View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article

Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
DOI: 10.1039/C9EE90063B (Correction) Energy Environ. Sci., 2019, 12, 3611-3611

Correction: Weakening hydrogen adsorption on nickel via interstitial nitrogen doping promotes bifunctional hydrogen electrocatalysis in alkaline solution

Tingting Wang a, Miao Wang a, Hao Yang a, Mingquan Xu b, Chuandong Zuo c, Kun Feng a, Miao Xie a, Jun Deng a, Jun Zhong a, Wu Zhou b, Tao Cheng *a and Yanguang Li *a
aInstitute of Functional Nano and Soft Materials (FUNSOM), Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Carbon-Based Functional Materials and Devices, Soochow University, Suzhou, 215123, China. E-mail: tcheng@suda.edu.cn
bSchool of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
cBeijing Key Laboratory of Opto-Electronic Functional Materials & Micro-Nano Devices, Department of Physics, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China

Received 5th November 2019 , Accepted 5th November 2019

First published on 12th November 2019

Abstract

Correction for ‘Weakening hydrogen adsorption on nickel via interstitial nitrogen doping promotes bifunctional hydrogen electrocatalysis in alkaline solution’ by Tingting Wang et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2019, DOI: 10.1039/c9ee01743g.

In the original manuscript, we inadvertently missed one important result from the original ref. 28 by Oshchepkov et al.1 for the comparison in Table S1 in the electronic supporting information (ESI†). That work reported the preparation of nanostructured nickel nanoparticles supported on vulcan carbon as an active catalyst for the hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR) in alkaline media. RDE measurements revealed a mass-specific kinetic current (Jmk) of 32.1 ± 4.8 mA gNi−1 and a mass specific exchange current (Jm0) of 22.4 ± 4.3 mA gNi−1 at the catalyst loading of 0.073 ± 0.009 mg cm−2 (later provided by the authors of ref. 1 through email communication) in 0.1 M NaOH. Both values are higher than those reported in our manuscript even though we believe that this is at least partly due to the very low catalyst loading the authors adopted for HOR RDE measurements. This correction doesn’t affect the scientific content of our work.

Table S1 should appear as follows.

Table 1 Comparison of the alkaline HOR activity of our catalyst with literature results
Electrocatalyst Electrolyte T/°C Loading/mgmetal cm−2 J mk/A g−1 @ η = 50 mV J m0/A g−1 Ref.
a Value provided by the authors through email communication.
np-Ni 3 N 0.1 M KOH 25 0.16 29.75 10.3 This work
Ch-activated NiED/XC-72 0.1 M NaOH 25 0.073 ± 0.009a 32.1 ± 4.8 22.4 ± 4.3 J. Power Sources, 2018, 402, 447
Ni/N-CNT 0.1 M KOH RT 0.25 9.3 3.54 Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 10141
Ni/CNT 0.1 M KOH RT 0.25 1.9 0.98 Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 10141
Ni 0.1 M KOH RT 0.25 0.28 0.15 Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 10141
50% Ni9Mo1/KB 0.1 M NaOH 25 — 4.5 J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 24433
Ni0.95Cu0.05/C 0.25 2.5 J. Electroanal. Chem., 2016, 783, 146
Ni3@h-(BN)1/C-700NH3 0.1 M NaOH RT — 3.3 Chem. Sci., 2017, 8, 5728

The following discussion of the manuscript should be corrected as follows, with the changes indicated in bold:

On p. 5: “Remarkably, we find that both Jmk and Jm0 of our np-Ni3N are significantly improved compared to most previous Ni-based HOR electrocatalysts as summarized in Fig. 3c and Table S1 (ESI†)”.

In the Conclusion: “All these metrics were superior to most existing non-precious-metal-based electrocatalysts to our best knowledge”.

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

References

  1. A. G. Oshchepkov, A. Bonnefont, S. N. Pronkin, O. V. Cherstiouk, C. Ulhaq-Bouillet, V. Papaefthimiou, V. N. Parmon and E. R. Savinova, J. Power Sources, 2018, 402, 447–452 CrossRef CAS.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2019