Fig. 3: Comparison of ECM performances between ssCuNC and CuNC SACs.
Total current density (j, a, d), FECH4 (b, e) and CH4 partial current density (jCH4, c, f) for CuNC (a–c) and ssCuNC (d–f) SACs. Correlations of optimal FECH4 with Cu loading (g), dsite (h) and ns (i). All current densities are normalized by geometric area. Error bars in (a–i) represent one standard deviation from three independent samples. These measurements were conducted in a flow cell with 1 M KOH as the supporting electrolyte. ECM stability measurements for CuNC100 (j) and ssCuNC100 (k), performed at a constant current density of 300 mA cm−2 in a flow cell with 1 M KHCO3 as the supporting electrolyte. The measured resistance (R, where OCP: open circuit potential) used for the CuNC40-160, and ssCuNC40-160 electrodes in (a–f) was 2.3 ± 0.13, 2.6 ± 0.19, 2.4 ± 0.15, 2.1 ± 0.22, 2.0 ± 0.17, 2.4 ± 0.14, 2.2 ± 0.27, and 2.3 ± 0.14 Ω, respectively. The R was used for (j) and (k) was 5.3 ± 0.23, and 3.6 ± 0.26 Ω, respectively. Source data are provided as a Source data file.
