Paper detail

Assessment of the Accuracy of Density Functionals for Calculating Oxygen Reduction Reaction on Nitrogen Doped Graphene

Experimental studies of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) at nitrogen doped graphene electrodes have reported a remarkably low overpotential, on the order of 0.5 V, similar to Pt based electrodes. Theoretical calculations using density functional theory have lent support for this claim. However, other measurements have indicated that transition metal impurities are actually responsible for the ORR activity, thereby raising questions about the reliability of both the experiments and the calculations. In order to assess the accuracy of the theoretical calculations, various generalized gradient approximation (GGA), meta-GGA and hybrid functionals are employed here and calibrated against high-level wave function based coupled cluster calculations (CCSD(T)) of the overpotential as well as self-interaction corrected density functional calculations and published quantum Monte Carlo calculations of O adatom binding to graphene. The PBE0 and HSE06 hybrid functionals are found to give more accurate results than the GGA and meta-GGA functionals, as would be expected, and for low dopant concentration, 3.1%, the overpotential is calculated to be 1.0 V. The GGA and meta-GGA functionals give a lower estimate by as much as 0.4 V. When the dopant concentration is doubled, the overpotential calculated with hybrid functionals drops, while it increases in GGA functional calculations. The opposite trends result from different potential determining steps, the *OOH species being of central importance in the hybrid functional calculations while the reduction of *O determines the overpotential obtained in GGA and meta-GGA calculations. The results presented here are mainly based on calculations of periodic representations of the system, but a comparison is also made with molecular flake models which are found to give erratic results.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.