Electrochemical CO2 Reduction to Methane

Abstract

Nation-modified electrodes for the CO.sub.2 reduction reaction (CO.sub.2RR) to hydrocarbon products. Depending on the thickness of the Nation membrane and its admixture with other polymers, CO.sub.2 reduction occurs principally at the electrode-polymer interface. A Nation overlayer of 15 μm on a Cu electrode enables an extraordinarily high yield of CH.sub.4 production (88% Faradaic efficiency) at a low overpotential (540 mV). Other embodiments directed to admixtures of Nation and other polymers and/or cocatalysts, various metal substrates and electrolyte solutions which comprise an aprotic solvent in addition to a bicarbonate solution show impact on the Faradaic efficiency, yield and carbon-based products produced by the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for CO.sub.2 reduction, comprising: providing an electrode having a layer of a predetermined uniform thickness of a polymeric composition; and placing the electrode with the layer of polymeric composition in contact with a solution effective for CO.sub.2 reduction, wherein said polymeric composition consists essentially of Nafion polymer or an admixture of Nafion in combination with another polymer and/or a cocatalyst.

2. The method defined in claim 1 wherein the polymeric composition is Nafion or Nafion in combination with at least one additional polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneglycol (PEG), polyvinylalcohol (PVA), polyethyleneimine (PEI), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and mixtures thereof.

3. The method defined in claim 1 wherein the polymeric composition includes a fluoropolymer.

4. The method defined in claim 3 wherein the fluoropolymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or a mixture thereof.

5. The method defined in claim 2 wherein the at least one additional polymer is PDVF.

6. The method defined in claim 1 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition is Nafion having a thickness between approximately 2 μm and approximately 15 μm.

7. The method defined in claim 1 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition has a thickness effective to stabilize an intermediate in which CO is bound to the electrode coated with the layer of the polymeric composition.

8. The method defined in claim 2 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition has a thickness between approximately 20 μm and approximately 90 μm.

9. The method defined in claim 1, wherein the electrode is made of a material selected from the group consisting of carbon, copper, nickel and zinc and mixtures and alloys thereof.

10. The method defined in claim 1, wherein the electrode is made of a transition metal or transition metal alloy.

11. The method defined in claim 10 wherein the electrode is made of copper, zinc, silver, gold, cadmium, nickel, palladium, platinum or an alloy thereof.

12. The method of claim 10 wherein the electrode is made of copper or a copper alloy.

13. The method according to claim 12 wherein the copper alloy is brass (copper and zinc), bronze/phosphor bronze (copper and tin), naval brass (copper, zinc and tin), aluminum bronze (copper and aluminum), berylliumcopper (copper and beryllium), cupronickel (copper and nickel, and optionally iron and/or manganese), nickel silver (copper with nickel and zinc), copper silver (copper with silver) or copper gold (copper with gold).

14. The method defined in claim 13 wherein the copper alloy is brass.

15. The method defined in claim 10 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition has a thickness effective to stabilize an intermediate in which CO is bound to the electrode coated with the layer of polymeric composition.

16. The method defined in claim 1 wherein the solution is a bicarbonate solution or a bicarbonate solution further comprising an effective amount of an aprotic solvent.

17. The method according to claim 16 wherein said aprotic solvent is selected from the group consisting of acetonitrile (MeCN), dimethylformamide (DMF), dimethylacetamide DMA), dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), tetrahydrofuran (THF), propylene carbonate (PC), or an alkyl nitrile (such as propylnitrile, butyl nitrile, adiponitrile, benzonitrile) or a mixture thereof.

18. The method according to claim 16 wherein said aprotic solvent is acetonitrile.

19. The method defined in claim 1, further comprising conducting an electrical current through said solution to said electrode at least in part through the layer of the polymeric composition.

20. The method defined in claim 1 wherein said polymeric composition further comprises a cocatalyst.

21. The method defined in claim 20 wherein said cocatalyst is in the form of a nanoparticle or a nanowire.

22. The method defined in claim 20 wherein said cocatalyst is made of copper (metallic), cuprous oxide (Cu.sub.2O), cupric oxide (CuO), Zn, zinc oxide (ZnO) or silver (Ag).

23. The method according to claim 1 wherein said polymeric composition is Nafion.

24. An electrode for CO.sub.2 reduction, comprising: a base or body of electrically conductive material; and a layer of a polymeric composition of a predetermined uniform thickness ranging from 1 μm to 100 μm on a surface of said base or body, wherein said polymeric composition consists essentially of Nafion polymer or an admixture of Nafion in combination with another polymer and/or a cocatalyst.

25. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the polymeric composition is Nafion polymer in the absence of an additional polymer or cocatalyst.

26. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the polymeric composition further includes polyvinylidene fluoride and mixtures thereof with Nafion polymer.

27. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein said polymeric composition comprises at least one additional polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneglycol (PEG), polyvinylalcohol (PVA), polyethyleneimine (PEI), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and mixtures thereof.

28. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the polymeric composition includes a fluoropolymer.

29. The electrode defined in claim 28 wherein the fluoropolymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or a mixture thereof.

30. The electrode defined in claim 27 wherein the at least one additional polymer is PVDF.

31. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition is Nafion having a thickness between approximately 2 μm and approximately 15 μm.

32. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition has a thickness effective to stabilize an intermediate in which CO is bound to the electrode coated with the layer of the polymeric composition.

33. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein the layer of the polymeric composition has a thickness between approximately 20 μm and approximately 90 μm.

34. The electrode defined in claim 24, wherein the electrode is made of a material selected from the group consisting of carbon, copper, nickel and zinc and mixtures and alloys thereof.

35. The electrode defined in claim 24 24-33, wherein the electrode is made of a transition metal or transition metal alloy.

