Cited by 129CO2 Reduction Techniques and CatalystsCatalysts for Methane ReformingElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion

Tailoring gas-phase CO 2 electroreduction selectivity to hydrocarbons at Cu nanoparticles

Open access
Merino-Garcia, I, Albo, J, Irabien, A·2018·Nanotechnology

Abstract

Copper-based surfaces appear as the most active catalysts for CO 2 electroreduction to hydrocarbons, even though formation rates and efficiencies still need to be improved. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the continuous gas-phase CO 2 electroreduction to hydrocarbons (i.e. ethylene and methane) at copper nanoparticulated-based surfaces, paying attention to particle size influence (ranging from 25–80 nm) on reaction productivity, selectivity, and Faraday efficiency (FE) for CO 2 conversion. The effect of the current density and the presence of a microporous layer within the working electrode are then evaluated. Copper-based gas diffusion electrodes are prepared by airbrushing the catalytic ink onto carbon supports, which are then coupled to a cation exchange membrane (Nafion) in a membrane electrode assembly. The results show that the use of smaller copper nanoparticles (25 nm) leads to a higher ethylene production (1148 μ mol m −2 s −1 ) with a remarkable high FE (92.8%), at the same time, diminishing the competitive hydrogen evolution reaction in terms of FE. This work demonstrates the importance of nanoparticle size on reaction selectivity, which may be of help to design enhanced electrocatalytic materials for CO 2 valorization to hydrocarbons.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1361-6528/aa994e

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Merino-Garcia, I., Albo, J., & Irabien, A.
Affiliations
Universidad de Cantabria (ES)
Venue
Nanotechnology
Published
2017-11-29
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
014001
ISSN
  • 0957-4484 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6528
OpenAlex
W2767391993
Cited by
129
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nanotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion)
  • UCrea (University of Cantabria) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (BES-2014-070081)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › CO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Catalysis › Catalysts for Methane Reforming
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Electrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Keywords
electrochemical CO2 reduction, copper nanoparticles, ethylene production, methane production, particle size effects, reaction selectivity, Faradaic efficiency, hydrogen evolution suppression, gas diffusion electrode, membrane electrode assembly, microporous layer, current density, CO2 utilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review