation of carbon-supported PtM alloys for low temperature fuel cells: a review. Materials Chemistry and
Physics. 2003; 78: 563-573.
[11]. Zhou WJ, Zhou ZH, Song SQ, Li WZ, Sun GQ, Tsiakaras P.Xin Q,Pt based anode catalysts for direct ethanol fuel cells. Applied
Catalysis B-Environmental. 2003; 46: 273-285.
[12]. Iwasita T.Pastor E,A Dems and Ftir Spectroscopic Investigation of Adsorbed Ethanol on Polycrystalline Platinum.
Electrochimica Acta. 1994; 39: 531-537.
[13]. Xia XH, Liess HD.Iwasita T,Early stages in the oxidation of ethanol at low index single crystal platinum electrodes. Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry. 1997; 437: 233-240.
[14]. Wang H, Loffler T.Baltruschat H,Formation of intermediates during methanol oxidation: A quantitative DEMS study. Journal
of Applied Electrochemistry. 2001; 31: 759-765.
[15]. de Souza JPI, Queiroz SL, Bergamaski K, Gonzalez ER.Nart FC,Electro-oxidation of ethanol on Pt, Rh, and PtRh electrodes. A
study using DEMS and in-situ FTIR techniques. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2002; 106: 9825-9830.
[16]. Wang H, Jusys Z.Behm RJ,Ethanol electro-oxidation on carbon-supported Pt, PtRu and Pt3Sn catalysts: A quantitative DEMS
study. Journal of Power Sources. 2006; 154: 351-359.
[17]. Zhou ZY, Wang QA, Lin JL, Tian N.Sun SG,In situ FTIR spectroscopic studies of electrooxidation of ethanol on Pd electrode
in alkaline media. Electrochimica Acta. 2010; 55: 7995-7999.
[18]. Lai SCS.Koper MTM,Electro-oxidation of ethanol and acetaldehyde on platinum single-crystal electrodes. Faraday
Discussions. 2008; 140: 399-416.
[19]. Neurock M, First-principles modeling for the electro-oxidation of small molecules. In Handbook of Fuel Cells: Fundamentals,
Technology, and Applications, Volumes, 2010; Vol. 5, pp 152-173.
[20]. Tian N, Zhou ZY, Sun SG, Ding Y.Wang ZL,Synthesis of tetrahexahedral platinum nanocrystals with high-index facets and
high electro-oxidation activity. Science. 2007; 316: 732-735.
[21]. Mullin JW, Crystallization. 4th Edition ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: 2001.
[22]. Adzic RR, Zhang J, Sasaki K, Vukmirovic MB, Shao M, Wang JX, Nilekar AU, Mavrikakis M, Valerio JA.Uribe F,Platinum
monolayer fuel cell electrocatalysts. Topics in Catalysis. 2007; 46: 249-262.
[23]. Ghosh T, Vukmirovic MB, DiSalvo FJ.Adzic RR,Intermetallics as Novel Supports for Pt Monolayer O-2 Reduction
Electrocatalysts: Potential for Significantly Improving Properties. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2010; 132: 906907.
[24]. Gong KP, Su D.Adzic RR,Platinum-Monolayer Shell on AuNi0.5Fe Nanoparticle Core Electrocatalyst with High Activity and
Stability for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2010; 132: 14364-14366.
[25]. Greeley J.Mavrikakis M,Near-surface alloys for hydrogen fuel cell applications. Catalysis Today. 2006; 111: 52-58.
[26]. Hammer B.Norskov JK, Theoretical surface science and catalysis - Calculations and concepts. In Advances in Catalysis, Vol 45,
2000; Vol. 45, pp 71-129.
[27]. Pedersen MO, Helveg S, Ruban A, Stensgaard I, Laegsgaard E, Norskov JK.Besenbacher F,How a gold substrate can increase
the reactivity of a Pt overlayer. Surface Science. 1999; 426: 395-409.
[28]. Sasaki K, Naohara H, Cai Y, Choi YM, Liu P, Vukmirovic MB, Wang JX.Adzic RR,Core-Protected Platinum Monolayer Shell
High-Stability Electrocatalysts for Fuel-Cell Cathodes. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition. 2010; 49: 8602-8607.
[29]. Sasaki K, Wang JX, Naohara H, Marinkovic N, More K, Inada H.Adzic RR,Recent advances in platinum monolayer
electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reaction: Scale-up synthesis, structure and activity of Pt shells on Pd cores.
Electrochimica Acta. 2010; 55: 2645-2652.
[30]. Zhang J, Sasaki K, Sutter E.Adzic RR,Stabilization of platinum oxygen-reduction electrocatalysts using gold clusters. Science.
2007; 315: 220-222.
[31]. Du WX, Su D, Wang Q, Frenkel AI.Teng XW,Promotional Effects of Bismuth on the Formation of Platinum-Bismuth
Nanowires Network and the Electrocatalytic Activity toward Ethanol Oxidation. Crystal Growth & Design. 2011; 11: 594-599.
©FORMATEX 2013
483
Materials
and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments (A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
[32]. Du WX, Wang Q, Saxner D, Deskins NA, Su D, Krzanowski JE, Frenkel AI.Teng XW,Highly Active Iridium/Iridium–Tin/Tin
Oxide Heterogeneous Nanoparticles as Alternative Electrocatalysts for the Ethanol Oxidation Reaction. Journal of the
American Chemical Society. 2011; 133 15172-15183.
[33]. Newville M,IFEFFIT: interactive XAFS analysis and FEFF fitting. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation. 2001; 8: 322-324.
