
==== Front
Chem Sci
Chem Sci
SC
CSHCBM
Chemical Science
2041-6520
2041-6539
The Royal Society of Chemistry

39165725
d4sc03554b
10.1039/d4sc03554b
Chemistry
Understanding the catalytic performances of metal-doped Ta2O5 catalysts for acidic oxygen evolution reaction with computations†
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4sc03554b

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-3108
Han Congcong ab
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4451-2721
Wang Tao bcd
a Department of Chemistry, Zhejiang University Hangzhou 310058 Zhejiang Province China
b Center of Artificial Photosynthesis for Solar Fuels and Department of Chemistry, School of Science and Research Center for Industries of the Future, Westlake University 600 Dunyu Road Hangzhou 310030 Zhejiang Province China twang@westlake.edu.cn

c Institute of Natural Sciences, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study 18 Shilongshan Road Hangzhou 310024 Zhejiang Province China
d Division of Solar Energy Conversion and Catalysis at Westlake University, Zhejiang Baima Lake Laboratory Co., Ltd Hangzhou 310000 Zhejiang China
6 8 2024
11 9 2024
6 8 2024
15 35 1437114378
30 5 2024
2 8 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
The Royal Society of Chemistry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
The design of stable and active alternative catalysts to iridium oxide for the anodic oxygen evolution reaction (OER) has been a long pursuit in acidic water splitting. Tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) has the merit of great acidic stability but poor OER performance, yet strategies to improve its intrinsic OER activity are highly desirable. Herein, by using density functional theory (DFT) calculations combined with aqueous stability assessment from surface Pourbaix diagrams, we systematically evaluated the OER activity and acidic stability of 14 different metal-doped Ta2O5 catalysts. Apart from the experimentally reported Ir-doped Ta2O5, we computationally identified Ru- and Nb-doped Ta2O5 catalysts as another two candidates with reasonably high stability and activity in acidic OER. Our study also underscores the essence of considering stable surface states of catalysts under working conditions before a reasonable activity trend can be computationally achieved.

Ta2O5 doped by Ir, Ru, or Nb was computationally predicted to show reasonably good performance for acidic oxygen evolution reaction.

National Natural Science Foundation of China 10.13039/501100001809 22273076 National Key Research and Development Program of China 10.13039/501100012166 2022YFA0911900 pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Water splitting for hydrogen (H2) production driven by sustainable energies plays a vital role in the roadmap of carbon neutrality due to the high energy density and zero emission during the utilization of H2.1–3 Currently, multiple strategies with different devices have been developed for effective water electrolysis, such as alkaline water electrolyzer (AWE),4 polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolyzer (PEM-WE),5 solid oxide water electrolyzer (SOWE)6 and anion exchange membrane water electrolyzer (AEM-WE).7 Among them, PEM-WE shows advantages of high current densities, high compatibility to intermittent electricity from sustainable energy and a compact cell with a small footprint.8 Unfortunately, the large-scale application of PEM-WEs is hindered by the heavy reliance on the scarce noble-metals platinum (Pt) and iridium (Ir) as the cathode for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and anode oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst, respectively.9–12 Indeed, this fundamental obstacle hampering the further development of PEM-WEs triggered extensive research efforts in developing earth-abundant catalysts as alternatives to Pt and IrOx.

Currently, a group of non-noble metal oxides, particularly 3d transition metal oxides, have been experimentally identified as promising acidic OER catalysts,13–17 such as CoMnOx,18 γ-MnO2,19,20 Ti–MnO2,21 Co3O4,22,23 CoFePbOx,24 MnxSb1−xOz,25 and LaMn@Co-ZIF.26 In principle, the ideal OER catalyst should have high acidic stability, high activity, and low cost, while most candidates only meet two of the three merits. From the viewpoint of practical application, high acidic stability should be the highest priority. Among the reported non-noble metal oxides in the literature, tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) is extremely stable in acid but has poor OER activity.27,28 In principle, Ta2O5 would be an ideal candidate if adequate strategies could be used to improve its OER activity while preserving its high stability, despite having a wide bandgap in the bulk and poor charge transport.29 Noteworthily, economic viability should be considered before using Ta2O5 as a practical OER catalyst because Ta also has essential applications in resistive switching memories as a high-tech material.30 Indeed, doping has offered a promising avenue for improving the catalytic activity of materials by altering the d-orbital electronic structure, which governs bond formation or breakage involving oxygen-containing intermediates at active sites.31–33 Cationic doping and anionic doping have already been extensively explored to enhance the intrinsic OER activity of Ru- and Ir-based oxides.34–46 Doping with various metal elements, including Ti,47 Ni,48,49 Co,50 La,26 Fe,48,51 Zn,52 Cu,53 Ce,54 Mn,26,55 and Nb,56,57 has shown the ability to enhance the acidic OER activity and stability of pristine materials. Meanwhile, recent advancements in computations and machine learning have played a crucial role in understanding the fundamental principles governing acid-stable OER catalysts and also facilitated the rational design of materials with improved performance and durability.58–66

