As an ideal clean energy carrier, hydrogen can be produced through polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis by generating H2 from H2O. However, noble platinum group metals (PGM) remain the most common electrocatalysts for hydrogen evolution reaction (HER). The expense and scarcity of these catalytic materials obstruct the wide-spread adoption of electrochemical fuel generation technologies 1. Sulfur based transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) have emerged as a promising alternative to PGM HER electrocatalysts as they are abundant, inexpensive, and exhibit a low HER overpotential in acidic environment 2,3. Here we present a systemic assessment of the compositional dependent HER activity and stability for Co-based mixed chalcogen, CoSxSe2-x, pyrite TMDs. We observe a decrease in HER activity from the single chalcogen TMDs, CoS2 and CoSe2, to mixed chalcogen TMDs, as shown in Figure 1. This observed compositional trend in HER activity can be explained by the unique combination of compositional dependent hydrogen adsorption free energy (ΔGHad) and bulk resistivity/conductivity of the pyrite TMD. With near thermoneutral ΔGHad, the highest resistivity among the compositions was observed. The following increase in Se content leads to the decrease in HER activity due to a steady movement away from optimal ΔGHad. As the composition approaches CoSe2, however, it is observed that HER activity again increases at higher Se contents, with CoSe2 exhibiting similar activity to CoS2. This highlights the convolution of ΔGHad and material conductivity in determining the HER activity. Furthermore, through stability tests under constant potential HER electrolysis, as shown in Figure 2, Se-rich Co-based pyrite TMDs are found to be more durable than S-rich samples. Therefore, with an HER activity matching that of CoS2, but with a dramatic improvement in stability, CoSe2 breaks away from the traditional inverse activity/stability relationship and represents a promising material for non-PGM HER electrocatalysis in acidic based PEM electrolyzers. Wang, J. et al. Mater. 28, (2016) 215-230.Chhowalla, H. et al. Nature Chemistry 5, (2013) 263-275.Jaramillo, T. et al. Science 317, (2007) 100-102. Figure 1
Read full abstract