Measurement evidence
Electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide using a copper rubeanate metal organic framework · Hinogami R., Yotsuhashi S., Deguchi M. et al. · ECS Electrochemistry Letters · 2012
Reported values remain attached to the sample, method, conditions, extraction quality and source location that produced them.
bare conductive carbon paper electrode · Electrode
0.5 M KHCO3 aqueous solution, same H-type-cell setup as CR-MOF electrode; CO2 saturated and N2-bubbled comparisons.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|
CR-MOF deposited on conductive carbon paper · Electrode
0.5 M KHCO3 aqueous solution in H-type cell; Ag/AgCl reference, Pt wire counter, Nafion 117 separator, ALS Model 760 potentiostat; CO2 saturated pH 8.7 and N2-bubbled pH 7.7 conditions; potentials translated to SHE and N2 data corrected by +59 mV.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR-MOF cathodic current onset shift relative to bare CP | about 0.6 V more positive than CP | — | about | Text Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2A |
| CR-MOF onset potential shift relative to Cu metalMarked as a best value within this paper | about 0.2 V more positive than Cu metal electrode | — | about | Text Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2A |
| CO2-saturated electrolyte pH | pH of solution (A) was 8.7 | — | — | Text Exact Reported | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2 |
| N2-bubbled electrolyte pH | pH of solution (B) was 7.7 | — | — | Text Exact Reported | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2 |
Cu metal electrode · Electrode
0.5 M KHCO3 aqueous solution, same H-type-cell setup as CR-MOF electrode; CO2 saturated and N2-bubbled comparisons.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|
CR-MOF deposited on conductive carbon paper · Electrode
CO2 reduction on CR-MOF electrode at -1.3 V vs SHE; HCOOH amount plotted against electrolysis time.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR-MOF electrode stability during electrolysisMarked as a best value within this paper | reaction proceeded constantly during electrolysis, without any degradation of the electrode | — | — | Text Qualitative | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 4 |
| HCOOH formation time-course linear fit R2 | R2 = 0.9989 | — | — | Figure Axis Exact Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 4 |
| HCOOH formation time-course slope at -1.3 V vs SHEMarked as a best value within this paper | y = 0.0206 x | — | — | Figure Axis Rounded Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 4 |
bare conductive carbon paper electrode · Electrode
CO2 electroreduction control in aqueous 0.5 M KHCO3.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bare CP product behaviour | only hydrogen and very small quantities of CO2 reduction products | — | — | Text Qualitative | H19 · Results and Discussion |
CR-MOF deposited on conductive carbon paper · Electrode
CO2 electroreduction in aqueous 0.5 M KHCO3; CO2 bubbled into catholyte before electrolysis; sealed potentiostatic electrolysis; gaseous products analysed by GC and HCOOH by HPLC.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCOOH current efficiency on CR-MOF | 30% at every potential | — | — | Text Rounded Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| HCOOH formation rate on CR-MOF at -1.2 V vs SHEMarked as a best value within this paper | 13.4 umol/cm2/h at -1.2 V vs SHE | — | — | Text Rounded Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| HCOOH formation rate on CR-MOF at -1.4 V vs SHE | approximately 26 umol cm^-2 h^-1 from Figure 3 bar | — | visual estimate | Figure Axis Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| HCOOH formation rate on CR-MOF at -1.6 V vs SHE | approximately 41 umol cm^-2 h^-1 from Figure 3 bar | — | visual estimate | Figure Axis Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| HCOOH selectivity among CO2 reduction products on CR-MOFMarked as a best value within this paper | more than 98% | — | > | Text Approximate | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| CR-MOF/Cu HCOOH product-rate ratio at -1.2 V vs SHEMarked as a best value within this paper | 13-fold greater at -1.2 V vs SHE | — | — | Text Rounded Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
Cu metal electrode · Electrode
CO2 electroreduction in aqueous 0.5 M KHCO3; product analysis compared with CR-MOF electrode.
| Property | Reported value | Normalised value | Uncertainty | Origin and quality | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCOOH formation rate on Cu at -1.2 V vs SHE | 1.1 umol/cm2/h at -1.2 V vs SHE | — | — | Text Rounded Reported | H19 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| Cu product distribution | Cu metal electrodes produced HCOOH, CO, and hydrocarbons such as methane, ethylene and ethane | — | — | Text Qualitative | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| total CO2 reduction product formation rate on Cu at -1.4 V vs SHE | approximately 19 umol cm^-2 h^-1 from Figure 3 stacked bar | — | visual estimate | Figure Axis Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |
| total CO2 reduction product formation rate on Cu at -1.6 V vs SHE | approximately 32 umol cm^-2 h^-1 from Figure 3 stacked bar | — | visual estimate | Figure Axis Approximate | H18 · Results and Discussion · Figure 3 |