36. The electrode defined n claims 24 and 35 wherein the electrode is made of copper, zinc, silver, gold, cadmium, nickel, palladium, platinum or an alloy thereof.

37. The electrode according to claim 35 wherein the electrode is made of copper or a copper alloy.

38. The electrode defined in claim 37 wherein the copper alloy is brass (copper and zinc), bronze/phosphor bronze (copper and tin), naval brass (copper, zinc and tin), aluminum bronze (copper and aluminum), berylliumcopper (copper and beryllium), cupronickel (copper and nickel, and optionally iron and/or manganese), nickel silver (copper with nickel and zinc), copper silver (copper with silver) or copper gold (copper with gold).

39. The electrode defined in claim 38 wherein the copper alloy is brass.

40. The electrode defined in claim 24 wherein said polymeric composition further comprises a cocatalyst.

41. The electrode defined in claim 40 wherein said cocatalyst is in the form of a nanoparticle or a nanowire.

42. The electrode defined in claim 40 wherein said cocatalyst is made of copper (metallic), cuprous oxide (Cu.sub.2O), cupric oxide (CuO), Zn, zinc oxide (ZnO) or silver (Ag).

43. An electrolysis apparatus comprising: a housing defining a chamber; at least two electrodes disposed in part in said chamber and operatively connectable to a voltage source, said two electrodes including a working electrode; a first port member or fitting fixed to housing and communicating with said chamber for directing fluid into said chamber; and a second port member or fitting fixed to housing and communicating with said chamber for conveying fluid out of said chamber, said working electrode including an electrically conductive base member and a coating layer of a predetermined thickness of a polymeric composition disposed on said base member, wherein said polymeric composition comprises Nafion alone or in combination with an additional polymer and/or a cocatalyst.

44-61. (canceled)

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0020] FIG. 1 shows a schematic of a CO.sub.2 reduction apparatus having a three electrode configuration for carrying out reduction of CO.sub.2 to various carbon-based products pursuant to the present invention as otherwise disclosed herein. As illustrated in FIG. 1, an electrochemical apparatus or cell for the production of a gas such as methane from carbon dioxide comprises a body member or housing 10 that defines a chamber 12. A reference electrode 30 extends from a cap or cover member 16 through an insulating seal 18 axially down into the chamber 12. A distal end portion 20 of reference electrode 30 is disposed in a cavity or chamber extension 22 at the bottom of chamber 12. A working electrode 24 as described in detail herein is disposed at a lower end of cavity 22, sandwiched between a shoulder (not designated) of housing 10 and a base plate 28. A counter electrode 14, co-functioning with working electrode 24 extends into chamber 12 from cover member 16 and through insulator-seal 18. Electrically conductive structures 32 and 34 are provided in cover member 16 for operatively connecting reference electrode 30 and counter electrode 14 to a voltage source 36. Working electrode 24 is connected to voltage source 36 via a copper foil 42 disposed adjacent working electrode 24 for electrical conduction. Two port members or fittings 38 and 40 are fixed to housing 10 on opposite sides thereof and communicate with chamber 12. Carbon dioxide gas is fed into chamber 12 via port member or fitting 38, while gas containing electrochemical product such as methane is conveyed out of the cell housing 10 via port member or fitting 40. Working electrode 24 is a cathode for purposes of the voltage of −0.2 to −2 V. Counter electrode 14 serves as an anode. Direct current is principally used, reference electrode 30 serving to maintain a constant voltage between −0.2 and −2 volts. Alternatively, oscillating current (AC) could be applied.

[0021] The apparatus shown in FIG. 1 is presented as a three-electrode configuration comprising a working electrode (where reduction of CO.sub.2 to carbon-based products pursuant to the present invention takes place), a reference electrode (which is used to maintain a constant voltage applied to the working electrode) and a counter electrode (which is used to as the counter electrode to the working electrode—in preferred aspects of the present invention as an anode counter to the working electrode, which is a cathode). In embodiments, the apparatus is a two-electrode configured cell with the reference electrode being eliminated from the apparatus.

[0022] FIG. 2A is a graph, specifically a linear sweep voltammogram of carbon without Nafion (top curve), with a 2 μm Nafion overlayer (middle curve, right side of figure), and with a 15 μm Nafion overlayer (lower curve, right side of figure), each in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte carbon in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte at a scan rate of 10 mV/s.

[0023] FIG. 2B is a graph, specifically a linear sweep voltammogram of copper foil without Nafion (top curve), with a 2 μm Nafion overlayer (middle curve, right side of figure), and with a 15 μm Nafion overlayer (lower curve, right side of figure), each in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte carbon in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte at a scan rate of 10 mV/s.

[0024] FIG. 3A is a graph of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) of Nafion-modified carbon taken using a three-electrode configuration at −0.89 V vs. RHE in 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte saturated with CO.sub.2.

[0025] FIG. 3B is a graph of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) of Nafion-modified copper taken using a three-electrode configuration at −0.89 V vs. RHE in 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte saturated with CO.sub.2.

[0026] FIG. 4A shows graphs, specifically linear sweep voltammograms of carbon and Cu foil (next to lowest and uppermost curves at extreme left of figure) and carbon and Cu foil modified with 15 μm of PVDF (next to highest and lowest curves at extreme left of figure) in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte at a scan rate of 10 mV/s.

[0027] FIG. 4B is a pair of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) plots of 15 μm of PVDF respectively on carbon and Cu, taken at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0028] FIG. 5 is a graph, showing linear sweep voltammograms of a carbon mesh electrode in 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 saturated with CO.sub.2 (lower line on left side) and 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 adjusted to pH of 2.6 with HCl and saturated with CO.sub.2 (upper line on left side) at a scan rate of 10 mV/s.