In this work, we focus on levering computational approaches combined with the doping strategy to understand the acidic OER mechanism and activity of metal-doped Ta2O5 (M = Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sn, Sb, Ru, and Ir). Our systematic density functional theory (DFT) calculations of the adsorbate evolution mechanism (AEM) on the 14 M-doped Ta2O5 catalysts, as well as aqueous stability evaluation, clearly revealed their stability and activity trend in acidic OER, where the Ir-, Ru-, and Nb-doped Ta2O5 systems were theoretically predicted to be promising candidates with good performances. Our stability analysis with surface Pourbaix diagrams indicates the essence of considering the stable surface state of catalysts under working conditions when conducting computational screening of electrocatalysts.

2. Methods and models

All calculations were carried out by spin-polarized density functional theory (DFT) as implemented in the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP) interfaced with the atomistic simulation environment (ASE) within the projector augmented wave method (PAW).67,68 The generalized gradient approximation (GGA) in the scheme of revised-Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (RPBE) was employed to describe the exchange and correlation interaction.69,70 A plane-wave basis set with a kinetic energy cut-off of 500 eV is used for all calculations. The convergence criteria for electronic energy and forces during structural optimization are 1.0 × 10−5 eV and 0.02 eV Å−1, while those for frequency calculation are 1.0 × 10−7 eV and 0.02 eV Å−1, respectively.

Ta2O5 has several crystalline structures, while the λ phase with the Pbam space group was chosen for further calculation in this work. The optimized bulk structure had lattice parameters of a = 6.29 Å, b = 7.47 Å, and c = 3.84 Å, which agreed well with experimental values (a = 6.22 Å, b = 7.36 Å, and c = 3.90 Å).71–74 The (100) surface was chosen as the model for OER mechanism simulation due to its high stability and wide experimental characterization, while both Ta (Ta16O40) and O (Ta16O42) terminations were considered. The p (1 × 2) slab contained four metal layers, while the top two layers were relaxed and the bottom two layers were fixed. A vacuum layer of 15 Å is applied in the z-direction of the slab to avoid interactions. A 3 × 3 × 1 gamma centered k-point meshes was used to sample the Brillouin zone. The vibrational frequencies of adsorbates on the surfaces were analyzed, while free energies were calculated within the harmonic approximation. The OER mechanism was simulated within the framework of the computational hydrogen electrode (CHE),75 which is detailed in the ESI.† The stability of the metal-doped Ta2O5 was evaluated by using formation energy (Ef) and cohesive energy (Ecoh), where a more negative value of Ef indicates higher synthetic feasibility and a more positive value of Ecoh indicates higher thermodynamic stability.48,76 More details for calculating Ef and Ecoh are summarized in the ESI.†

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Structure and stability of metal-doped Ta2O5 (100) surfaces

To evaluate the roles of transition metals in tuning the properties of the Ta2O5 catalyst for the high-performance OER, we applied the substitutional approach by replacing the surface Ta with different metals (M = Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sn, Sb, Ru, and Ir). As shown in Fig. 1a–d, the λ-Ta2O5 (100) surface has both Ta (Ta16O40) and O (Ta16O42) terminations. For the Ta-termination shown in Fig. 1c, there are two types of surface Ta atoms with five coordination environments. Therefore, we considered two substitutional models in Fig. 1e and f (M–Ta15O40). For the O-termination shown in Fig. 1b and d, there are also two types of Ta atoms with different coordination environments on the surface shown in Fig. 1d (M–Ta15O42). Based on the doping sites shown in Fig. 1e–h, we systematically evaluated the stabilities of various metals on these sites, where the most stable doping structures of each metal on both Ta- and O-terminations are summarized in Table S2.†

Fig. 1 The side (a and b) and top (c and d) views of Ta- and O-terminations of Ta2O5, as well as the metal-doped Ta-termination (e and f) and O-termination (g and h) of Ta2O5. (The red, grey, and bright blue spheres represent O, Ta, and dopant atoms, respectively).

