English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Electrocatalytic oxidation of 5‐hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) offers a renewable approach to produce the value‐added platform chemical 2,5‐furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA). The key for the economic viability of this approach is to develop active and selective electrocatalysts. Nevertheless, a reliable catalyst evaluation protocol is still missing, leading to elusive conclusions on criteria for a high‐performing catalyst. Herein, we demonstrate that besides the catalyst identity, secondary parameters such as materials of conductive substrates for the working electrode, concentration of the supporting electrolyte, and electrolyzer configurations have profound impact on the catalyst performance and thus need to be optimized before assessing the true activity of a catalyst. Moreover, we highlight the importance of those secondary parameters in suppressing side reactions, which has long been overlooked. The protocol is validated by evaluating the performance of free‐standing Cu‐foam, and CuCoO modified with NaPO 2 H 2  and Ni, which were immobilized on boron‐doped diamond (BDD) electrodes. Recommended practices and figure of merits in carefully evaluating the catalyst performance are proposed.

Avoiding Pitfalls in Comparison of Activity and Selectivity of Solid Catalysts for Electrochemical HMF Oxidation