[0029] FIGS. 6A and 6C-6F are images, while FIG. 6B is a graph, showing surface characteristics of Nafion-modified electrodes. FIG. 6A is a scanning electrode microscopy (SEM) image, while FIG. 6B is an EDS spectrum. FIGS. 6C-F show EDS mapping of a Cu electrode modified with a 2 μm thick layer of Nafion. FIGS. 6D, 6E and 6F shows elemental mapping of the Cu electrode for fluorine (FIG. 6D), oxygen (FIG. 6E) and sulfur (FIG. 6F).

[0030] FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a 2 μm thick layer of Nafion on Cu foil.

[0031] FIGS. 8A, 8C, and 8D are images, w % bile FIG. 8B is a graph, also showing surface characteristics of Nafion-modified electrodes. FIG. 8A is a SEM image. FIG. 8B shows an EDS spectrum. FIGS. 8C and 8D show EDS mapping of Cu electrode modified with 8 μm of Nafion.

[0032] FIGS. 9A, 9B, and 9C are diagrams depicting three possibilities of CO.sub.2 reduction occurring at a polymer-electrolyte interface (FIG. 9A), a polymer-electrode interface (FIG. 9B), or an electrode-electrolyte interface (FIG. 9C).

[0033] FIG. 10A is a graph showing Faradaic efficiencies for formate, CH.sub.4, and CO for all catalysts at −0.89 V, while FIG. 10B is a graph showing partial charge densities, and FIG. 10C is a graph showing rates of product formation on bare substrates, 15 μm Nafion-modified substrates, and 15 μm PVDF-modified substrates.

[0034] FIG. 11A is a graph showing Faradaic efficiencies as a function of Nafion thickness on Cu foil substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE, while FIG. 11B is a graph showing partial charge densities, and FIG. 11C is a graph showing rates of product formation as a function of Nafion thickness on substrate.

[0035] FIG. 12A is a graph showing Faradaic efficiencies of CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH as a function of voltage for a 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer on Cu foil. FIG. 12A is a graph also showing Faradaic efficiencies of CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH as a function of partial current density for a 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer on Cu foil. FIG. 12A is a graph also showing Faradaic efficiencies of CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH as a function of rates of product formation for a 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer on Cu foil.

[0036] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to CO and CH.sub.4. CO.sub.2 adsorbs onto the electrode surface, with the addition of 2 H.sup.+ and 2 e.sup.− is reduced to a CO intermediate with two possible resonance structures (shown in dotted box). Both structures are capable of either being released as gaseous CO or further reduction to CH.sub.4.

[0037] FIG. 14 is a diagram showing proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 using a polymer-modified Cu electrode. CO.sub.2 is reduced to CO at the polymer-electrode interface. CO that is not bound to the electrode surface is released as a product, and CO that is bound to the electrode surface is denoted as a ═C═O* intermediate. Nafion helps stabilize this intermediate allowing for the subsequent reduction to CH.sub.4 while preventing CO release.

[0038] FIGS. 15A and B are cross-sectional SEM images of a Cu electrode modified with a PVDF-Nafion polymer overlayer. FIG. 15A shows a 100 μm thick polymer layer and FIG. 15 B shows a 20 μm thick polymer layer.

[0039] FIG. 16A shows a cross-sectional SEM image of a Cu electrode modified with a PVDF-Nafion polymer overlayer. FIG. B-D show EDS elemental mapping of F (FIG. 16B), O (FIG. 16C) and Cu (D) of the same Cu electrode modified with a PVDF-Nafion polymer overlayer.

[0040] FIG. 17A shows photographic image of the contact angle of a water droplet on a bare Cu electrode. FIGS. 17B-D show photographic images of the contact angle of a water droplet on a Cu electrode modified with Nafion-PVDF overlayers containing 30 wt. % PVDF (FIG. 17B), 52 wt. % PVDF (FIG. 17C), and 100 wt. % PVDF (FIG. 17D).

[0041] FIG. 18 shows linear sweep voltammograms (LSV) of bare Cu (black), Cu modified with 15 μm Nafion (red), Cu modified with 52, 60, and 100 wt. % PVDF in Nafion overlayer (blue, green, and purple) in CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte at a scan rate of 10 mV/s.

[0042] FIG. 19A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 19A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 19B), and rate of formation (FIG. 19C) for formate, CO, and CH.sub.4 produced from 20-90 μm PVDF-Nafion-modified Cu at −0.89 V vs. RHE. The PVDF-Nafion overlayer becomes increasingly thick as the weight percentage of PVDF increases.

[0043] FIG. 20A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 20A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 20B), and rate of formation (FIG. 20C) for formate, CO, and CH.sub.4 produced from 52 wt. % PVDF in Nafion modified Cu at different voltages.

[0044] FIG. 21A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 21A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 21B), and the rate of formation (FIG. 21C) for gas products produced from unmodified Cu in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0045] FIG. 22A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 21A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 21B), and rate of formation (FIG. 21C) for liquid products produced from unmodified Cu in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0046] FIG. 23A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 23A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 23B), and rate of formation (FIG. 23C) for gas products produced from Cu modified with 15 μm Nafion overlayer in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0047] FIG. 24A-C shows the Faradaic efficiencies (FIG. 24A), the partial charge density over the 1 hour experiment (FIG. 24B), and rate of formation (FIG. 24C) for liquid products produced from Cu modified with 15 μm Nafion overlayer in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0048] FIG. 25 shows the total carbon-containing products produced from an unmodified Cu electrode (FIG. 25A) and a Cu electrode modified with 15 μm Nafion overlayer (FIG. 25B) in varying concentrations of acetonitrile in the bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0049] FIG. 26 shows a proposed mechanism of high formate production using Cu modified by 52 wt. % PVDF in Nafion polymer overlayer (FIG. 26A). The blue curved lines represent Nafion and the grey spheres represent PVDF. In this hydrophobic environment, formate is the preferred product because formate is the only CO.sub.2 reduction product that does not generate water, and generating water is unfavorable in a hydrophobic environment. Proposed mechanism of ethylene formation on a Cu electrode in an acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte (FIG. 26B). Adding an aprotic solvent decreases the total proton concentration, which subsequently decreases the rate of M-CO protonation. This aprotic environment promotes M-CO and M-CO coupling to generate C2+ products instead of protonating M-CO to generate CH.sub.4.