In principle, the thermodynamic stability of the catalyst will determine whether it could be easily synthesized experimentally. Therefore, we calculated the formation energy (Ef) and cohesive energy (Ecoh) of all the doped systems. As shown in Fig. 2, the early transition metals (Zr, Ti, Nb, V, and Cr) doped systems generally have very negative values of Ef (Table S2†), indicating their high stabilities. Systems doped by the magnetic Fe, Co, and Ni metals, as well as the noble metal Ir and Ru metals, showed positive values of Ef, which indicates their relatively lower stabilities than the early transition metal doped Ta2O5. Considering that the Ir-doped Ta2O5 has been successfully synthesized and found to be stable and active for the OER experimentally,77 we anticipate that catalysts with lower Ef than Ir-doped Ta2O5 will show reasonable feasibility to be synthesized experimentally. In this respect, most of these 28 M-doped structures have reasonable synthetic feasibility, at least from a thermodynamic perspective. Meanwhile, the Ecoh values for all 28 M-doped structures shown in Fig. 2b and Table S2† are higher than 0.5 eV, suggesting their potential high stability upon synthesis.

Fig. 2 (a) Formation energy (Ef) and (b) cohesive energy (Ecoh) of M–Ta15O40 and M–Ta15O42.

3.2 OER activity on the metal-doped Ta- and O-terminations of Ta2O5 (100)

To have a direct comparison of the OER activity among different catalysts, we systematically simulated the classical adsorbate evolution mechanism (AEM)78 on these M-doped Ta2O5 systems within the framework of computational hydrogen electrode (CHE) as developed by the Nørskov group79 (more details in the ESI†). As shown in Fig. 3a, the catalytic cycle starts with the deprotonation of H2O on the active site to form *OH species, followed by another deprotonation step to form the surface *O intermediate. Then, the O–O bond formation takes place via the reaction of *O with another H2O molecule to form the *OOH intermediate, accompanied by a deprotonation step. Finally, O2 is formed through the deprotonation of *OOH with the regeneration of the active site.

Fig. 3 (a) Classical adsorbate evolution mechanism (AEM) for the oxygen evolution reaction; (b) free energy diagrams of the OER on the two pristine and Ir-doped terminations of the Ta2O5 (100) surface; theoretically predicted activity trends toward the OER on metal-doped (c) Ta termination (M–Ta15O40) and (d) O termination (M–Ta15O42) of the Ta2O5 (100) surface.

Based on this mechanism, the reaction free energy change (ΔG) for each step was calculated at 0 V, pH = 0, and T = 298.15 K within the framework of the CHE model. Then, the potential-determining step (PDS) is typically the last step to go downhill in free energy as the potential increases. In other words, PDS is the step with the largest ΔG (ΔGPDS) among the four-step OER mechanism in Fig. 3a. The theoretical overpotential (η) can be expressed as (ΔGPDS)/e − 1.23 V. Using the pristine and Ir-doped Ta2O5 as examples, we plotted the potential free energy diagrams of the OER in Fig. 3b. It shows that each system has a different PDS and η, i.e., the PDS in the case of Ta terminations of Ta16O40 and Ir-doped Ta2O5 is *O → *OOH with the η values of 1.66 V and 0.76 V, while that in the case of the O-termination of Ta16O42 and Ir-doped Ta2O5 becomes *OH → *O with the η values of 0.78 V and 1.08 V, respectively.

As per the Sabatier principle, an ideal catalyst requires the binding strength of the key intermediate to be neither too strong nor too weak. Based on the framework established by the Nørskov group,27 there is a volcano-shaped relationship between ηOER and the value of ΔG*O – ΔG*OH among a group of materials. Our analysis in Fig. 3c and d also shows the volcanic OER activity trend among 28 M–Ta2O5 systems, but the two terminations have quite different trends. On the Ta termination in Fig. 3c and Table S3,† most of the cases are located at the left leg of the volcano due to the lower deprotonation energy of surface hydroxide, where the formation of *OOH species is the PDS. At the right leg of the volcano, the weak binding strength of *O makes the deprotonation of *OH species the PDS. Among these doped systems in the case of Ta termination, Fe-doping has the lowest η of 0.69 V, followed by Ti (0.71 V), Co (0.72 V), Ni (0.73 V), Ir (0.76 V), Mn (0.77 V), Sn (0.97 V), and Zr (0.78 V), while the rest of them are higher than 1.0 V.

