Spatiotemporal Active Phase Evolution for CO2 Electrocatalysis
Authors: Kim Juwon , Lee Si Young , Kim Se-Jun , Koo Bonho , Chung Jinkyu , Lee Danwon , Choi Subin , Kim Jimin , Seo Sungjae , Nam Chihyun , Gandionco Karl Adrian , Bak Gwangsu , Jo Sugeun , Kim Namdong , Shin Hyun-Joon , Chae Keun Hwa , Won Da Hye , Marcus Mattew , Shapiro David , Haw Shu-Chin , Alsem Daan , Salmon Norman , Min Byoung Koun , Kim Hyungjun , Hwang Yun Jeong , Lim Jongwoo 
Published: August 2024

Transition-metal-based solid-state electrocatalysts undergo dynamic phase transformation governed by the local electrochemical environment during operation, e.g., oxygen evolution/reduction(1,2), hydrogen evolution(3), and carbon dioxide reduction(4). Electrochemical active species, often hidden before operation, can become evolved due to the applied electrochemical potential and/or surrounding chemicals. These species are stabilized under the local environment dynamically generated by the reaction product, e.g., proton (H+) or hydroxyl (OH-) group(5,6).
Active species often account for a small fraction (i.e., minor motif) of the entire catalyst volume, and the nanoscale morphology and chemical composition of the electrocatalyst are inhomogeneous and continuously change during the electrochemical reaction. Thus, capturing the active species remains a major challenge. Spatiotemporal observation of the structural/chemical changes of the electrocatalyst and the correlation with the local electrochemical environment may reveal the active species and elucidate the governing step toward their formation. Furthermore, identification of the key intermediate step of catalyst phase transformation allows the redirection of low- to high-active catalysts; however, this remains challenging.
During electrochemical CO2 reduction (ECR), (hydr)oxide-derived Cu electrocatalysts experience significant phase transformation and show high activity and selectivity for carbon dimerization (C–C coupling)(7,8,9). The location and chemical composition of the active species evolving during electrochemical phase transformation may be strongly heterogeneous; however, these species have not been clearly determined. Recent studies have employed operando characterization techniques, e.g., fluorescence hard/soft X-ray(4,10), X-ray photoelectron(11), and Raman spectroscopy(6), to elucidate the active species responsible for high C–C coupling activity. However, although these techniques could track the changes in chemical composition of the electrocatalysts during operation, they did not reveal the spatiotemporal evolution of the active species or existence of minor motifs, owing to their inefficient chemical sensitivity. Thus, it is imperative to develop an operando analysis technique that can probe the nanoscopic chemical composition with high spatial/temporal resolution and sufficient detection limit.
By observing the chemical and morphological evolution of highly efficient ECR catalysts during operation, we identified the key intermediate species toward highly active surfaces and significantly enhanced the C–C coupling activity. Operando transmission soft X-ray microscopy(1,12,13), which visualizes the nanoscale chemical composition distribution of Cu-based catalysts during ECR, revealed that partially evolved Cu+ phases and surface Cu2+ phases are responsible for the dynamic dissolution–redeposition process(4,8) and improvement of C–C coupling activity, respectively. We further demonstrated that the dissolution–redeposition process is electrochemically triggered by inducing Cu+ phases, which are redirected to copper-carbonate-hydroxide species(6,14,15) even under high cathodic potentials. DFT calculations suggest that these cationic Cu species potentially serve as active species and/or assistive sites for enhancing C–C coupling activity.
(1) Mefford, J. T., et al. Nature 593(7857), 67-73 (2021)
(2) Kreider, M. E., et al. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 11(30), 26863-26871 (2019)
(3) Zhai, L., et al. ACS Energy Letters 5(8), 2483-2491 (2020)
(4) De Luna, P., et al. Nature Catalysis 1(2), 103-110 (2018)
(5) Wang, Y., et al. Nature Catalysis 3(2), 98-106 (2020)
(6) Henckel, D. A., et al. ACS Catalysis 11(1), 255-263 (2021)
(7) Lee, S. Y., et al. Journal of the American Chemical Society 140(28), 8681-8689 (2018)
(8) Zhong, D., et al. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 60(9), 4879-4885 (2021)
(9) Lei, Q., et al. Journal of the American Chemical Society 142(9), 4213-4222 (2020)
(10) Eilert, A., et al. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 7(8), 1466-1470 (2016)
(11) Arán-Ais, R. M., et al. Nature Energy 5(4), 317-325 (2020)
(12) Lim, J. et al. Science 353, 566–571 (2016)
(13) de Smit, E., et al. Nature 456(7219), 222-225 (2008)
(14) Spodaryk, M., et al. Electrochimica Acta 297, 55-60 (2019)
(15) Jiang, S., et al. ChemSusChem 15(8), e202102506 (2022)

Figure 1