[0050] FIG. 27 shows a proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to C.sub.2H.sub.4 using a Nafion-modified Cu electrode. The black dots embedded in the Nafion represents a hydrophobic polymer that slows proton transfer. CO.sub.2 is reduced to CO at the polymer-electrode interface, and without rapid proton transfer to protonate the CO* intermediate, the stabilized CO* intermediates are allowed to dimerize which eventually produces C.sub.2H.sub.4. Trimerization (mechanism not shown) to selectively produce C3 products is also hypothesized at even slower proton transfer rates.

[0051] FIG. 28 shows the CO Faradaic efficiency as a function of Nafion thickness on brass foil substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE over 1 hour experiment. Brass composition: 62% Cu, 37% Zn, trace amounts of Fe (<0.15%), Pb (<0.08%), and Sn (<0.005%).

[0052] FIG. 29 shows the Faradaic efficiencies of CO and CH.sub.4 as a function of voltage on brass foil over a 1 hour experiment.

[0053] FIG. 30 shows the Faradaic efficiencies over a 1 hour experiment for CO and C.sub.2H.sub.4 produced from 20-90 μm PVDF-Nafion-modified brass at −0.89 V vs. RHE. The PVDF-Nafion overlayer becomes increasingly thick as the weight % PVDF increases.

[0054] FIG. 31 shows Faradaic efficiencies over a 1 hour experiment for CO and C.sub.2H.sub.4 produced from unmodified brass foil in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0055] FIG. 32 shows Faradaic efficiencies over a 1 hour experiment for CO, CH.sub.4, and C.sub.2H.sub.4 produced from brass foil modified with 15 μm Nafion in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0056] FIG. 33 shows Faradaic efficiencies over the 1 hour experiment for CO, CH.sub.4, HCOOH, and CH.sub.3OH produced from Zn foil modified with 15 μm Nafion in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0057] FIG. 34 shows CO Faradaic efficiency as a function of Nafion thickness on Zn foil substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE over 1 hour experiment.

[0058] FIG. 35 shows Faradaic efficiencies over the 1 hour experiment of CO produced from 20-90 μm PVDF-Nafion-modified Zn at −0.89 V vs. RHE. The PVDF-Nafion overlayer becomes increasingly thick as the weight % PVDF increases.

[0059] FIG. 36 shows Faradaic efficiencies over a 1 hour experiment for CO and C.sub.2H.sub.4 produced from 52 wt. % of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyethylenimine (PEI) in Nafion on a Cu substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE.

[0060] FIG. 37 shows Faradaic efficiencies over a 1 hour experiment for CO and C.sub.2H.sub.4 produced from various polymer blends in Nafion on a Cu substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE. (A=100 wt. % Teflon on Cu, B=50 wt. % each of Teflon and PVDF on Cu, C=52 wt. % Teflon in Nafion on Cu, D=40 wt. % each of Teflon and PVDF in Nafion on Cu, E=64 wt. % Teflon and 30 wt. % PVDF in Nafion on Cu, F=30 wt. % Teflon and 64 wt. % PVDF in Nafion on Cu.).

[0061] FIG. 38 shows Faradaic efficiencies over the 1 hour experiment for CO, CH.sub.4, C.sub.2H.sub.4, and HCOOH produced from nanoparticulate Cu.sub.2O on various metal substrates at −0.89 V vs. RHE. (A=10 wt. % Cu.sub.2O dispersed in Nafion on Cu, B=10 wt. % Cu.sub.2O dispersed in Nafion on Zn, C, D, E=Cu.sub.2O thin film on Zn. Cu, and Ni metal substrates, respectively.)

[0062] FIG. 39 shows electrocatalysis at a polymer electrode interface with an embedded cocatalyst.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0063] It is noted that, as used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the,” include plural referents unless expressly and unequivocally limited to one referent. Thus, for example, reference to “a compound” can include two or more different compounds depending on the context of the use of the term. As used herein, the term “include” and its grammatical variants are intended to be non-limiting, such that recitation of items in a list is not to the exclusion of other like items that can be substituted or other items that can be added to the listed items.

[0064] The term “effective” is used to describe an amount of a component, an element, an energy source, a reactant, precursor or product which is used in or produced by the present invention to produce an intended result.

[0065] The term “uniform” is used to describe the polymer overcoating which is used to coat the metal substrate pursuant to the present invention. As used, a uniform overcoating is a coating on a metal substrate pursuant to the present invention which has a measured thickness at all areas of the coating within 10%± of the designated thickness.

[0066] The term “Faradaic efficiency” (synonymously faradaic yield, coulombic efficiency or current efficiency) is used to describe the efficiency with which charge (electrons) is transferred in a system facilitating an electrochemical reaction, in the present invention, the reduction of CO.sub.2 to one or more carbon-containing products. In other words, Faradaic efficiency is the percent yield of product based on the number of electrons transferred during the reaction. A higher percentage yield of product using a lower number of transferred electrons provides higher Faradaic efficiency. In the present invention, the number of electrons is the limiting reactant, not carbon dioxide and a higher Faradaic efficiency is the desired outcome. Many CO.sub.2 reduction catalysts have low Faradaic efficiencies for carbon products in aqueous electrolytes because (fast) electron transfer can also occur to protons in water to create hydrogen gas, reducing the yield of the desired carbon product. The regulated proton transfer rates with the polymer overcoatings using in the present invention very often increases the Faradaic efficiency of the CO.sub.2 reduction reaction(s), a particularly favorable and unexpected result.