[34]. Frenkel AI, Hills CW.Nuzzo RG,A view from the inside: Complexity in the atomic scale ordering of supported metal
nanoparticles. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2001; 105: 12689-12703.
[35]. Teng XW, Feygenson M, Wang Q, He JQ, Du WX, Frenkel AI, Han WQ.Aronson M,Electronic and Magnetic Properties of
Ultrathin Au/Pt Nanowires. Nano Letters. 2009; 9: 3177-3184.
[36]. Teng XW, Wang Q, Liu P, Han W, Frenkel A, Wen W, Marinkovic N, Hanson JC.Rodriguez JA,Formation of Pd/Au
nanostructures from Pd nanowires via galvanic replacement reaction. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2008; 130:
1093-1101.
[37]. Dupont C, Jugnet Y.Loffreda D,Theoretical evidence of PtSn alloy efficiency for CO oxidation. Journal of the American
Chemical Society. 2006; 128: 9129-9136.
[38]. Antolini E, Colmati F.Gonzalez ER,Ethanol oxidation on carbon supported (PtSn)(alloy)/SnO2 and (PtSnPd)(alloy)/SnO2
catalysts with a fixed Pt/SnO2 atomic ratio: Effect of the alloy phase characteristics. Journal of Power Sources. 2009; 193: 555561.
[39]. Jiang L, Colmenares L, Jusys Z, Sun GQ.Behm RJ,Ethanol electrooxidation on novel carbon supported Pt/SnOx/C catalysts
with varied Pt : Sn ratio. Electrochimica Acta. 2007; 53: 377-389.
[40]. Jiang LH, Sun GQ, Sun SG, Liu JG, Tang SH, Li HQ, Zhou B.Xin Q,Structure and chemical composition of supported Pt-Sn
electrocatalysts for ethanol oxidation. Electrochimica Acta. 2005; 50: 5384-5389.
[41]. Godoi DRM, Perez J.Villullas HM,Alloys and oxides on carbon-supported Pt-Sn electrocatalysts for ethanol oxidation. Journal
of Power Sources. 2010; 195: 3394-3401.
[42]. Loffler MS, Natter H, Hempelmann R.Wippermann K,Preparation and characterisation of Pt-Ru model electrodes for the direct
methanol fuel cell. Electrochimica Acta. 2003; 48: 3047-3051.
[43]. Watanabe M, Uchida M.Motoo S,PREPARATION OF HIGHLY DISPERSED PT+RU ALLOY CLUSTERS AND THE
ACTIVITY FOR THE ELECTROOXIDATION OF METHANOL. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. 1987; 229: 395406.
[44]. Gasteiger HA, Markovic N, Ross PN.Cairns EJ,METHANOL ELECTROOXIDATION ON WELL-CHARACTERIZED PTRN ALLOYS. Journal of Physical Chemistry. 1993; 97: 12020-12029.
[45]. Gasteiger HA, Markovic N, Ross PN.Cairns EJ,TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT METHANOL ELECTROOXIDATION ON
WELL-CHARACTERIZED PT-RU ALLOYS. Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 1994; 141: 1795-1803.
[46]. Casado-Rivera E, Volpe DJ, Alden L, Lind C, Downie C, Vazquez-Alvarez T, Angelo ACD, DiSalvo FJ.Abruna
HD,Electrocatalytic activity of ordered intermetallic phases for fuel cell applications. Journal of the American Chemical
Society. 2004; 126: 4043-4049.
[47]. Iwasita T, Hoster H, John-Anacker A, Lin WF.Vielstich W,Methanol oxidation on PtRu electrodes. Influence of surface
structure and Pt-Ru atom distribution. Langmuir. 2000; 16: 522-529.
[48]. Cuesta A,At least three contiguous atoms are necessary for CO formation during methanol electrooxidation on platinum.
Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2006; 128: 13332-13333.
[49]. Chu YH.Shul YG,Combinatorial investigation of Pt-Ru-Sn alloys as an anode electrocatalysts for direct alcohol fuel cells.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2010; 35: 11261-11270.
[50]. Fatih K, Neburchilov V, Alzate V, Neagu R.Wang H,Synthesis and characterization of quaternary PtRuIrSn/C electrocatalysts
for direct ethanol fuel cells. Journal of Power Sources. 2010; 195: 7168-7175.
[51]. Garcia G, Tsiouvaras N, Pastor E, Pena MA, Fierro JLG.Martinez-Huerta MV,Ethanol oxidation on PtRuMo/C catalysts: In situ
FTIR spectroscopy and DEMS studies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2012; 37: 7131-7140.
[52]. Kowal A, Li M, Shao M, Sasaki K, Vukmirovic MB, Zhang J, Marinkovic NS, Liu P, Frenkel AI.Adzic RR,Ternary
Pt/Rh/SnO2 electrocatalysts for oxidizing ethanol to CO2. Nature Materials. 2009; 8: 325-330.
[53]. Du WX, Wang Q, LaScala CA, Zhang LH, Su D, Frenkel AI, Mathur VK.Teng XW,Ternary PtSnRh-SnO2 nanoclusters:
synthesis and electroactivity for ethanol oxidation fuel cell reaction. Journal of Materials Chemistry. 2011; 21: 8887-8892.
[54]. Du WX, Mackenzie KE, Milano D, Deskins NA, Su D.Teng XW,Palladium-Tin Alloyed Catalysts on the Ethanol Oxidation
Reaction in Alkaline Medium. ACS Catalysis. 2012; 2: 287-297.
484
©FORMATEX 2013