Single-step hydrothermal synthesis of amine functionalized Ce-MOF for electrochemical water splitting

Figures & data

Scheme 1. Schematic illustration of electrode preparation.

Figure 1. Scanning electron microscopy images of (a) Ce-MOF and (b) Ce-MOF-NH₂ and EDS spectrum of (c) Ce-MOF/ NF and (d) Ce-MOF-NH₂/ NF.

Figure 2. Atomic force microscopy images of (a) Ce-MOF/NF and (b) Ce-MOF-NH₂NF and particle size distribution of (c) Ce-MOF/NF and (d) Ce-MOF-NH₂/NF.

Figure 3. (a) XRD and (b) FTIR of Ce-MOF/ NF and Ce-MOF-NH₂/ NF.

Figure 4. (a) CV, (b) LSV, (c) Tafel slope, and (d) electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of bare NF, Ce-MOF/NF, and Ce-MOF-NH₂/NF, respectively.

Table 1. Comparative study for all synthesized electrodes.

Sample	J(mA/cm^2)	Onset potential (V)	Overpotential (mV)	Tafel slope (mV/dec.)	Rct (Ω)	Rs (Ω)
Bare NF	10	1.56	391	124	–	–
Ce-MOF	10	1.5	348	89	253	1.74
Ce-MOF-NH2	10	1.49	326	68	1.12	1.70

Figure 5. (a) non-faradic CV curves at different scan rates, (b) double-layer capacitance calculated via delj vs. scan rate of Ce-MOF/NF, (c) non-faradic CV curves at different scan rates, (d) double-layer capacitance calculated via delj vs. scan rate of Ce-MOF-NH₂/NF, respectively.

Figure 6. (a) Comparison of 1st and 1000th CV cycle, (b) Chronoamperometry curve of Ce-MOF-NH₂/NF, respectively.

Table 2. Electrochemical performance comparison of Ce-MOF-NH₂/NF with other reported materials.

Catalyst	Electrolyte	Tafel Slope (mV/Dec)	Overpotential (mV)	Ref.
Fe3S4 (52.1 wt%)/MIL-53	NaClO4 (0.1M)	60	92	[30]
NiCo-MOF/rGOAS	KOH (0.1M)	73	210	[31]
Cu-BHT NP	H2SO4 (0.5M)	95	450	[32]
Gr (4 wt%) and Co-MOF	H2SO4 (0.5M)	91	125	[33]
2D Ni-MOF@Pt NSs	H2SO4 (0.5M)	30	43	[34]
Ni3(Ni3·HAHATN)2	KOH (1 M)	46	115	[35]
AB&CTGU-9 (3: 4)	H2SO4 (0.5M)	45	44	[36]
CoP/Co-MOF	PBS (1M)	63	49	[37]
2D Co-BDC/MoS2	KOH (1M)	86	248	[38]
Co1-xCexBTC	KOH (1 M)	107	308	[39]
Ce1-xCuxO	KOH (1 M)	82.6	351	[40]
Metal–organic framework derived NiSe2/CeO2	KOH (1M)	66	250	[41]
CoSe2/CeO2 nanocomposites	KOH (1 M)	53	290	[42]
Ce-MOF-NH2	KOH (1M)	68	326	ThisStudy

Huang D-D, Li S, Wu Y-P, et al. Chem Commun. 2019;55:4570–4573.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khalid M, Hassan A, Honorato AM, et al. Chem Commun. 2018;54:11048–11051.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang X, Yao H, Cui Y, et al. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9:40752–40759.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tian J-W, Fu M-X, Huang D-D, et al. Inorg Chem Commun. 2018;95:73–77.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rui K, Zhao G, Lao M, et al. Nano Lett. 2019;19:8447–8453.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang H, Zhao Y, Bai Y, et al. Adv Sci. 2020;7:2000012.

 Google Scholar

Zhou W, Wu Y-P, Wang X, et al. Cryst Eng Comm. 2018;20:4804–4809.

 Google Scholar

Liu T, Li P, Yao N, et al. Angew Chem. 2019;131:4727–4732.

 Google Scholar

Zhu D, Liu J, Zhao Y, et al. Small. 2019;15:1805511.

 Google Scholar

Ai L, Luo Y, Huang W, et al. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47:12893–12902.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang N, Chen Y, Liang Y. J Mol Struct. 2022;1257:132586.

 Google Scholar

Taherinia D, Moravvej S, Moazzeni M, et al. Sust Energy Fuel. 2021;5:2994–3000.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taherinia D, Moazzeni M, Moravej S. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022.

 Google Scholar