[0067] The inventors found that there was a relationship between the Faradaic efficiency of the CO.sub.2 reduction reaction and the selectivity of the carbon-based products which are produced reflective of the polymeric overcoating and electrolyte solution used. For example, the inventors found that an extraordinarily high amount of CH.sub.4 (at 88% Faradaic efficiency) is generated using a Cu electrode modified with a 15 μm Nafion overlayer at −0.4 V vs. RHE. In contrast to the present invention, on unmodified metal electrodes, a more negative voltage is required to give rise to higher Faradaic efficiencies of CH.sub.4. As shown in the examples section hereof, high formate Faradaic efficiencies can be achieved by using PVDF-Nafion overlayers at a less negative voltage. Formate is favored in a hydrophobic environment because producing water as a CO.sub.2 reduction product is unfavorable. Since formate is the only CO.sub.2 reduction product in which water is not produced concomitantly, a hydrophobic electrode favors formate production pursuant to the present invention.

[0068] Thus, as shown in the examples section, a copper electrode modified with 52 wt. % PVDF in Nafion at −0.14 V vs. RHE gives reasonably high formate yield (58%). This yield of formate is fairly high for a Cu-based catalyst, and most previous works used other metals to produce high formate yields such as 81% and 98%. There is some literature precedent, however, for Cu-based catalysts that achieve high formate yields including a Cu—Au catalyst that produces formate at a 81% Faradaic efficiency at −0.4 V vs. RHE..sup.5 Cu.sub.2O nanoparticle films also generated formate at 98% Faradaic efficiency under high pressure (≥45 atm) at −0.64 V vs. RHE. The authors of this work also found that at more negative potentials formate decreased..sup.6 Comparing the present invention to previous studies it seems that formate production is favored at lower voltages, especially around from −0.4 to −0.6 V vs. RHE.

[0069] Reasonably high yields of C.sub.2H.sub.4 (75%) is generated when an alloy substrate is modified by PVDF-Nafion overlayers on a Cu—Zn alloy (brass, 62% Cu and 37% Zn). In addition, C.sub.2H.sub.4 is produced in the presence of acetonitrile in the bicarbonate electrolyte (higher volume percent, ie. 75% of acetonitrile generates more C.sub.2H.sub.4 than lower volume percent). Lastly, Cu electrodes modified with Teflon-Nafion overlayers favor the production C.sub.2H.sub.4 while simultaneous hindering CO production. Chen and coworkers fabricated Cu, Cu—Ag, and Cu—Sn alloy films that exhibited high Faradaic efficiencies (60%) for C.sub.2H.sub.4 production..sup.7 The origin of the high C.sub.2H.sub.4 production is attributed to the presence of alloys, which leads to the increased CO density on the electrode surface. In addition, higher local pH near the electrode surface also contributes to C.sub.2H.sub.4 production because CO* dimerization and C.sub.2H.sub.4 formation.

[0070] In addition, alcohols such as methanol, ethanol, and 1-propanol are generated in the presence of acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte on unmodified Cu electrodes or Cu electrodes modified with 15 μm Nafion overlayer.

[0071] The term “Nafion” is used to describe Nafion (CAS Name Perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octenesulfonic acid-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, also IUPAC name 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethene; 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-[1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-3-(1,2,2-trifluoroethenoxy)propan-2-yl]oxyethanesulfonic acid), which is a sulfonated fluoropolymer which has a hydrophobic perfluorinated polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) backbone with side chains terminated by strongly acidic hydrophilic sulfonic acid groups. The protons on the sulfonic acid groups are responsible for providing proton conductivity. Nafion can be formulated as a dispersion in water/alcohol (ethanol/I-propanol) in the acidic form. A preferred dispersion of Nafion, Nafion D520, D521, D2020 and D2021 (with Nafion polymer in the dispersion ranging from 5% by weight up to 20% by weight) can be purchased from the Chemours Company, Wilmngton Del., USA. Nafion may be admixed with other polymers to form admixtures which are used as overcoatings of the metal substrate in the present invention.

[0072] While not being limited by way of theory, it appears that Nafion has provided enhanced efficiency of CO.sub.2 reduction in the present invention for at least the following three reasons, among others. First, Nafion is a gas permeable superacid and an excellent proton conductor, and it is believed that the Nafion layer enhances the local activity of protons on the surface of the metal substrate which are necessary for increased Faradaic efficiency of CO.sub.2 reduction. Second, CO* is believed to be stabilized between the substrate/polymer interface, which would favor electron transfer to the intermediates to form more highly reduced products, especially when considering the enhanced local activity of protons by Nafion. Third, Nafion is stable against photocatalytic oxidation and is inert toward photoinduced redox reactions, thus forcing the equilibrium reactions toward reduction products rather than back to oxidized precursors.

[0073] The term “overpotential” is used to describe the difference in potential which exists between a thermodynamically determined reduction potential of a half-reaction and the potential at which the redox event is experimentally observed. The term is directly related to a cell's voltage efficiency. In an electrolytic cell the existence of overpotential indicates that the cell requires more energy than is thermodynamically expected to drive a reaction. The quantity of overpotential is specific to each cell design and varies across cells and operational conditions, even for the same reaction. Overpotential is experimentally determined by measuring the potential at which a given current density is achieved.

Mechanism of Action

[0074] A following description of proposed mechanisms for CO.sub.2 reduction pursuant to the present invention provides a basis for the formation of methane, formate, ethylene and other carbon-based produced according to the present invention. FIGS. 14, 26 and 27 provide proposed mechanisms for methane, formate and ethylene formation. The Nafion overcoat stabilizes the M-CO intermediate, which allows for subsequent protonation to methane. Formate is produced when the electrode is hydrophobic (facilitated by higher concentrations of Teflon and/or PVDF in admixture with Nafion) because CO.sub.2 reduction to formate does not require the production of water. Ethylene is favored as a carbon-based product when the electrolyte solution (bicarbonate source) comprises substantial quantities of acetonitrile by volume. The rate determining step (RDS) of ethylene formation is the dimerization of the CO* intermediate.

