Avoiding Pitfalls in Comparison of Activity and Selectivity of Solid Catalysts for Electrochemical HMF Oxidation

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage600eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue5eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage606eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume10eng
dc.contributor.authorWöllner, Sebastian
dc.contributor.authorNowak, Timothy
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Gui-Rong
dc.contributor.authorRockstroh, Nils
dc.contributor.authorGhanem, Hanadi
dc.contributor.authorRosiwal, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorBrückner, Angelika
dc.contributor.authorEtzold, Bastian J. M.
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-05T11:34:25Z
dc.date.available2022-05-05T11:34:25Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractElectrocatalytic oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) offers a renewable approach to produce the value-added platform chemical 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA). The key for the economic viability of this approach is to develop active and selective electrocatalysts. Nevertheless, a reliable catalyst evaluation protocol is still missing, leading to elusive conclusions on criteria for a high-performing catalyst. Herein, we demonstrate that besides the catalyst identity, secondary parameters such as materials of conductive substrates for the working electrode, concentration of the supporting electrolyte, and electrolyzer configurations have profound impact on the catalyst performance and thus need to be optimized before assessing the true activity of a catalyst. Moreover, we highlight the importance of those secondary parameters in suppressing side reactions, which has long been overlooked. The protocol is validated by evaluating the performance of free-standing Cu-foam, and CuCoO modified with NaPO2H2 and Ni, which were immobilized on boron-doped diamond (BDD) electrodes. Recommended practices and figure of merits in carefully evaluating the catalyst performance are proposed. © 2021 The Authors. Published by The Chemical Society of Japan & Wiley-VCH GmbHeng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/8879
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/7917
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherWeinheim : Wiley-VCHeng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/open.202100072
dc.relation.essn2191-1363
dc.relation.ispartofseriesChemistryOpen 10 (2021), Nr. 5eng
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC 4.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/eng
dc.subjectHMF oxidationeng
dc.subjectcomparison of electrocatalystseng
dc.subjectelectrocatalysiseng
dc.subjectmeasurement protocoleng
dc.subject.ddc540eng
dc.titleAvoiding Pitfalls in Comparison of Activity and Selectivity of Solid Catalysts for Electrochemical HMF Oxidationeng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleChemistryOpeneng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorLIKATeng
wgl.subjectChemieeng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
AvoidingPitfallsComparisonActivitySelectivity.pdf
Size:
3.23 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections