J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol Search

CLOSE


J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol > Volume 17(2); 2026 > Article
Kim, Jun, and Lee: Recent Advances in Ir-based Electrocatalysts for Oxygen Evolution in Acidic Media: A Mini-Review

Abstract

Acidic proton exchange membrane water electrolyzer (PEMWE) offers high current density operation, rapid dynamic response and compact architecture, making it highly attractive for large-scale hydrogen production. To sustain such demanding conditions, anode electrode must combine high catalytic activity with long operational durability. Iridium (Ir) oxides remain the state-of-the-art choice due to their unique stability in strong acid. However, the scarcity of Ir and the limited intrinsic activity of Ir-based electrocatalysts present major obstacles for commercialization. Recent advances in Ir-based electrocatalysts highlight how rational design strategies can enhance performance while reducing Ir loading. Strategies include tuning electronic structure through metal doping, controlling morphology to increase active sites, and using supports for uniform dispersion, Ir stabilization, and efficient charge transport. Amorphous and metastable phases have also emerged as promising frameworks. Their disordered structures create abundant active sites and enable adaptive reconstruction pathways that enhance activity. In parallel, mechanistic studies continue to refine our understanding of oxygen evolution on Ir oxides, revealing the interplay of multiple pathways. This mini-review consolidates progress across mechanistic insights, materials innovations, and device-level evaluations. With coordinated advances, Ir-based electrocatalysts are moving closer to enabling commercially viable PEMWE for sustainable hydrogen production.

INTRODUCTION

Proton exchange membrane water electrolyzer (PEMWE) is a carbon dioxide free method to turn water into hydrogen using renewable electricity from sources like solar and wind [15]. It is attractive for green hydrogen production because it can operate at high current density, respond quickly to power fluctuations, and deliver hydrogen with high purity [610]. In a PEMWE cell, two reactions occur (Scheme 1) [11]. At the anode, the oxygen evolution reaction (OER) splits water into oxygen gas (O2) and protons. At the cathode, the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) combines those protons and electrons to form hydrogen gas (H2). OER is a sluggish 4-electron process that requires high voltage under strongly acidic media [1,10,1215]. Under these harsh conditions, only a few materials remain stable and acid resistant [16]. Among them, Iridium (Ir) stands out as the only material that currently provides both commercially acceptable activity and durability, although many efforts are underway to explore alternatives with other metals [17,18].
A major challenge for PEMWE is the limited supply of Ir [19]. To meet projected deployment levels, the annual Ir requirement is estimated at around 40 t, while current global Ir production is only about 7 t [20,21]. This clear mismatch highlights the urgent need to use Ir much more efficiently, ensuring that the most of the atoms used actively contributes to the reaction. To guide the progress, ultimate U.S. DOE targets call for current densities of 3 A cm–2 at 1.6 V and lifetimes of 80,000 h with minimal voltage loss during operation [22]. Although recent device demonstrations are approaching these figures with reduced Ir loadings, they still fall short of fully satisfying the targets. Achieving large-scale commercialization will require efficient use of Ir-based electrocatalysts. At the same time, they must remain highly active and stable under industrial operating conditions.
This mini-review first outlines the current understanding of how Ir oxide catalyzes the OER, focusing on three widely discussed pathways: the adsorbate evolution mechanism (AEM), the lattice oxygen mechanism (LOM), and the adjacent site oxide pathway mechanism (OPM). It then highlights design strategies that aim to balance activity, durability, and cost at low Ir loadings: (i) doping small amounts of other metals to fine tune Ir-O bonding and suppress dissolution; (ii) tailoring catalyst morphology to maximize accessible sites and minimize transport losses; and (iii) engineering supports to establish robust, continuous pathways for electron and proton conduction with stable interfaces. Table 1 provides a summary of high performance Ir-based electrocatalysts reported in the past five years.

OER MECHANISM

Electrocatalysis is a heterogeneous process that occurs at the solid electrolyte interface and is predominantly governed by adsorption mediated pathways [37]. In these pathways, electron transfer is directly coupled with bond formation and cleavage through specifically adsorbed intermediates. When reactants bind to well defined sites on a catalyst surface, the reaction can access new and energetically more favorable routes, accelerating transformations that would otherwise be slow or unlikely. This adsorption governed surface reactivity, mediated by diverse intermediates, underpins the OER mechanisms discussed here. On Ir-based oxides, the same catalyst and water system can proceed through different pathways. The most notable examples are AEM and LOM , which are the most widely accepted models (Fig. 1a and 1b) [21]. More recently, OPM has also attracted growing attention (Fig. 1c). Briefly, the AEM describes oxygen formation through water adsorption and deprotonation on a single metal active site, where the oxygen originates from water. The LOM involves direct participation of lattice oxygen in O-O bond formation, while the OPM proceeds through a peroxide related pathway involving dual active sites. Other pathways beyond these three are also possible [3840]. Additional variants have been proposed, and even for AEM and LOM, definitive experimental confirmation remains challenging because not every intermediate cannot be directly observed [29,41,42].
In acidic media, the OER follows the overall stoichiometry 2H2O → O2 + 4H+ + 4e with a standard potential of 1.229 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) at pH 0.43 However, the four electrons are not transferred in a single concerted step. Instead, the reaction proceeds through a sequence of proton coupled electron transfer (PCET) events mediated by surface bound intermediates [44,45]. PCET denotes an elementary step in which proton transfer is thermodynamically coupled to electron transfer. This coupling provides a lower energy pathway that stabilizes transient charge distributions. It also enables kinetically accessible bond formation and cleavage at the catalyst surface. On Ir oxides, the conventional AEM is generally associated with coordinatively unsaturated Ir surface sites as shown in Fig. 1a. In this pathway, water adsorption followed by PCET produces OH* according to H2O + * → *OH + H+ + e. A subsequent PCET generates the electrophilic *O intermediate. Reaction of *O with another water molecule forms *OOH. A final reaction then releases O2(g) while regenerating the vacant site according to *OOH → O2 + * + H⁺ + e [45].
Within the AEM framework, the thermodynamics follow robust scaling relations, most notably ∆G*OOH ≈ ∆G*OH + 3.2 eV, which inherently induces a gap between the real and ideal catalysts, as illustrated in Fig. 1d [15,46]. By applying this relation, the free energy landscape can be reduced to two variables, ∆G*OH and ∆G*O, so that catalytic activity correlates with the single descriptor ∆G*O – ∆G*OH. The corresponding free energy changes for each step are expressed as eq. (1)~(4).
(1)
ΔG1=ΔGOH
(2)
ΔG1=ΔGOHΔGOH
(3)
ΔG3=ΔGOOHΔGO=3.2eVΔGOΔGOH
(4)
ΔG4=4×1.23eVΔG1ΔG2ΔG3
As a result, the volcano plot peaks near ∆G*O – ∆G*OH ≈ 1.6 eV. This corresponds to a minimum theoretical overpotential of ηmin ≈ 0.37 V relative to the thermodynamic potential [2]. This trend is a direct manifestation of the Sabatier principle: adsorbates that bind either too strongly or too weakly suppress catalytic turnover [47,48]. It also explains why even state-of-the-art Ir-based electrocatalysts cannot achieve zero overpotential within the AEM framework.
A distinct class of pathways arises when lattice oxygen participates directly in O-O bond formation, known as LOM (Fig. 1b). In this mechanism, O-O coupling occurs between an adsorbed O and a neighboring lattice oxygen atom [49,50]. This feature eliminates the need for the *OOH intermediate, which is involved in key rate determining step (RDS) in AEM, and allows the reaction to bypass the scaling relation [51,52]. The participation of lattice oxygen can be probed experimentally by oxygen isotope labeling, often combined with techniques such as differential electrochemical mass spectrometry (DEMS) or atom probe tomography (APT). Briefly, DEMS continuously monitors the mass of the gases evolved from the electrochemical cell during reaction by recording their mass-to-charge (m/z) ratios in real time. This enables direct quantification of the molecular amounts. In contrast, APT probes the specimen before and after reaction. It provides a three-dimensional map showing which atoms and isotopes are present, where they are located, and in what quantities. Using DEMS, isotope signals such as 32O2, 34O2, and 36O2 can be tracked to determine oxygen isotope ratios and generation rates during OER (Fig. 1e), while APT enables assessment of solid-state oxygen exchange by comparing the lattice composition before and after reaction. In an H2 18O electrolyte, DEMS detects a distinct 32O2 signal, providing direct evidence of lattice oxygen participation originating from the 16O-containing catalyst surface (Fig. 2e).
LOM is highly sensitive to both structural and electronic features of the catalyst [24]. Defects such as lattice strain, metal/oxygen vacancies, or partial amorphization can make lattice oxygen more reactive, making the surface more likely to follow LOM [53]. This can increase the apparent activity by bypassing the scaling limitations of the AEM. However, the structural changes that allow LOM also compromise the stability of the catalyst. Continuous lattice oxygen turnover generates vacancies that drive cation migration, while high anodic potentials favor dissolution of Ir into soluble species. As a result, catalysts that strongly promote LOM often show accelerated Ir loss and surface roughening, illustrating the classic trade-off between activity and stability.
Alongside AEM and LOM, increasing attention has turned to an adjacent dual active site coupling route often referred to as OPM (Fig. 1c) [39,40]. In OPM, two neighboring metal-oxo moieties (M-O*∙∙∙*O-M) couple directly to form O*-O* radical coupling thereby bypassing the *OOH formation from AEM and avoiding lattice oxygen participation from LOM [53]. Nature provides an instructive precedent in photosystem II [54,55]. The Mn4CaO5 oxygen-evolving complex accumulates oxidizing equivalents across multiple metal centers. The O-O bond forms through a two site interaction between adjacent oxo/hydroxo ligands on different Mn ions, which distributes the redox load and lowers the barrier compared to a single site pathway. Similarly, dual site oxo coupling on Ir oxide surfaces can reduce redox stress per site and relax AEM scaling limitations. Evidence consistent with OPM includes the emergence of O-O stretching signatures in operando vibrational spectra. Examples are potential dependent bands assignable to peroxo-like species in Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) or Raman, with isotope shifts observed under 18O labeling (Fig. 1f). Additional support comes from kinetic fingerprints that indicate a second-order dependence on the coverage of *O [40]. At the same time, OPM imposes strict geometric requirements: a symmetric or at least well aligned pair of surface metal atoms with an M-M separation around 2.9 Å (typically in the 2.7-3.1 Å range) is essential to enable efficient direct O*-O* radical coupling [56]. However, realizing such precise distances on practical catalyst surfaces is inherently difficult. Even when the spacing is optimal, the orbital alignment must also be favorable. This requirement further complicates the implementation of OPM.

ENGINEERING STRATEGY

Recent Ir-based electrocatalysts aim to address three long standing challenges, achieving high intrinsic activity, ensuring long term durability, and minimizing Ir usage under the harsh acidic conditions of PEMWE. Achieving these three simultaneously represents a prerequisite for commercialization. In this mini-review, we focus on the major recent research directions aimed at maximizing Ir atom efficiency while suppressing degradation, including (i) foreign metal doping to tune metal oxygen covalency and prevent dissolution prone pathways (Section 3.1), (ii) morphology control with ultrathin and porous architectures as well as facet and phase selection to concentrate accessible sites and relieve transport losses (Section 3.2), and (iii) support engineering to ensure electronic and ionic percolation, robust interfaces, and mechanical integrity at low Ir loadings (Section 3.3).

Foreign metal doping

Introducing foreign metals into Ir-based oxides is a versatile strategy for acidic OER. It can tune the adsorption energies of *OH, *O, and *OOH intermediates and at the same time improve resistance against oxidative corrosion [3]. Dopants enter either by lattice substitution or by interstitial incorporation. Charge is then compensated through Ir valence change, oxygen vacancy formation, or protonation of lattice oxygen. In practice, commonly used dopants include niobium (Nb) [57,58], tungsten (W) [59,60], molybdenum (Mo) [61,62], nickel (Ni) [63,64], cobalt (Co) [63], and iron (Fe) [2,65]. Depending on how they are introduced, these elements can influence Ir in several ways [66]. The choice of dopant is guided by descriptors such as dband center, metal oxygen covalency, and electronegativity as well as by the formal charge and ionic radius, which together determine how Ir-O bonds reorganize under bias [6769].
Li et al. reported that introducing a small amount of Co into strontium iridate (SrIrO3) markedly influences surface reconstruction and OER performance (Fig. 2a) [70]. In a PEMWE, the performance data in Fig. 2b show that Sr7Ir6CoOx exhibits much higher catalytic activity than SrIrOx and IrO2. Operando Raman and X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) analyses revealed that Co plays a dual role. It activates surface lattice oxygen, which accelerates the exposure of IrOx active sites, and it also adjusts the adsorption energy of OOH species at the surface layer (Fig. 2c). As a result, the Co modified catalyst outperformed commercial IrO2 in membrane electrode assembly (MEA) tests, reflecting more efficient mass and charge transport. Building on this approach, double perovskites such as Sr2MIrO6 were further employed to examine the impact of alkaline cations. Variants containing calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), or zinc (Zn) were investigated, with Sr2CaIrO6 showing rapid reconstruction in acidic electrolyte during the initial electrochemical cycles. This transformation produced a stable surface composed of short-range edge sharing IrO6 octahedra with an open framework, which was linked to both high activity and long term durability. In practical tests, Sr2CaIrO6 delivered 6 A cm-2 at 2.4 V and sustained 2.0 A cm-2 for 400 h.
Jin and co-workers reported torsion strained, grain boundary rich tantalum (Ta) and thulium (Tm) codoped IrO2-δ prepared by a rapid pyrolysis route (Fig. 2d) [71]. Metal precursors of Ir, Ta, and Tm were coprecipitated with ammonia and citric acid and then introduced into a pre-heated 450oC furnace within seconds, which produced massive supersaturation, burst nucleation, and mesocrystal growth through particle collision and coalescence. This process created dense twins, stacking faults, and trigeminal grain boundaries (GBs) that store torsional shear strain as shown in transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images (Fig. 2e). Ta and Tm co-doping works with the torsion strain at GBs. The strain lengthens Ir-O bonds and introduces shear, while the dopants shift the O 2p and Ir 5d-band centers toward the Fermi level. Together these effects reduce the difference between ∆GO and ∆GOH and place oxygen intermediate binding near the optimum. Spectroscopic analyses, including Ir 4f X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), L-edge X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES), and extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS), revealed that co-doping lowers the average Ir valence. They also show that Ir-O bonds are elongated relative to undoped controls, indicating that the dopants tune Ir-O covalency. Density of states calculations further showed that Ta and Tm shift the p and d-band centers toward the Fermi level, which reduces the ∆GO − ∆GOH descriptor and facilitates the potential determining step. The mass activity was evaluated at an overpotential of 266 mV in 0.5 M H2SO4 (Fig. 2f). Both GB engineering and Ta/Tm co-doping improved the activity of IrO2 compared to commercial IrO2, and their combination produced the highest mass activity, highlighting the strong synergy between strain and doping. Electrochemically, GB rich Ta0.1Tm0.1Ir0.8O2-δ achieved a low overpotential of 198 mV at 10 mA cm-2 in 0.5 M H2SO4 and sustained 1.5 A cm-2 for 500 h at only 0.2 mgIr cm-2 in PEMWE with high Faradaic efficiency (Fig. 2g). Inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis further showed that Tm leaches more readily than Ir or Ta under long term operation (Fig. 2h). Dopant leaching is critical because dopants are initially introduced to tune the electronic structure of catalyst and reaction activity. Once they dissolve, the reaction activity may change, causing the catalyst to deviate from its intended design and reported behavior.
Doping layered oxides is challenging because foreign cations can distort or even collapse the lamellae. Lu and co-workers introduced acid resistant Nb into two-dimensional layered edge-shared IrO2 (1T IrO2) while preserving the stacking [57]. They employed an alkali-assisted mechano-thermal route, in which the alkali flux generates a transient melt that promotes solid-state diffusion of Nb. This process produced lamellar Nb0.05Ir0.95O2 with uniform Nb distribution. Spectroscopic analysis with Ir 4f XPS and Ir L3-edge XANES revealed charge redistribution between Nb and Ir. Despite this redistribution, the Ir-O coordination remained 1T-like. The partial density of states further showed that the Ir d-band center shifted toward the Fermi level, which indicates tuned Ir-O covalency and optimized intermediate binding. Density functional theory (DFT) confirmed that Nb functions as modulation doping. Subsurface Nb perturbs the electronic structure of surface Ir sites, leading to new scaling relations. As a result, the potential determining step shifts from *OOH deprotonation on pristine 1T IrO2 to *O-OH coupling on Nb doped surfaces, and the free energy for Ir dissolution increases from 3.67 to 3.86 eV. Consistent with these effects, Nb0.05Ir0.95O2 lowers overpotential at 10 mA cm-2 (η10) by 56 mV compared to 1T IrO2 and achieves a stability number (S-number) of about 5.9 × 106 . It also operates stably in single cell at about 270 mA cm-2 under 1.4 V for 1100 h with negligible decay. These results demonstrate that the size and valence compatibility of Nb, together with its acid stability, enables structure preserving doping that optimizes intermediate energetics and suppresses Ir loss.
Wang et al. and co-workers reported that doping can regulate the OER mechanism [38]. In Sr-doped IrOx with preferentially exposed (200) facets, Sr decreases Ir-O covalency and perturbs the connectivity of IrO6 octahedra. This modification generates adjacent Ir sites with favorable separation and orientation, enabling direct O*-O* coupling from neighboring M-O* moieties. Operando Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy reveal vibrational features associated with O*-O* coupling within the OER potential window. In addition, isotope-labeled DEMS with H2 18O detects 36O2 and 34O2 together with 32O2. These findings are consistent with adjacent site coupling rather than a conventional AEM or LOM. Sr-doping induces elongation of the Ir–O bond, with EXAFS confirming an average bond length of ~2.03 Å compared with 1.98 Å in rutile IrO2. This effect originates from the large ionic radius and lower valence of Sr2+, which laterally displace neighboring oxygen atoms and weaken orbital overlap between Ir d-state and O p-state. Consistently, XANES places the average Ir valence at ~3.75. The fingerprints of weakened covalency are also evident in projected crystal orbital Hamilton population (pCOHP) analysis and in a downward shift of the Ir d-band center relative to the Fermi level. On the (200) facet, these electronic and structural relaxations suppress bridging oxygen connectivity and expose adjacent Ir site pairs with a spacing that falls within the range favorable for OPM. DFT calculations on Sr-IrOx(200) confirm that O*-O* bond formation is the RDS with a barrier of ~1.35 eV, substantially lower than the barriers for the AEM on undoped IrO2. When the active Ir pairs are positioned farther from Sr, the O*-O* barrier increases to ~1.71 eV, underscoring the spatial requirement for adjacent site coupling. In device tests, a PEMWE cell with Sr-IrOx as the anode operates at 1.72 V and 1 A cm-2 for more than 500 h with stable performance, demonstrating that Sr-driven electronic and structural modulation can enhance intrinsic activity while maintaining durability.

Morphology control

Rational control of catalyst morphology is a direct way to improve Ir utilization and to unlock high current density PEMWE. Engineering 1D, 2D, and 3D nanostructures increases accessible surface sites and electrochemically active surface area (ECSA) [72]. It also shortens ion and electron pathways and improves contact with the ionomer in the anode layer [73]. Reported morphologies, ranging from nanoparticles [7476] to nanowires [59,77], nanosheets [78] and even single atom motifs [73], illustrate how structural engineering can raise intrinsic activity at fixed Ir loading and enable better percolated catalyst layers. At device-relevant currents, transport through the catalyst–ionomer architecture becomes rate limiting. A dense ionomer skin at the catalyst surface impedes O2 release and water access. In addition, an unfavorable pore spectrum either traps gas in micropores or penalizes proton conduction through excess macropores [79]. A mesoporous structure or a meso-macro gradient therefore provides the most balanced pathway for simultaneous gas and ion transport [80,81].
A chemical dealloying strategy has been applied to fabricate porous Ir metallic aerogels (MAs) (Fig. 3a) [82]. Liang et al. utilized an IrCu3 alloy prepared through a wet-chemical route as the precursor, followed by extensive acid leaching in 0.1 M HClO4 at 85oC. In this process, the Cu component acts as a sacrificial template, driving the reduction of Ir via galvanic replacement. Substituting Cu with other transition metals such as Co or Ni leads to much lower yields of Ir nanoparticles. The resulting Ir MA displays a three-dimensional interconnected framework with hierarchical porosity, where most pores are around 1–3 nm and additional microchannels fall within the 3–8 nm range (Fig. 3b). This architecture increases the ECSA by nearly 70% relative to Ir black (Fig. 3c). Consequently, the catalyst delivers substantially higher OER activity and device performance, reaching 2.0 A cm-2 at 1.79 V with an Ir loading of only 0.5 mgIr cm-2, surpassing the Ir black benchmark that required four times more Ir loading to approach similar current densities. The MEA assembled with this aerogel catalyst also exhibited excellent stability, with a degradation rate of about 40 μV h-1. This performance was maintained during long term testing at 0.5 and 2.0 A cm-2 for 1000 and 400 h, respectively (Fig. 3d). The fine porous structure also facilitates the conversion of metallic Ir to IrOx during operation, which suppresses Ir3+ dissolution and improves durability. In related studies, dealloyed Ir-Ni or Ir-Co nanowires were also reported as highly efficient OER catalysts. They showed activities several times higher than conventional Ir nanoparticles and underscored the potential of dealloying approaches to reduce Ir usage without sacrificing performance.
Zhang et al also reported a three-dimensional mesoporous IrO2 skeleton created by dynamically loading Ir into a La2O3 sacrificial template that reconstructs to LaOCl under Cl- assistance, followed by in-situ oxidation to IrO2.23 The sequence involves Ir/Cl co-adsorption on La2O3, LaOCl formation, rapid LaOCl hydrolysis, and dense Ir nucleation within the evolving template. Together, these steps drive uniform Ir incorporation throughout the bulk and surface. Operando/ex-situ spectroscopy captures this reconstruction: the Cl signal evolves into an ν(Ir–Cl) vibration while La2O3 features shift consistently with LaOCl formation. X-ray diffraction (XRD)/XPS follow the transient LaOCl lattice and its collapse during growth. After template removal and oxidation, the product is a robust IrO2 framework with abundant ~5 nm mesopores that lower charge transfer and mass transfer resistances versus a commercial Ir benchmark. Consistent with these transport gains, the mesoporous IrO2 shows a lower cell voltage across the polarization curve. It also sustains 5 A cm-2 at ~2.0 V for 2,700 h at 80oC with a minute decay rate, demonstrating that properly tuned porosity can decisively mitigate bottlenecks under industrial loads. While compelling, the optimum pore spectrum and the mesoscale gradient across the anode remain open questions.
Furthermore, controlling the exposed crystal facets can also tune the OER pathway and energetics on IrO2 [25]. Liu and co-workers reported that DFT reveals distinct rate determining barriers on rutile facets under the associative AEM, with ~0.72 eV on (110), ~0.64 eV on (200), and ~0.53 eV on (101), identifying (101) as the most active surface (Fig. 3e). To isolate this facet in a practical catalyst, an ammonia-assisted facet engineering route was developed. In this process, NH₃ adsorbs most strongly on (101), passivating its out-of-plane growth and biasing grains to expand laterally while maintaining monolayer thickness. Calculations confirm the facet dependent adsorption strength of ammonia, with absolute adsorption energy on (101) greater than on (200) and (110) (Fig. 3f), thereby underpinning preferential (101) exposure. The resulting two-dimensional IrO2 monolayer displays clear (101) lattice fringes in high resolution-TEM (HR-TEM) and fast Fourier transform (FFT) images (Fig. 3g), translating the facet advantage into catalytic performance. Unlike commercial rutile IrO2 nanoparticles that expose multiple facets, this single-facet monolayer exposes only the most active (101) surface. Also, it exhibits lower overpotential in half-cell tests and, more importantly, sustains over 10,000 h at 1.5 A cm-2 and over 2,000 h at 2 A cm-2 even at an anode loading of only 0.2 mgIr cm-2 (Fig. 3h). The facet trend persists under alternative OER pathways, with (101) consistently showing the lowest d-band center among the common facets, consistent with weaker *O and *OOH binding and accelerated turnover.

Support

In Ir-based PEMWE anodes, supports are not passive carriers but key determinants of dispersion, transport and stability [81,83]. An effective support provides a high surface area that anchors Ir and suppresses agglomeration. It also maintains continuous pathways for electrons and protons, either through its own conductivity or by enabling percolating IrOx networks. In addition, it moderates Ir-O bonding to suppress over-oxidation and dissolution [84]. Acid stable oxides such as TiO2 [85] and tin oxide (SnO2) [86], including antimony-doped SnO2 (ATO) [86], have therefore been widely investigated. They combine chemical robustness with tunable morphology. In addition, they can participate in purposeful metal-support interactions [87,88].
TiO2 is a representative support material valued for its intrinsic stability and good processability [8991]. However, its poor miscibility with Ir has traditionally limited its use. Recent advance by Zhang et al. shows that substitutional incorporation of spatially correlated Ir atoms into the TiO2 surface lattice creates flexible Ir-O-Ir coordination [92]. This structure optimizes intermediate adsorption by shifting the d-band center, enhances intrinsic activity, and suppresses over-oxidation. The result is a low driving voltage of 1.63 V at 2 A cm−2 and maintains stable performance for over 440 h. Zou et al. introduced bulk-engineered TiOx@Ti core-shell supports as an alternative strategy (Fig. 4a) [93]. These drive Ir nanoparticles to fully transform into crystalline rutile IrO2 during operation. In doing so, they prevent the formation of hydrous amorphous phases and resolve the traditional activity-stability trade-off. Jung et al. advanced ATO as a support by introducing excess electron reservoirs (EERs) in the form of charged oxygen species (Fig. 4b) [94]. These species donate electrons to IrOx, stabilize Ir3+ states, and prevent over-oxidation. This design achieves 75 times higher mass activity than commercial Ir catalysts and sustains over 250 h of stable operation at 1 A cm−2. The Ir-specific power exceeds 70 kW g−1, underscoring its promise for large-scale hydrogen production.
CeOx support that is not conventional such as TiO2 and SnO2 has been used to reinforce the anchoring of Ir-based catalysts. Zhang and co-workers took advantage of the high oxygen storage capacity and abundant oxygen vacancies in CeOx, which act as electron donors, to design a ripening-induced embedding (RIE) strategy (Fig. 4c).18 In this approach, IrOx nanoparticles are not only deposited on the surface but also partially embedded into the growing CeOx matrix. The synthesis begins with an ultrasound-assisted polyol method that produces sub-10 nm CeOx particles with rough, high-energy facets. During sonication, acoustic cavitation synchronizes CeOx ripening with Ir nucleation, allowing the support to envelop Ir nanoparticles to a depth of about 1 nm. Cryo-electron tomography and kinetic Monte Carlo simulations confirm this embedded distribution. Vacancy rich CeOx donates electrons to IrOx and stabilizes the interface while maintaining sufficient conductivity. When tested in PEMWE, this structure achieved 1.72 V at 3 A cm−2 with only 0.3 mgIr cm−2 loading (Fig. 4d). It also sustained operation from 1 to 8 A cm−2 with a very low voltage decay of ~1.33 μV h−1 over 6000 h. This embedding strategy provides a general method to construct robust catalyst-support systems
Ir6+-based oxides (IrO3) are theoretically predicted to offer both high activity and durability (Fig. 4e) in acidic OER but are difficult to stabilize [31,43,95,96]. Recently, Nakamura et al. demonstrated a device relevant strategy using a sacrificial/oxidizing manganese oxide (MnO2) scaffold that both anchors and oxidizes Ir.83 In this approach, MnO2 is first electrodeposited on a porous Ti current collector at 95oC in 0.3 M MnSO4/0.36 M H2SO4, then exposed to K2IrCl6 in 0.01 M H2SO4 at the same temperature. During this step, ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) spectrometry shows that oxidative ligand substitution drives quantitative Ir uptake, as evidenced by the disappearance of the 488 nm K2IrCl6 band in-situ. Meanwhile, Mn in the scaffold is partially reduced, serving as the oxidant for Ir. Subsequent annealing at 450oC completes the chlorine to oxygen ligand exchange and yields atomically dispersed Ir6+ oxide (IrVI -ado) embedded within the MnO2 lattice. Spectroscopic analyses confirm the structure and valence. Ir L3-edge white-line intensity corresponds to an oxidation state of +5.8 ± 0.1(Fig. 4f), EXAFS detects a shortened Ir-O distance (~1.96 Å) together with distinct Ir-O-Mn coordination. Ir 4f binding energies are also consistent with Ir6+ references. Operando XAS during PEMWE shows negligible L3- edge shifts from 1.5 to 2.5 V, indicating that the Ir6+ state is preserved under load. In single cell tests, the cell delivers 4.0 A cm-2 at 2.0 V with only 0.08 mgIr cm-2 and sustains 2,700 h of operation near 1.8 A cm-2 with minimal decay. (Fig. 4g). Together, these results demonstrate that a sacrificial MnO2 support can act as both oxidant and host, producing strongly anchored, high-valence Ir sites that enable ultralow Ir usage alongside industrial level current densities.

OUTLOOK

Significant advances have been made in Ir-based catalysts for acidic PEMWE, yet commercialization still requires high mass activity at very low Ir loading together with stability close to 80,000 h under device conditions. Reaching this target demands parallel progress in intrinsic activity, long term durability, and cost reduction.

Mechanism

Despite decades of research, the mechanistic picture remains incomplete. AEM predicts a theoretical overpotential of about 0.37 V, yet many reports observe 200–300 mV and still assign activity to the same pathway. This discrepancy may stem from limitations of DFT based scaling relations that neglect interfacial electric fields, explicit solvation, and the formation of hydrous surface layers in acidic media. In addition, it is difficult to clearly link dopant induced changes in catalyst structure to a specific mechanistic pathway. Resolving these issues requires coordinated efforts that combine advanced theory with operando measurements to distinguish between AEM, LOM, OPM, and other proposed mechanisms.

Gap between half cell and single cell

The half cell typically employs acidic electrolytes such as 0.5 M H2SO4, which provide high proton conductivity, whereas PEMWE single cell operates with deionized water, where proton transport depends on the membrane and ionomer. This difference results in lower proton accessibility, higher ohmic resistance, and distinct local reaction environments. Moreover, single cell configuration is mechanically compressed by end plates and PTLs, which can deform the catalyst layer, alter porosity, and influence water management. The contact configurations also differ that glassy carbon (GC) substrates are used in half cell measurements, while catalyst coated membrane (CCM) or catalyst coated substrate (CCS) are employed in single cells, leading to variations in electronic and ionic transport pathways as well as overall ohmic behavior.

From lab cells to stacks

Most PEMWE studies remain focused on catalysts at the laboratory scale, while investigations on how materials behave in actual stacks are limited. Real progress will depend on integrating catalysts with other essential components, including membranes, ionomers, porous transport layers, current collectors, and flow fields. It will also require attention to system factors such as gas and water management, compression, and thermal regulation. At very low Ir loading, both electronic and protonic percolation can be lost, which lowers device performance even when the intrinsic site activity is high. A useful framework is to separate kinetic, ohmic, and mass transport resistances, and to co-design active site chemistry, conductivity pathways, and pore structures with stack relevant operation in mind.

Durability and protocols

The community aims for lifetimes approaching 80,000 h, but such tests are not feasible. Standardized accelerated protocols that reflect stack conditions are therefore critical. They should include potential holds, current cycling, start-stop scenarios, and stress from temperature, humidity, and pressure. Degradation must be assessed not only by voltage decay but also by metal dissolution and stability metrics such as S-number and Ir utilization. Validation against short stack tests is essential to ensure predictive value for real devices.

Unified research framework

Mechanistic insights need to be translated into structural and electronic descriptors that guide data driven synthesis and single cell level validation. Reporting should be standardized to allow direct comparison, with Ir specific metrics such as power density and durability clearly stated. In parallel, techno economic and life cycle analyses must be incorporated to ensure that advances align with cost and sustainability goals. With coordinated progress in mechanisms, materials, electrode and stack engineering, and measurement protocols, Ir-based PEMWE catalysts can evolve from laboratory concepts to practical technologies for large scale hydrogen production.

Fig. 1.
OER mechanism. a) AEM b) LOM c) OPM d) OER Gibbs free energy diagram versus reaction pathways for reactive species and intermediates. Red and blue lines represent ideal and real reaction pathways, respectively [11]. Copyright © 2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science. e) DEMS signals of O2 products for the 18O-labeled IrO2 in 0.5 M H2SO4 in H2 16O [24]. Copyright © 2024 Wiley–VCH f) In-situ FTIR spectra showing O*-O* vibration [2]. Copyright 2023, American Chemical Society.
jecst-2025-00885f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Foreign metal doping a) OER catalytic mechanism diagram of the Co-doped SrIrO3 catalyst. b) PEMWE performance of SI6C1, IrO2, and SI samples. In set: PEMWE device photograph. c) Structure change diagram of SI6C1 sample [70]. Copyright 2024, Springer Nature. d) The schematic routes for synthesizing GB-Ta0.1Tm0.1Ir0.8O2-δ nanocatalyst via fast pyrolysis (top) versus nanoparticles without GB via slow pyrolysis (bottom). e) TEM images of Ta0.1Tm0.1Ir0.8O2-δ nanoparticles with and without GB. f) Mass activities of these nanocatalysts at η=266mV, showing the effects of both strain and doping on enhancing OER activities. g) Chronopotentiometry curve of the PEMWE. h) The dissolution of each metal element from GB-Ta0.1Tm0.1Ir0.8O2-δ as a percentage of the original catalyst mass loading during the acidic OER test monitored by ICP-MS in the PEMWE [71]. Copyright 2021, Springer Nature.
jecst-2025-00885f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Morphology engineering. a) Schematic illustration of synthesizing highly porous metallic aerogel Ir catalysts through chemically dealloying Ir-Cu alloys. b) Atomic-resolution high-angle annular dark-field - scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM) images. c) Calculated QT and QO/QT, where QT indicates total surface charge and QO for outer surface charge. d) Long term durability tests of the commercial Ir black- and Ir-3 MA-based MEAs [82]. Copyright 2025, Wiley. e) Theoretical analysis of the OER for 2D IrO2(101) monolayer. f) The adsorption energies of NH3 molecules on the (101), (110), and (200) facets. The Ir, O, and H atoms are represented with the blue, red, and pink circles, respectively. g) HRTEM image of the (101) facet. The in-set shows the FFT pattern of the marked region h) Linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) curves of IrO2(101) monolayer, IrO2 NP, Commercial IrO2 (Alfa Aesar) and Commercial Ir black scanned at 5mV s–1 in 0.1M HClO4 with iR-correction [25]. Copyright 2025, Springer Nature.
jecst-2025-00885f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Support engineering. a) Schematic illustration of the synthesis process for Ir/TiOx@Ti [92]. Copyright 2025, Springer Nature. b) Schematic illustration of the catalyst-support interaction with and without EER [94]. Copyright 2023, Springer Nature. c) Schematic illustration of the embedding strategy. d) Chronopotentiometry curves of the PEMWE using RIE-Ir/CeOx and C-Ir/CeO2 catalysts operated at 8 A cm−2. The in-set shows TEM images of the catalysts taken before and after the operation [18]. Copyright 2025, American Association for the Advancement of Science. e) Revised bulk Pourbaix diagram of the Ir-H2O system as a function of applied potential (USHE) and pH [95]. Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. f) High energy resolution fluorescence detection (HERFD)-XANES spectra at the Ir L3-edge of Ir6+-ado and the reference samples. g) Cell voltages of the MEA measured. Cell voltage drop at 700 h is due to a power outage and restart. Nafion 115 was used for MEA fabrication [83]. Copyright 2025, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
jecst-2025-00885f4.jpg
Table 1.
High-performance Ir-based electrocatalysts reported in the past five years.
Catalyst Modulation strategies Loading (mgIr cm-2) Activity in PEMWEs Stability in PEMWEs Ref
3MS IrO2 Morphology - 2.25 V @8.0 A cm-2 2700 h @5.0A cm-2 [23]
S-doped IrO2 Doping 0.3 1.69 V @2.0 A cm-2 1000 h @1.0A cm-2 [24]
IrO2(101) monolayer Morphology 0.2 1.70 V @2.0 A cm-2 10000 h @1.0A cm-2 [25]
Ir/Nb2O5-x Support 1.8 1.84 V @3.0 A cm-2 500 h @1.0A cm-2 [26]
IrO2@TaB2 Support 0.15 2.0 V @3.0 A cm-2 2000 h @2.0A cm-2 [27]
IrO2@TaOx@TaB Support 0.26 2.0 V @3.9 A cm-2 120 h @1.0A cm-2 [28]
IrOx·nH2O Morphology 2.0 1.77 V @1.0 A cm-2 1500 h @2.0A cm-2 [29]
KIr4O8 Doping 0.28 2.0 V @3.0 A cm-2 600 h @1.0A cm-2 [30]
Sr2MIrO6 Doping 0.4 2.4 V @6.0 A cm-2 1230 h @1.0A cm-2 [31]
Ta0.1Tm0.1Ir0.8O2-x Doping 0.2 1.93 V @2.0 A cm-2 450 h @2.0A cm-2 [32]
Pt@Re0.024Ir2 Support 0.2 1.77 V @4.0 A cm-2 500 h @1.5A cm-2 [33]
Ir@IrOx/m-Nb-TiO2 Support 0.27 1.72 V @2.0 A cm-2 1100 h @1.0A cm-2 [34]
IrO6H8 Morphology 0.38 1.75 V @4.0 A cm-2 3000 h @2.0A cm-2 [35]
Ir-O-Mn Doping 0.2 1.7 V @1.0 A cm-2 -2 [36]

References

[1] Z. Lei, T. Wang, B. Zhao, W. Cai, Y. Liu, S. Jiao, Q. Li, R. Cao and M. Liu, Adv. Energy Mater., 2020, 10(23), 2000478.

[2] J. Liang, Q. Sun, F. Yang and G. Wu, Adv. Energy Mater., 2025, 15(43), e02984.

[3] Z. Lin, T. Wang and Q. Li, ICM, 2023, 1, 299–311.
crossref
[4] C. Rong, X. Huang, H. Arandiyan, Z. Shao, Y. Wang and Y. Chen, Adv. Mater., 2025, 37(9), e2416362.

[5] A. J. Shih, M. C. O. Monteiro, F. Dattila, D. Pavesi, M. Philips, A. H. M. da Silva, R. E. Vos, K. Ojha, S. Park, O. van der Heijden, G. Marcandalli, A. Goyal, M. Villalba, X. Chen, G. T. K. K. Gunasooriya, I. McCrum, R. Mom, N. López and M. T. M. Koper, Nat. Rev. Methods Prim., 2022, 2.

[6] S. Kong, A. Li, J. Long, K. Adachi, D. Hashizume, Q. Jiang, K. Fushimi, H. Ooka, J. Xiao and R. Nakamura, Nat. Catal., 2024, 7, 252–261.
crossref pdf
[7] M. F. Lagadec and A. Grimaud, Nat. Mater., 2020, 19, 1140–1150.
crossref pdf
[8] H. Jun, E. Kang, J. Moon, H. Kim, S. Han, S. Choung, S. Kim, S. Y. Yi, E. Kang, C. H. Choi, J. W. Han and J. Lee, Chem, 2025, 11(5), 102367.
crossref
[9] J. Kibsgaard and I. Chorkendorff, Nat. Energy, 2019, 4, 430–433.
crossref pdf
[10] Q. Dang, H. Lin, Z. Fan, L. Ma, Q. Shao, Y. Ji, F. Zheng, S. Geng, S. Z. Yang, N. Kong, W. Zhu, Y. Li, F. Liao, X. Huang and M. Shao, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12, 6007.

[11] R. Qin, G. Chen, X. Feng, J. Weng and Y. Han, Adv. Sci. (Weinh.), 2024, 11(21), e2309364.

[12] C. Rong, K. Dastafkan, Y. Wang and C. Zhao, Adv. Mater., 2023, 35(49), e2211884.

[13] Y. Yu, G. Li, Y. Xiao, C. Chen, Y. Bai, T. Wang, J. Li, Y. Hua, D. Wu, P. Rao, P. Deng, X. Tian and Y. Yuan, J. Energy Chem., 2025, 103, 200–224.
crossref
[14] W. Li, Y. Bu, X. Ge, F. Li, G. F. Han and J. B. Baek, ChemSusChem, 2024, 17(13), e202400295.

[15] L. Wei, F. Yang, W. Cai and L. Feng, Energy Fuels, 2025, 39(29), 14007–14027.
crossref pdf
[16] A. Li, S. Kong, C. Guo, H. Ooka, K. Adachi, D. Hashizume, Q. Jiang, H. Han, J. Xiao and R. Nakamura, Nat. Catal., 2022, 5, 109–118.
crossref pdf
[17] K. Sun, X. Liang, X. Wang, Y. A. Wu, S. Jana, Y. Zou, X. Zhao, H. Chen and X. Zou, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 2025, 137(21), e202504531.

[18] W. Shi, T. Shen, C. Xing, K. Sun, Q. Yan, W. Niu, X. Yang, J. Li, C. Wei and R. Wang, Science, 2025, 387(6735), 791–796.
crossref
[19] A. A. H. Tajuddin, G. Elumalai, Z. Xi, K. Hu, S. Jeong, K. Nagasawa, J.-i. Fujita, Y. Sone and Y. Ito, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 2021, 46(78), 38603–38611.
crossref
[20] B.-S. Lee, S. H. Ahn, H.-Y. Park, I. Choi, S. J. Yoo, H.-J. Kim, D. Henkensmeier, J. Y. Kim, S. Park, S. W. Nam, K.-Y. Lee and J. H. Jang, Appl. Catal. B Environ., 2015, 179, 285–291.
crossref
[21] C. R. Wang, J. M. Stansberry, R. Mukundan, H.-M. J. Chang, D. Kulkarni, A. M. Park, A. B. Plymill, N. M. Firas, C. P. Liu, J. T. Lang, J. K. Lee, N. E. Tolouei, Y. Morimoto, C. Wang, G. Zhu, J. Brouwer, P. Atanassov, C. B. Capuano, C. Mittelsteadt, X. Peng and I. V. Zenyuk, Chem. Rev., 2025, 125(3), 1257–1302.
crossref pdf
[22] U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap. 2023.

[23] C. Wei, C. Liu, Z. Zhang, K. Sun, C. Xing, W. Shi, Y. Li, J.-F. Li and B. Zhang, Joule, 2025, 9(9), 102058.
crossref
[24] C. Yang, Y. Zhu, F. Zhang, L. Yao, Y. Chen, T. Lu, Q. Li, J. Li, G. Wang, Q. Cheng and H. Yang, Adv. Mater.. 2025. p.2507560.

[25] D. Yang, C. Zhang, Y. Qin, Y. Yue, Y. Liu, X. Shi, K. Hua, X. An, L. Jin, Y. Zhang, S. Zuo, A. Tan and J. Liu, Nat. Commun., 2025, 16, 7236.

[26] Z. Shi, J. Li, J. Jiang, Y. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Li, L. Yang, Y. Chu, J. Bai, J. Yang, J. Ni, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Z. Jiang, C. Liu, J. Ge and W. Xing, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2022, 61(52), e202212341.

[27] Y. Wang, M. Zhang, Z. Kang, L. Shi, Y. Shen, B. Tian, Y. Zou, H. Chen and X. Zou, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 5119.

[28] Y. Wang, Z. Zhao, X. Liang, X. Zhao, X. Wang, S. Jana, Y. A. Wu, Y. Zou, L. Li, H. Chen and X. Zou, Adv. Mater., 2024, 36(39), e2407717.

[29] J. Xu, H. Jin, T. Lu, J. Li, Y. Liu, K. Davey, Y. Zheng and S.-Z. Qiao, Sci. Adv., 2023, 9(25.

[30] Z. Li, X. Li, M. Wang, Q. Wang, P. Wei, S. Jana, Z. Liao, J. Yu, F. Lu and G. Wang, Adv. Mater., 2024, 36(30), 2402643.

[31] M. Retuerto, L. Pascual, J. Torrero, M. A. Salam, A. Tolosana-Moranchel, D. Gianolio, P. Ferrer, P. Kayser, V. Wilke, S. Stiber, V. Celorrio, M. Mokthar, D. G. Sanchez, A. S. Gago, K. A. Friedrich, M. A. Peña, J. A. Alonso and S. Rojas, Nat. Commun., 2022, 13, 7935.

[32] S. Hao, H. Sheng, M. Liu, J. Huang, G. Zheng, F. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Su, J. Hu, Y. Qian, L. Zhou, Y. he, B. Song, X. Zhang and S. Jin, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2021, 16, 1371–1377.
crossref pdf
[33] W. Li, J. Lv, X. Chen, B. Wang and L. Wang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2025, 147(32), 29505–29516.
crossref pdf
[34] J. Liang, J. Zheng, D. Wierzbicki, S. Liu, G. Wang, C. Dun and G. Wu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2025, 137(38), e202512317.

[35] J. Ni, Z. Shi, J. Bai, M. Yu, X. Liu, K. Li, T. Gan, J. Li, J. Zhu, M. Shao, M. Xiao, C. Liu and W. Xing, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 2025, 137(37), e202509985.

[36] D. Wang, F. Lin, H. Luo, J. Zhou, W. Zhang, L. Li, Y. Wei, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, Y. Wang, M. Luo, F. Lv and S. Guo, Nat. Commun., 2025, 16, 181.

[37] A. J. Bard, L. R. Faulkner and H. S. White, Electrochemical methods: fundamentals and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2022.

[38] W. Zhang, C. Zhu, Y. Wen, M. Wang, Z. Lu and Y. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 2025, 137(6), e202418456.

[39] C. Rong, X. Huang, H. Arandiyan, Z. Shao, Y. Wang and Y. Chen, Adv. Mater., 2025, 37(9), 2416362.

[40] C. Lin, J.-L. Li, X. Li, S. Yang, W. Luo, Y. Zhang, S.-H. Kim, D.-H. Kim, S. S. Shinde and Y.-F. Li, Nat. Catal., 2021, 4, 1012–1023.
crossref pdf
[41] M. I. Abdullah, Y. Fang, X. Wu, M. Hu, J. Shao, Y. Tao and H. Wang, Nat. Commun., 2024, 15, 10587.

[42] W. Liu, G. Long, Z. Xiang, T. Ren, J. Piao, K. Wan, Z. Fu and Z. Liang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 2024, 136(43), e202411014.

[43] L. C. Seitz, C. F. Dickens, K. Nishio, Y. Hikita, J. Montoya, A. Doyle, C. Kirk, A. Vojvodic, H. Y. Hwang and J. K. Norskov, Science, 2016, 353, 1011–1014.
crossref
[44] J. Rossmeisl, Z.-W. Qu, H. Zhu, G.-J. Kroes and J. K. Nørskov, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2007, 607, 83–89.
crossref
[45] Z. W. Seh, J. Kibsgaard, C. F. Dickens, I. Chorkendorff, J. K. Nørskov and T. F. Jaramillo, Science, 2017, 355(6321), eaad4998.

[46] Y. Ping, G. Galli and W. A. Goddard, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2015, 119(21), 11570–11577.
crossref pdf
[47] H. Ooka, J. Huang and K. S. Exner, Front. Energy Res., 2021, 9, 654460.

[48] A. J. Medford, A. Vojvodic, J. S. Hummelshøj, J. Voss, F. Abild-Pedersen, F. Studt, T. Bligaard, A. Nilsson and J. K. Nørskov, J. Catal., 2015, 328, 36–42.
crossref
[49] Q.-Q. Yang, X. Yin, X.-L. He, W. Du and Y.-C. Chen, ACS Catal., 2019, 9(2), 1258–1263.
crossref
[50] C. Jia, X. Xiang, J. Zhang, Z. He, Z. Gong, H. Chen, N. Zhang, X. Wang, S. Zhao and Y. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2023, 33(37), 2301981.

[51] X. Li, M. Li, Z. Huang, G. Liang, Z. Chen, Q. Yang, Q. Huang and C. Zhi, Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 407–413.
crossref
[52] Y. H. Wang, L. Li, J. Shi, M. Y. Xie, J. Nie, G. F. Huang, B. Li, W. Hu, A. Pan and W. Q. Huang, Adv. Sci., 2023, 10, 2303321.

[53] A. BalaKrishnan, N. Blanc, U. Hagemann, P. Gemagami, K. Wonner, K. Tschulik and T. Li, Angew. Chem., 2021, 133(39), 21566–21573.
crossref pdf
[54] M. Suga, F. Akita, K. Yamashita, Y. Nakajima, G. Ueno, H. Li, T. Yamane, K. Hirata, Y. Umena, S. Yonekura, L.-J. Yu, H. Murakami, T. Nomura, T. Kimura, M. Kubo, S. Baba, T. Kumasaka, K. Tono, M. Yabashi, H. Isobe, K. Yamaguchi, M. Yamamoto, H. Ago and J.-R. Shen, Science, 2019, 366, 334–338.
crossref
[55] B. Zhang and L. Sun, Dalton Trans., 2018, 47, 14381–14387.
crossref
[56] Z. H. Yin, H. Liu, J. S. Hu and J. J. Wang, Natl. Sci. Rev., 2024, 11(11), nwae362.

[57] J. Ke, W. Zhu, Y. Ji, J. Chen, C. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Wang, W.-H. Huang, Z. Hu, Y. Li, Q. Shao and J. Lu, Angew. Chem., 2025, 137(13), e202422740.

[58] X. Lyu, H.-M. Chang, H. Yu, N. N. Kariuki, J. H. Park, D. J. Myers, J. Yang, I. V. Zenyuk and A. Serov, Chem. Eng. J., 2025, 505, 159317.
crossref
[59] F. Liao, K. Yin, Y. Ji, W. Zhu, Z. Fan, Y. Li, J. Zhong, M. Shao, Z. Kang and Q. Shao, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 1248.

[60] R. Li, H. Wang, F. Hu, K. Chan, X. Liu, Z. Lu, J. Wang, Z. Li, L. Zeng, Y. Li, X. Wu and Y. Xiong, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12, 3540.

[61] X. Chen, W. Li, N. Song, M. Zhong, S. Yan, J. Xu, W. Zhu, C. Wang and X. Lu, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 440, 135851.
crossref
[62] S. Chen, S. Zhang, L. Guo, L. Pan, C. Shi, X. Zhang, Z.-F. Huang, G. Yang and J.-J. Zou, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 4127.

[63] L. E. Camacho-Forero, F. Godínez-Salomón, G. Ramos-Sánchez, C. P. Rhodes and P. B. Balbuena, J. Catal., 2022, 408, 64–80.
crossref
[64] A. Touni, A. Papaderakis, D. Karfaridis, G. Vourlias and S. Sotiropoulos, Molecules, 2019, 24(11), 2095.
crossref
[65] M. Li, J. Ding, T. Wu and W. Zhang, Nanomaterials, 2023, 13(5), 797.
crossref
[66] S. R. Ede and Z. Luo, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2021, 9, 20131–20163.
crossref pdf
[67] G. Gao, Z. Sun, X. Chen, G. Zhu, B. Sun, Y. Yamauchi and S. Liu, Appl. Catal. B Environ., 2024, 343, 123584.
crossref
[68] H. Wu, J. Chang, J. Yu, S. Wang, Z. Hu, G. I. Waterhouse, X. Yong, Z. Tang, J. Chang and S. Lu, Nat. Commun., 2024, 15, 10315.

[69] A. R. Zeradjanin, J. Masa, I. Spanos and R. Schlögl, Front.Energy Res.. 2021. p.8.

[70] J.-W. Zhao, K. Yue, H. Zhang, S.-Y. Wei, J. Zhu, D. Wang, J. Chen, V. Y. Fominski and G.-R. Li, Nat. Commun., 2024, 15, 2928.

[71] S. Hao, H. Sheng, M. Liu, J. Huang, G. Zheng, F. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Su, J. Hu, Y. Qian, L. Zhou, Y. He, B. Song, L. Lei, X. Zhang and S. Jin, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2021, 16, 1371–1377.
crossref pdf
[72] J. Li, W. Wang, L. Ding, Z. Xie, X. Li, Z. Lei, M. M. Mench and F.-Y. Zhang, Electrochim. Acta, 2025, 147287.

[74] S. M. Alia, S. Shulda, C. Ngo, S. Pylypenko and B. S. Pivovar, ACS Catal., 2018, 8(3), 2111–2120.
crossref
[75] Y. Zhao, M. Luo, S. Chu, M. Peng, B. Liu, Q. Wu, P. Liu and Y. Tan, Nano Energy, 2019, 59, 146–153.
crossref
[76] Z. Jin, J. Lv, H. Jia, W. Liu, H. Li, Z. Chen, X. Lin, G. Xie, X. Liu, S. Sun and H.-J. Qiu, Small, 2019, 15(47), 1904180.

[77] L. Fu, F. Yang, G. Cheng and W. Luo, Nanoscale, 2018, 10, 1892–1897.
crossref
[78] B. Jiang, Y. Guo, J. Kim, A. E. Whitten, K. Wood, K. Kani, A. E. Rowan, J. Henzie and Y. Yamauchi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2018, 140(39), 12434–12441.
crossref
[79] H. Liu, X. Wang, K. Lao, L. Wen, M. Huang, J. Liu, T. Hu, B. Hu, S. Xie, S. Li, X. Fang, N. Zheng and H. B. Tao, Adv. Mater., 2024, 36(28), 2402780.

[80] H. Lv, S. Wang, Y. Sun, J. Chen, W. Zhou and C. Zhang, J. Power Sources, 2023, 564, 232878.
crossref
[81] L. Moriau, M. Smiljanić, A. Lončar and N. Hodnik, ChemCatChem, 2022, 14(20), e202200586.

[82] J. Liang, C. Fu, S. Hwang, C. Dun, L. Luo, Z. Shadike, S. Shen, J. Zhang, H. Xu and G. Wu, Adv. Mater., 2025, 37(4), 2409386.

[83] A. Li, S. Kong, K. Adachi, H. Ooka, K. Fushimi, Q. Jiang, H. Ofuchi, S. Hamamoto, M. Oura, K. Higashi, T. Kaneko, T. Uruga, N. Kawamura, D. Hashizume and R. Nakamura, Science, 2024, 384(6696), 666–670.
crossref
[84] E.-J. Kim, J. Shin, J. Bak, S. J. Lee, K. H. Kim, D. H. Song, J. Roh, Y. Lee, H. Kim, K.-S. Lee and E. Cho, Appl. Catal. B Environ., 2021, 280, 119433.
crossref
[85] H. P. Tran, H. N. Nong, M. Zlatar, A. Yoon, U. Hejral, M. Rüscher, J. Timoshenko, S. Selve, D. Berger, M. Kroschel, M. Klingenhof, B. Paul, S. Möhle, K. N. N. Nasralla, D. Escalera-López, A. Bergmann, S. Cherevko, B. R. Cuenya and P. Strasser, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2024, 146(46), 31444–31455.
crossref pdf
[86] M. Kost, lmu, 2025..

[87] A. Bornet, R. Pittkowski, T. M. Nielsen, E. Berner, A. Maletzko, J. Schroder, J. Quinson, J. Melke, K. M. Jensen and M. Arenz, ACS Catal., 2023, 13(11), 7568–7577.
crossref pdf
[88] Z. Fang, Z. Tang, S. Lin, R. Li, X. Chen, J. Tian, L. Liu, J. Peng, S. Liu, B. Fu, T. Deng and J. Wu, CrystEngComm, 2024, 26(4), 475–483.
crossref
[89] E. Oakton, D. Lebedev, M. Povia, D. F. Abbott, E. Fabbri, A. Fedorov, M. Nachtegaal, C. Copéret and T. J. Schmidt, ACS Catal., 2017, 7(4), 2346–2352.
crossref
[90] Y. Jung, K . T. Yoon, H. Choi, H. D. Kwak, S . H. Cho, T. Kim, J. Lee and Y. S. Lee, Small, 2024, 20(52), 2405229.

[91] H.-W. Wu, H.-J. Chen, H.-F. Xu, R.-H. Fan and Y. Li, Sci. Rep., 2018, 8, 8817.

[92] Y. Li, G. Zhao, S. Zuo, L. Wen, Q. Liu, C. Zou, Y. Ren, Y. Kobayashi, H. Tao, D. Luan, K. Huang, L. Cavallo and H. Zhang, Adv. Mater., 2025, 37(3), e2407386.

[93] K. Zhang, X. Liang, Y. Wang, Y. Zou, X. Zhao, H. Chen and X. Zou, Nat. Commun., 2025, 16, 8164.

[94] G. R. Lee, J. Kim, D. Hong, Y. J. Kim, H. Jang, H. J. Han, C.-K. Hwang, D. Kim, J. Y. Kim and Y. S. Jung, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 5402.

[95] M. Retuerto, L. Pascual, O. Piqué, P. Kayser, M. A. Salam, M. Mokhtar, J. A. Alonso, M. Peña, F. Calle-Vallejo and S. Rojas, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2021, 9, 2980–2990.
crossref
[96] R. A. Flores, C. Paolucci, K. T. Winther, A. Jain, J. A. G. Torres, M. Aykol, J. Montoya, J. K. Nørskov, M. Bajdich and T. Bligaard, Chem. Mater., 2020, 32(13), 5854–5863.
crossref


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Editorial Office
E-mail: journal@kecs.or.kr    Tel: +82-2-568-9392               

Copyright © 2026 by The Korean Electrochemical Society.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next