[0075] FIG. 14 shows the proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to methane (CH.sub.4) using a polymer modified copper electrode. As shown, CO.sub.2 is reduced to CO at the electrode-polymer interface. CO that is not bound to the electrode surface is released as a product. Nafion stabilizes this intermediate allowing for the subsequent reduction to methane while preventing CO release from the surface of the electrode.

[0076] FIGS. 26A and 26B show the proposed mechanism of high formate production using Cu modified by 52 wt. % PVDF in Nafion polymer overlayer (FIG. 26A). The blue curved lines represent Nafion and the grey spheres represent PVDF. In this hydrophobic environment, formate is the preferred product because formate is the only CO.sub.2 reduction product that does not generate water, and generating water is unfavorable in a hydrophobic environment. Proposed mechanism of ethylene formation on a Cu electrode in an acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte (FIG. 26B). Adding an aprotic solvent decreases the total proton concentration, which subsequently decreases the rate of M-CO protonation and favoring the production of higher carbon products, especially ethylene and alcohols such as methanol, ethanol and 1-propanol. This aprotic environment promotes M-CO and M-CO coupling to favor the production of C2+ products instead of protonating M-CO to generate CH.sub.4.

[0077] FIG. 27 shows a proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to C.sub.2H.sub.4 using a Nafion-modified Cu electrode. The black dots embedded in the Nafion represents a hydrophobic polymer that slows proton transfer. CO.sub.2 is reduced to CO at the polymer-electrode interface, and without rapid proton transfer to protonate the CO* intermediate, the stabilized CO* intermediates are allowed to dimerize which eventually produces C.sub.2H.sub.4. Trimerization (mechanism not shown) to selectively produce C3 products is also believed to occur at even slower proton transfer rates.

[0078] The above-described mechanisms are useful in predicting carbon-based products that can be produced pursuant to features of the present invention. For example, methane (CH.sub.4) production is favored when electrodes are modified with a Nafion overlayer and on unmodified electrodes at a very negative reduction potentials. The Nafion overlayer or coating provides unexpectedly high Faradaic efficiency for the production of methane. Formate is favored with hydrophobic electrodes (PVDF-Nafion overlayer) and at less negative reduction potentials. Ethylene (C.sub.2H.sub.4) is favored when Cu alloys are used, when the alloy electrode is hydrophobic (PVDF-Nafion overlayer), and when aprotic solvents are used in conjunction with the bicarbonate electrolyte. The inventors have concluded that formate can be further enhanced by creating a hydrophobic environment. C.sub.2H.sub.4 production can be enhanced by hydrophobic fluoropolymer-Nafion overlayers on an alloy electrode.

[0079] The following non-limiting examples further describe and support embodiments and further aspects of the present invention.

EXAMPLES

First Set of Experiments

[0080] The first set of experiments presented herein are directed to a study of Nafion-modified electrodes for the CO.sub.2 reduction reaction (CO.sub.2RR) to hydrocarbon products. Nafion, described herein above, is a sulfonated polymer possessing high proton conductivity. By varying the thickness, substrates, and voltage, the inventors performed a detailed study of the effect of Nafion on metal and carbon mesh electrodes for CO.sub.2 reduction. These studies allowed for the elucidation of the mechanism in which CO.sub.2 reduction occurs on these Nafion-modified electrodes. Depending on the thickness of the polymeric membrane surface, CO.sub.2 reduction occurs at either the polymer-electrolyte interface or electrode-polymer interface. It was determined that a Nafion overlayer of 15 μm on Cu electrode enables extraordinary high yield of CH.sub.4 production (88% Faradaic efficiency) at a low overpotential (540 mV). To the best of our knowledge, this yield is the highest reported for electrocatalytic CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 production at room temperature reported thus far. Other products detected include formate, CO, ethanol and methanol.

Experimental Procedure

[0081] Materials and Electrode Preparation.

[0082] Nafion D520 dispersion and carbon paper (AvCarb EP40T) were purchased from Fuel Cell Store. Cu and Zn foil were purchased from All-Foils, Inc, and Ni foil was purchased from Goodfellow, Inc. Sodium bicarbonate was purchased from Sigma Aldrich. CO.sub.2 and CO were purchased from Airgas. Nafion-modified electrodes were fabricated by drop-casting Nafion (D520 Dispersion) directly onto the substrate.

[0083] Electrochemical Measurements and Material Characterization.

[0084] All electrochemical measurements were performed using a VSP-300 Biologic Potentiostat. All electrochemical data were collected versus a Ag/AgCl reference electrode and converted to the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) scale by V.sub.(vs. RHE)=V.sub.(measured vs. Ag/AgCb+0.21+0.059*6.8 (where 6.8 is the pH of solution). All values are reported versus RHE. To evaluate the CO.sub.2 reduction activity of the thin films, the working electrodes were studied in 0.1 M sodium bicarbonate buffer sparged with CO.sub.2 gas for at least 30 min using a one-compartment, three-electrode configuration (as set forth in FIG. 1 hereof). The thin films on carbon paper served as the working electrode, a Pt wire was used as the counter electrode, and a Ag/AgCl electrode was used as the reference electrode. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was performed in 0.1 M sodium bicarbonate buffer sparged with CO.sub.2 gas using a three-electrode configuration cell at −0.89 V vs. RHE. The frequency was varied from 200 kHz to 100 mHz sinusoidally with amplitude of 10 mV. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDS) analysis were obtained for each sample using a JEOL JSM-6010LA analytical SEM or a JEOL JSM-7100F field emission SEM operated using an accelerating voltage of 15 kV. Onset potentials were calculated by determining the voltage at which the current density reached 15% of the maximum current density for each linear sweep voltammogram.