In the case of the O-termination shown in Fig. 3d and Table S4,† all the metal-doped systems are located at the right leg of the volcano due to the weak binding strength with oxygen, while the deprotonation of *OH species is the PDS. Meanwhile, the activity trend of these 14 doping metals is quite different from that of the Ta termination. Among them, the Sb-doped O-termination has the lowest η of 0.72 V, followed by the pristine Ta15O42 (0.78 V).

3.3 Surface structures and OER activity of M–Ta2O5 under working conditions

The above mechanism studies on the two terminations have clearly revealed that the OER activity is tightly related to the surface structure of M–Ta2O5. Then, the question becomes, what is the real surface structure of the catalyst under working conditions? To clarify this, we further applied the surface Pourbaix diagram to describe the surface states of each M–Ta2O5 system at different pH and working potentials.

More specifically, the surface of M–Ta2O5 will inevitably be covered by different species during the OER, such as *O and *OH. We systematically calculated the binding of different species on the surface of pristine and 14 M-doped models to identify the most stable surface composition of each model at a wide range of pH and potentials. More computational details are shown in the ESI.† We use the electrochemical potential window (EPW) to describe the potential range in which a catalyst can maintain its pristine state at pH = 0.80 As shown in Fig. 4a, the pristine Ta2O5 (100) surface shows an EPW less than −1.1 V vs. SHE, while it will be covered by 1/4 monolayer (ML) *OH at −1.1 V to −0.1 V as well as 1/2 ML *OH at −0.1–2.0 V. For comparison, Ir-doped Ta2O5 (100) in Fig. 4b exhibits an EPW of less than 0.1 V, while it will be covered by 1/2 ML *OH at 0.1–1.6 V as well as 1/4 ML *OH + 1/4 ML *O at >1.6 V vs. SHE. Similar surface Pourbaix diagrams of the other M-doped systems are summarized in the ESI.† Clearly, it is crucial to consider the specific surface state of the catalyst under electrochemical operating conditions. In this respect, the OER mechanism investigation was conducted on the most stable surface state of each M-doped Ta2O5, where a potential of ∼1.60 V was chosen based on experimental setups.81 The calculated free energies of intermediates and the derived overpotentials are listed in Table S6.†

Fig. 4 Surface Pourbaix diagrams of pristine (a) and Ir-doped (b) Ta2O5 (100) surface; free energy diagrams of the OER on the most stable surface states of pristine and Ir-doped Ta2O5 (100) surface at pH = 0 and U = 0 V (c); OER activity trend of M-doped Ta2O5 (100) at the most stable surface states determined by surface Pourbaix diagram analysis (d).

As shown in Fig. 4c, the 1/2 ML *OH covered Ta-termination is the most stable state of the Ta2O5 (100) surface at pH = 0 and 1.6 V vs. SHE, where the theoretical overpotential is calculated to be 0.73 V with *OH → *O being the PDS. For the Ir-doped system, the surface is covered by 1/4 ML *O and 1/4 ML *OH at pH = 0 and 1.6 V vs. SHE, where the calculated η is only 0.33 V.

Finally, we have summarized the theoretical overpotentials calculated from the most stable surface states of each M-doped Ta2O5 in Fig. 4d for comparison. It shows that most of the systems are located at the right leg of the volcano except the Ir-doped and Ru-doped Ta2O5. Among them, the Ir-doped Ta2O5 is closest to the peak of the volcano, which has the η of only 0.33 V and an optimum ΔG*O − ΔG*OH of ∼1.32 eV. Meanwhile, the Ru-doped and Nb-doped Ta2O5 also exhibit relatively low theoretical overpotentials of 0.62 V and 0.61 V. Noteworthily, the calculated η values of these catalysts are different from those of pure Ta- and O-terminations shown in Fig. 3, again indicating the essence of considering the stable surface state of catalysts under working conditions.

