An important cost factor for polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysers is precious metals as the catalyst layers. Therefore, reducing of the platinum loading on the cathode side and the iridium on the anode is essential to reduce the overall costs of hydrogen production. Cryoaerogels from noble metal nanoparticles are a suitable, yet unexplored material for use as a catalyst in water electrolysis. They combine high porosity and surface area with an excellent catalytic activity at low loadings of noble metal.[1] Recently, we have succeeded in producing a carbon-based gas diffusion electrode (GDE) coated with platinum cryoaerogel as the catalyst. The mechanical connection to the carbon underneath as well as maintaining a high protonic conductivity in contact to the Nafion membrane allowed the application to the water electrolysis cell. The manufacturing includes an oven treatment, whose temperature is particularly decisive for the structure of the cryoaerogel. Figure 1 left shows the polarization curves of the samples pyrolyzed at 300°C, 350°C and 500°C compared to a commercial GDE (platinum loading of 0.5 mg/cm²). All measurements are repeated three times and showed good reproducibility, as indicated by the error bars on the graph. Among the different temperatures, 300°C is the optimum for the pyrolysis process as it showed the lowest voltages. The catalytic performance of the different samples can be correlated to the micro-structure of the cryoaerogel layer represented by the SEM images and the electronic-structure of the platinum as shown by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Although in figure 1 the performance of the cryoaerogel catalyst layers is not better than the commercial GDE, however, the platinum loading is significantly reduced by 70% (0.15 mg/cm2). Moreover, the reproducibility of the measurements proofs the possibility of using cryoaerogels in the full water electrolysis cell.[1] Müller, D., Zámbó, D., Dorfs, D., Bigall, N. C., Cryoaerogels and Cryohydrogels as Efficient Electrocatalysts. Small 2021, 17, 2007908. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202007908 Figure 1