[0085] Product Determination. Electrochemical reactions were performed chronoamperometrically at −0.89 V vs. RHE (and at −0.38 V, −0.13 V, and 0.12 V vs. RHE for voltage-dependent experiments) for one hour using carbon as a counter electrode in a beaker for determining liquid and solid products and Pt wire as a counter electrode in a custom-made cell for determining gas products. During chronoamperometry, CO.sub.2 was continuously sparged through the solution at a rate of 5 cm.sup.3/min. Liquid products were quantified using a Varian 400 MHz NMR Spectrometer using DMF as an internal standard. The water in the reaction solution was evaporated under reduced pressure, and sodium formate along with other residual solids from the electrolyte were collected and dissolved in D.sub.2O. Liquid products were extracted from the reaction solution using deuterated chloroform. Gas products were quantified using a SRI 8610C gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a methanizer. The limits of detection for formate, liquid products, and gas products were determined to be 11 μM, 85 μM, and 1 ppm, respectively.

[0086] FIGS. 2A and 2B show linear sweep voltammograms of carbon mesh and Cu substrates with and without Nafion overlayers in CO.sub.2-saturated bicarbonate electrolyte undergoing electrochemical CO.sub.2 reduction. Unmodified carbon mesh (FIG. 2A, uppermost curve) reaches a maximum current density of about −4 mA/cm.sup.2 at −1.5 V vs. RHE and exhibits an onset potential of −0.29 V vs. RHE. In contrast, carbon mesh modified with a 2 μm and 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer both exhibit a decreased onset potential of −0.20 V and +0.25 V, respectively (FIG. 2A, middle and lower curves on the left side of the graph). This positive shift in onset potential upon addition of a Nafion overlayer is also observed with a Cu substrate. Cu electrodes modified with 2 and 15 μm of Nafion both showed decreased onset potentials of +0.10 V for Cu electrode modified with 2 μm of Nafion, and +0.40 V for Cu electrode modified with 15 μm of Nafion as compared to −0.19 V for the Cu electrode without Nafion. This consistent positive shift of onset potential signifies that the electrodes with increasingly thick Nafion layers are more efficient at reducing CO.sub.2.

[0087] In addition to the positive shift of onset potential, the shapes of the LSVs for the carbon mesh and Cu substrates modified with 15 μm of Nafion are both relatively linear compared to the corresponding LSVs without Nafion, signifying that the electrochemical behavior of these electrodes are resistive. It is hypothesized herein that this increase in electrochemical resistance arises from impeded electron transfer through the thick Nafion layers. FIGS. 3A and 3B present the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data for Nafion-modified carbon and Cu electrodes, respectively, measured at −0.89 V vs. RHE. Impedance data was fitted using a Randles circuit (Equation 1), in which R.sub.f and R.sub.ct refer to solution resistance and charge-transfer resistance, respectively. The equation also contains C.sub.dl the double-layer capacitance, and an electrochemical element of diffusion. Z.sub.W. When the impedance data is fitted using Randles equation, R.sub.s and R.sub.ct values, as well as the diameter of the semicircle, provides information regarding the resistivity of the electrocatalyst. Nafion-modified Cu has a much larger R.sub.ct value than bare Cu (Table 1), and R.sub.ct increases as the Nafion overlayer increases, demonstrating increased resistivity of Nafion-modified Cu. This trend correlates well with the LSV from FIG. 2B (lowermost curve) because the resistor-like behavior of thick Nafion-modified Cu possesses high resistivity. In contrast, the diameter of the semicircle (FIG. 3A, curve through triangle-marked points) and Rn decreases (Table 1) for 15 μm of Nafion on carbon when compared to bare carbon. This decrease in resistivity with increasing Nafion thickness may be attributed to the porous nature of carbon, in which the Nafion is embedded within the pores of the carbon rather than acting as an overlayer.

[00001]$\begin{array}{cc}{R}_s+\frac{C_{\mathrm{dl}}}{\left[R_{\mathrm{ct}}+Z_w\right]}& \left(1\right)\end{array}$

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Summary of solution resistance (R.sub.s) and charge transfer resistance (R.sub.ct) obtained from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy data fitted to a Randles circuit. Catalyst R.sub.s (Ω) R.sub.ct (Ω) Carbon 144 1961 2 μm Nafion on carbon 67 1978 15 μm Nafion on carbon 384 601 Cu 638 402 2 μm Nafion on Cu 646 587 15 μm Nafion on Cu 644 896 PVDF on carbon 8 25 PVDF on Cu 12 36

[0088] Based on the observation that electron transfer is impeded by thick Nafion layers, contrasting experiments were performed with a hydrophobic polymer to block proton transfer to the CO.sub.2 reduction electrodes. Electrodes with a hydrophobic polymer were created by modifying carbon and Cu substrates with a 15 μm thick overlayer of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). FIG. 4A presents the LSVs of carbon and Cu in CO.sub.2-saturated electrolyte. Interestingly, the opposite effect is observed with PVDF overlayers in which the onset potential is shifted more negative in the presence of PVDF. The LSV for an unmodified carbon electrode possesses an onset potential of −0.29 V (next to lowest curve, at left margin of figure), while the LSV for a PVDF-modified carbon electrode possesses an onset potential of −0.6 V (lowest curve at left margin). Similarly, the LSV for an unmodified Cu electrode exhibits an onset potential of −0.19 V (uppermost line at left margin), while a PVDF-modified Cu electrode exhibits an increased onset potential of −0.55 V (second highest line at left margin). This negative shift in onset potential for PVDF-modified electrodes is attributed to the hindered proton transfer from electrode to CO.sub.2, therefore increasing the driving force needed to reduce CO.sub.2. This effect is further confirmed by EIS (FIG. 4B) and R.sub.ct values. PVDF on carbon and Cu exhibited R.sub.ct values of 25Ω and 36Ω, respectively, which signifies that protons are blocked. Furthermore, thick PVDF overlayer on electrodes does not exhibit resistor-like behavior as seen in thick Nafion overlayer on electrodes, illustrating the differences in the impedance of electrons (Nafion) and protons (PVDF).