4. Conclusion

In summary, we conducted density functional theory calculations to systematically investigate the thermodynamic stability, aqueous stability, and acidic OER activity of various metal-doped (metal = Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sn, Sb, Ru, Ir) Ta2O5 (100) surfaces. Our calculated formation energies and cohesive energies of these 14 systems showed their reasonably high stability thermodynamically, thereby, a high experimental synthetic feasibility. Then, the most stable surface state of each M-doped Ta2O5 (100) surface at different pH and potential ranges was evaluated by using the surface Pourbaix diagrams. Further OER activity evaluations of these catalysts were based on the adsorbate evolution mechanism (AEM), where the Ir-doped Ta2O5 with the lowest theoretical overpotential of 0.33 V was computationally predicted to be most promising and consistent with experimental findings in the literature. Meanwhile, Ru- and Nb-doped catalysts were also predicted to be stable and active for acidic OER with theoretical overpotentials of 0.62 V and 0.61 V, respectively. Additionally, we note that electrochemical-driven pre-adsorption of species on the catalysts dramatically influence the OER activity. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the surface state of a catalyst under electrochemical conditions with the surface Pourbaix diagram before conducting a detailed mechanism simulation. Our results not only adequately illustrated the general OER activity trend of metal-doped Ta2O5 catalysts but also provided theoretical guidance for further experimental studies of these systems.

Data availability

Computational details and other results supporting the main conclusions are summarized in the ESI.† Other data supporting this article have been included as part of the ESI (dataset.txt).†

Author contributions

T. W. conceived and supervised this project; C. C. H. performed all the DFT computations, data analysis, and figure drawing; all authors discussed the results and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

SC-015-D4SC03554B-s001

SC-015-D4SC03554B-s002

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFA0911900) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (22273076); T. W. is thankful for the start-up packages from Westlake University and the Research Center for Industries of the Future (RCIF) at Westlake University for supporting this work. We thank Westlake University HPC Center for computation support. The authors thank Dr Wanghui Zhao for plotting Fig. 1.
==== Refs
References

Sharma S. Ghoshal S. K. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2015 43 1151 1158 10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.093
Nicoletti G. Arcuri N. Nicoletti G. Bruno R. Energy Convers. Manage. 2015 89 205 213 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.057
Ayers K. Danilovic N. Ouimet R. Carmo M. Pivovar B. Bornstein M. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2019 10 219 239 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060718-030241 31173524
David M. Ocampo-Martínez C. Sánchez-Peña R. J. Energy Storage 2019 23 392 403 10.1016/j.est.2019.03.001
Carmo M. Fritz D. L. Mergel J. Stolten D. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013 38 4901 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.151
Xu Y. Cai S. Chi B. Tu Z. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024 50 548 591 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.08.314
Vincent I. Bessarabov D. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018 81 1690 1704 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.258
Grigoriev S. A. Porembsky V. I. Fateev V. N. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2006 31 171 175 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.04.038
Diaz-Morales O. Raaijman S. Kortlever R. Kooyman P. J. Wezendonk T. Gascon J. Fu W. T. Koper M. T. M. Nat. Commun. 2016 7 12363 10.1038/ncomms12363 27498694
Zhang L. Doyle-Davis K. Sun X. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019 12 492 517 10.1039/C8EE02939C
Liao F. Yin K. Ji Y. Zhu W. Fan Z. Li Y. Zhong J. Shao M. Kang Z. Shao Q. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 1248 10.1038/s41467-023-36833-1 36871002
Xu J. Jin H. Lu T. Li J. Liu Y. Davey K. Zheng Y. Qiao S. Sci. Adv. 2023 9 eadh1718 10.1126/sciadv.adh1718 37352343
Subbaraman R. Tripkovic D. Chang K. Strmcnik D. Paulikas A. P. Hirunsit P. Chan M. Greeley J. Stamenkovic V. Markovic N. M. Nat. Mater. 2012 11 550 557 10.1038/nmat3313 22561903
Huynh M. Bediako D. K. Nocera D. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014 136 6002 6010 10.1021/ja413147e 24669981
Xiong W. Yin H. Wu T. Li H. Chem.–Eur. J. 2023 29 e202202872 10.1002/chem.202202872 36372776
Wang N. Ou P. Miao R. K. Chang Y. Wang Z. Hung S. Abed J. Ozden A. Chen H. Wu H. Huang J. E. Zhou D. Ni W. Fan L. Yan Y. Peng T. Sinton D. Liu Y. Liang H. Sargent E. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023 145 7829 7836 10.1021/jacs.2c12431 37010254
Zhang X. Feng C. Dong B. Liu C. Chai Y. Adv. Mater. 2023 35 2207066 10.1002/adma.202207066 36645873
Li A. Kong S. Guo C. Ooka H. Adachi K. Hashizume D. Jiang Q. Han H. Xiao J. Nakamura R. Nat. Catal. 2022 5 109 118 10.1038/s41929-021-00732-9
Li A. Ooka H. Bonnet N. Hayashi T. Sun Y. Jiang Q. Li C. Han H. Nakamura R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019 58 5054 5058 10.1002/anie.201813361 30869187
Kong S. Li A. Long J. Adachi K. Hashizume D. Jiang Q. Fushimi K. Ooka H. Xiao J. Nakamura R. Nat. Catal. 2024 7 252 261 10.1038/s41929-023-01091-3
Frydendal R. Paoli E. A. Chorkendorff I. Rossmeisl J. Stephens I. E. L. Adv. Energy Mater. 2015 5 1500991 10.1002/aenm.201500991
Huang J. Sheng H. Ross R. D. Han J. Wang X. Song B. Jin S. Nat. Commun. 2021 12 3036 10.1038/s41467-021-23390-8 34031417
Yu J. Garcés-Pineda F. A. González-Cobos J. Peña-Díaz M. Rogero C. Giménez S. Spadaro M. C. Arbiol J. Barja S. Galán-Mascarós J. R. Nat. Commun. 2022 13 4341 10.1038/s41467-022-32024-6 35896541
Chatti M. Gardiner J. L. Fournier M. Johannessen B. Williams T. Gengenbach T. R. Pai N. Nguyen C. MacFarlane D. R. Hocking R. K. Simonov A. N. Nat. Catal. 2019 2 457 465 10.1038/s41929-019-0277-8
Zhou L. Shinde A. Montoya J. H. Singh A. Gul S. Yano J. Ye Y. Crumlin E. J. Richter M. H. Cooper J. K. Stein H. S. Haber J. A. Persson K. A. Gregoire J. M. ACS Catal. 2018 8 10938 10948 10.1021/acscatal.8b02689
Chong L. Gao G. Wen J. Li H. Xu H. Green Z. Sugar J. D. Kropf A. J. Xu W. Lin X. Xu H. Wang L. Liu D.-J. Science 2023 380 609 616 10.1126/science.ade1499 37167381
Man I. C. Su H. Calle-Vallejo F. Hansen H. A. Martínez J. I. Inoglu N. G. Kitchin J. Jaramillo T. F. Nørskov J. K. Rossmeisl J. ChemCatChem 2011 3 1159 1165 10.1002/cctc.201000397
Wang Z. Guo X. Montoya J. Nørskov J. K. npj Comput. Mater. 2020 6 160 10.1038/s41524-020-00430-3
Chen H. Feng G. Fan W. Han J. Li Y. Lai Q. Opt. Mater. Express 2019 9 3132 3145 10.1364/OME.9.003132
Lee M. Lee C. B. Lee D. Lee S. R. Chang M. Hur J. H. Kim Y. Kim C. Seo D. H. Seo S. Chung U. I. Yoo I. Kim K. Nat. Mater. 2011 10 625 630 10.1038/nmat3070 21743450
Sun S. Zhou X. Cong B. Hong W. Chen G. ACS Catal. 2020 10 9086 9097 10.1021/acscatal.0c01273
Ede S. R. Luo Z. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021 9 20131 20163 10.1039/D1TA04032D
Zheng X. Chen Y. Lai W. Li P. Ye C. Liu N. Dou S. X. Pan H. Sun W. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022 32 2200663 10.1002/adfm.202200663
Retuerto M. Pascual L. Calle-Vallejo F. Ferrer P. Gianolio D. Pereira A. G. García Á. Torrero J. Fernández-Díaz M. T. Bencok P. Peña M. A. Fierro J. L. G. Rojas S. Nat. Commun. 2019 10 2041 10.1038/s41467-019-09791-w 31053713
Hao S. Liu M. Pan J. Liu X. Tan X. Xu N. He Y. Lei L. Zhang X. Nat. Commun. 2020 11 5368 10.1038/s41467-020-19212-y 33097730
Rao R. R. Kolb M. J. Giordano L. Pedersen A. F. Katayama Y. Hwang J. Mehta A. You H. Lunger J. R. Zhou H. Halck N. B. Vegge T. Chorkendorff I. Stephens I. E. L. Shao-Horn Y. Nat. Catal. 2020 3 516 525 10.1038/s41929-020-0457-6
Wen Y. Chen P. Wang L. Li S. Wang Z. Abed J. Mao X. Min Y. Dinh C. T. Luna P. D. Huang R. Zhang L. Wang L. Wang L. Nielsen R. J. Li H. Zhuang T. Ke C. Voznyy O. Hu Y. Li Y. Goddard III W. A. Zhang B. Peng H. Sargent E. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021 143 6482 6490 10.1021/jacs.1c00384 33891414
Zhou L. Shao Y. Yin F. Li J. Kang F. Lv R. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 7644 10.1038/s41467-023-43466-x 37996423
Xue Y. Zhao J. Huang L. Lu Y. Malek A. Gao G. Zhuang Z. Wang D. Yavuz C. T. Lu X. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 8093 10.1038/s41467-023-43977-7 38062017
Shi Z. Li J. Wang Y. Liu S. Zhu J. Yang J. Wang X. Ni J. Jiang Z. Zhang L. Wang Y. Liu C. Xing W. Ge J. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 843 10.1038/s41467-023-36380-9 36792586
Wang X. Jang H. Liu S. Li Z. Zhao X. Chen Y. Kim M. G. Qin Q. Liu X. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023 13 2301673 10.1002/aenm.202301673
Galyamin D. Torrero J. Rodríguez I. Kolb M. J. Ferrer P. Pascual L. Salam M. A. Gianolio D. Celorrio V. Mokhtar M. Sanchez D. G. Gago A. S. Friedrich K. A. Peña M. A. Alonso J. A. Calle-Vallejo F. Retuerto M. Rojas S. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 2010 10.1038/s41467-023-37665-9 37037807
Chen S. Zhang S. Guo L. Pan L. Shi C. Zhang X. Huang Z. Yang G. Zou J.-J. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 4127 10.1038/s41467-023-39822-6 37438355
Zheng X. Yang J. Li P. Wang Q. Wu J. Zhang E. Chen S. Zhuang Z. Lai W. Dou S. Sun W. Wang D. Li Y. Sci. Adv. 2023 9 eadi8025 10.1126/sciadv.adi8025 37851800
Wang Y. Lei X. Zhang B. Bai B. Das P. Azam T. Xiao J. Wu Z.-S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2024 63 e202316903 10.1002/anie.202316903 37997556
Ping X. Liu Y. Zheng L. Song Y. Guo L. Chen S. Wei Z. Nat. Commun. 2024 15 2501 10.1038/s41467-024-46815-6 38509091
Li H. Xu Y. Lv N. Zhang Q. Zhang X. Wei Z. Wang Y. Tang H. Pan H. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2023 11 1121 1132 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c06368
Peng Y. Hajiyani H. Pentcheva R. ACS Catal. 2021 11 5601 5613 10.1021/acscatal.1c00214
Wu Z. Chen F. Li B. Yu S. Finfrock Y. Z. Meira D. M. Yan Q. Zhu P. Chen M. Song T. Yin Z. Liang H. Zhang S. Wang G. Wang H. Nat. Mater. 2023 22 100 108 10.1038/s41563-022-01380-5 36266572
Tian Y. Wang S. Velasco E. Yang Y. Cao L. Zhang L. Li X. Lin Y. Zhang Q. Chen L. iScience 2020 23 100756 10.1016/j.isci.2019.100756 31887659
Ye P. Fang K. Wang H. Wang Y. Huang H. Mo C. Ning J. Hu Y. Nat. Commun. 2024 15 1012 10.1038/s41467-024-45320-0 38307871
Zhang D. Li M. Yong X. Song H. Waterhouse G. I. N. Yi Y. Xue B. Zhang D. Liu B. Lu S. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 2517 10.1038/s41467-023-38213-1 37130878
Feng Y. Si S. Deng G. Xu Z. Pu Z. Hu H. Wang C. J. Alloys Compd. 2022 892 162113 10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.162113
