Fig. 3: Urea electrosynthesis performance of nano-confined and non-confined based electrocatalyst.
From: Nano-confinement engineering boosts C–N coupling for urea electrosynthesis
a Urea yield rate of CuRu/MCHS and CuRu/CS at different potentials. b Potential-dependent FEs of primary products for CuRu/MCHS assessed in 0.1 M KNO3 + CO2. The proportion of Cu to Ru used in preparing CuRu/MCHS and CuRu/CS was fixed at a molar ratio of 24:1 (Cu24Ru1/MCHS). c Comparison of the performance for urea electrosynthesis by Cu/MCHS, Ru/MCHS, MCHS, Cu24Ru2/MCHS, Cu24Ru1/MCHS, Cu24Ru0.5/MCHS, Cu16Ru1/MCHS and Cu8Ru1/MCHS as electrocatalyst at the potentials of –0.7, –0.8, –0.9, –1.0 and –1.1 V (vs. RHE). d Stability testing of CuRu/MCHS in KNO3 + CO2 with –0.7 V (vs. RHE) (inset: Cycling stability performance of CuRu/MCHS in urea electrosynthesis at –1.1 V (vs. RHE)). e The photo and schematic diagram of the flow cell installation (inset: SEM image of the cross-sectional view of the cathode and the CuRu/MCHS catalyst layer). f Urea yield rate of CuRu/MCHS in the flow cell at the potential range from –0.7 V (vs. RHE) to –1.1 V (vs. RHE) (left axis) and the performance evaluated by chronopotentiometry (CP) testing form 50 mA cm–2 to 250 mA cm–2 (right axis). g FE of urea performance of CuRu/MCHS at various potential in flow cell. The tests in (a–d) were performed in an H-cell. The data in (a, b, f and g) are presented as mean values ± s.d. (n ≥ 3).