Audichon T. Morisset S. Napporn T. W. Kokoh K. B. Comminges C. Morais C. ChemElectroChem 2015 2 1128 1137 10.1002/celc.201500072
Chen S. Huang H. Jiang P. Yang K. Diao J. Gong S. Liu S. Huang M. Wang H. Chen Q. ACS Catal. 2020 10 1152 1160 10.1021/acscatal.9b04922
Todoroki N. Kudo R. Hayashi K. Yokoi M. Naraki N. Wadayama T. ACS Catal. 2023 13 11433 11440 10.1021/acscatal.3c01525
Hu W. Chen S. Xia Q. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014 39 6967 6976 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.02.114
Gunasooriya G. T. K. K. Nørskov J. K. ACS Energy Lett. 2020 5 3778 3787 10.1021/acsenergylett.0c02030
Peng J. Giordano L. Davenport T. C. Shaohorn Y. Chem. Mater. 2022 34 7774 7787 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c01233
Jo S. Kim M.-C. Lee K. B. Choi H. Zhang L. Sohn J. I. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023 13 2301420 10.1002/aenm.202301420
Badreldin A. Bouhali O. Abdel-Wahab A. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023 34 2312425 10.1002/adfm.202312425
Mao X. Wang L. Li Y. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2023 14 170 177 10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c02873 36579956
Moon J. Beker W. Siek M. Kim J. Lee H. S. Hyeon T. Grzybowski B. A. Nat. Mater. 2024 23 108 115 10.1038/s41563-023-01707-w 37919351
Park H. Kim Y. Choi S. Kim H. J. J. Energy Chem. 2024 91 645 655 10.1016/j.jechem.2023.12.048
Fang Z. Li S. Zhang Y. Wang Y. Meng K. Huang C. Sun S. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2024 15 281 289 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02938 38166444
Esterhuizen J. A. Mathur A. Goldsmith B. R. Linic S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024 146 5511 5522 10.1021/jacs.3c13491 38373924
Blöchl P. E. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1994 50 17953 17979 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953
Larsen A. H. Mortensen J. J. Blomqvist J. Castelli I. E. Christensen R. Dułak M. Friis J. Groves M. N. Hammer B. Hargus C. Hermes E. D. Jennings P. C. Jensen P. B. Kermode J. Kitchin J. R. Kolsbjerg E. L. Kubal J. Kaasbjerg K. Lysgaard S. Maronsson J. B. Maxson T. Olsen T. Pastewka L. Peterson A. Rostgaard C. Schiøtz J. Schütt O. Strange M. Thygesen K. S. Vegge T. Vilhelmsen L. Walter M. Zeng Z. Jacobsen K. W. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2017 29 273002 10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e 28323250
Perdew J. P. Burke K. Ernzerhof M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996 77 3865 3868 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 10062328
Hammer B. Hansen L. B. Nørskov J. K. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1999 59 7413 7421 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.7413
Aleshina L. A. Loginova S. V. Crystallogr. Rep. 2002 47 415 419 10.1134/1.1481927
Lee S. H. Kim J. S. Kim J. S. Kim S. J. Park G. S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013 110 1 5
Yang Y. Kawazoe Y. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2018 2 034602 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.2.034602
Han C. Wang T. Energy Fuels 2023 37 13624 13644 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.3c02295
Murase T. Irie H. Hashimoto K. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004 108 15803 15807 10.1021/jp047874i
Cao S. Chen H. Hu Y. Li J. Yang C. Chen Z. Wei S. Liu S. Wang Z. Sun D. Lu X. Chem. Eng. J. 2023 461 141936 10.1016/j.cej.2023.141936
Zheng Y. Vernieres J. Wang Z. Zhang K. Hochfilzer D. Krempl K. Liao T. Presel F. Altantzis T. Fatermans J. Scott S. B. Secher N. M. Moon C. Liu P. Bals S. Van Aert S. Cao A. Anand M. Nørskov J. K. Kibsgaard J. Chorkendorff I. Nat. Energy 2022 7 55 64 10.1038/s41560-021-00948-w
Rong C. Dastafkan K. Wang Y. Zhao C. Adv. Mater. 2023 35 2211884 10.1002/adma.202211884 37549889
Nørskov J. K. Rossmeisl J. Logadottir A. Lindqvist L. Kitchin J. R. Bligaard T. Jónsson H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004 108 17886 17892 10.1021/jp047349j
Yang W. Jia Z. Zhou B. Wei L. Gao Z. Li H. Commun. Chem. 2023 6 6 10.1038/s42004-022-00810-4 36698039
Han X. Ling X. Yu D. Xie D. Li L. Peng S. Zhong C. Zhao N. Deng Y. Hu W. Adv. Mater. 2019 31 1905622 10.1002/adma.201905622 31617633