[0089] Taken together, the data in FIGS. 2A, 2B, 3A. 3B, 4A, and 4B demonstrate that while Nafion overlayers decrease the overpotential of CO.sub.2 reduction for both carbon and Cu electrodes, PVDF overlayers increase the overpotential due to their hydrophobicity and blocking of protons. Pursuant to an initial hypothesis, the positive shifts in CO.sub.2 reduction with Nafion overlayers are simply due to Nernstian changes in the pH at the polymer-electrode interface (Nafion is a superacid with pK.sub.a˜−6)..sup.28 To evaluate this hypothesis, CO.sub.2 reduction was conducted under different pH values. FIG. 5 shows LSVs of a carbon electrode in CO.sub.2-sparged 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 buffer at pH 6.8 (lower line at left) and pH 2.6 (upper line at left). CO.sub.2 reduction at pH 6.8 has a much earlier onset potential (−0.5 V vs. RHE) and higher current density than CO.sub.2 reduction in an acidic medium (−0.9 V vs. RHE). The observation that the increase in acidity causes the onset potential to shift negative is the opposite of what would be predicted if Nafion's effect on onset potential were caused by interfacial pH effects because Nafion is acidic. Instead, Nafion elicits a positive shift in onset potential, and therefore we conclude that this positive shift is not simply due to pH changes at the polymer-electrode interface.

[0090] Based on the LSV results presented, further investigation was undertaken to discern whether CO.sub.2 reduction occurs at the polymer-electrolyte interface (FIG. 9A), the electrode-polymer interface (FIG. 9B), or the electrode-electrolyte interface (FIG. 9C). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDS) analysis were employed to show the uniformity of Nafion on the electrode. FIGS. 6-F respectively show the SEM image (6A), EDS spectrum (6B), and EDS mapping of a 2 μm thick layer of Nafion on Cu (6C-F). EDS mapping shows that F, O, and S, all elements present in Nafion, are uniformly present on top of the Cu electrode. The uniform nature of the Nafion overlayer suggests that CO.sub.2 reduction is not occurring at the electrode-electrolyte interfaces as might occur with a nonuniform overlayer (FIG. 9C). FIG. 8 presents a representative cross-sectional SEM image of a 2 μm thick layer of Nafion on Cu. EDS mapping of the cross-sectional view clearly shows Cu (FIG. 8C) and F (FIG. 8D) from Nafion and also is evidence of the uniformity of the Nafion layer.

CO.SUB.2 .Reduction on Nafion-Modified Electrodes

[0091] To elucidate whether CO.sub.2 reduction is occurring at the polymer-electrolyte interface or at the electrode-polymer interface. CO.sub.2 reduction products were quantified using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (for liquid products) and gas chromatography (GC) (for gaseous products). FIG. 10A summarizes the Faradaic efficiencies (FE) of three detected products (CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH) at −0.89 V vs. RHE. Four different substrates (carbon, Cu, Ni, and Zn) were tested to evaluate the effect of the Nafion overlayer. These four substrates were tested without any modification, modified with 15 μm of Nafion, or modified with 15 μm of PVDF. Unmodified Cu produced CO and HCOOH, while Nafion-modified Cu showed a significantly enhanced CH.sub.4 production of 68% FE, while the Faradaic efficiencies for CO and HCOOH decreased. The decrease in CO and concomitant increase in CH.sub.4 strongly suggest that CO.sub.2 is reduced by the substrate and is subsequently trapped and stabilized as a CO intermediate by Nafion, which is then further reduced to CH.sub.4. Cu modified by proton-blocking PVDF only produced trace amounts of CO. Carbon modified with Nafion compared to bare carbon shows an increase in CO and HCOOH, while no CH.sub.4 was made. Similar to PVDF-modified Cu, PVDF-modified carbon produced no carbon-containing products. In response to the differences in the results between Cu and carbon, two additional substrates were tested. Compared to unmodified Ni, Nafion-modified Ni showed a decrease in CO production and a slight increase in HCOOH production. Unmodified Zn produced CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH, while Nafion-modified Zn only produced increased formate and CO. Because each substrate yields its own unique set of Faradaic efficiencies for each product, it is concluded that CO.sub.2 reduction occurs at the electrode-polymer interface with a 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer. In contrast, if the Faradaic efficiencies for each product were similar regardless of substrate, the conclusion would have been that CO.sub.2 reduction occurs at the polymer-electrode interface because the nature of this interface does not depend strongly on the substrate.

[0092] In addition to Faradaic efficiencies, product formation can also be expressed in terms of partial charge density and rates. Partial charge densities (FIG. 10B) of product formation follow the same general trends as those of the Faradaic efficiencies, while the rates of product formation (in units of nmol/cm.sup.2-s) show disproportionately slower CH.sub.4 production rates because CH.sub.4 production requires 8 e.sup.−/mol as opposed to CO and HCOOH production, which both only require 2 e.sup.−/mol.

[0093] As previously demonstrated by linear sweep voltammetry (FIG. 3), the hydrophobic polymer PVDF completely blocks proton transfer in the CO.sub.2 reduction reaction. When CO.sub.2 reduction is attempted with an electrode that is modified by PVDF, no carbon-containing products are made (FIG. 10). This has been tested on two substrates (a Cu electrode and a carbon electrode), and only very low yields of carbon-containing products were made on either substrate modified with PVDF. In other words, with PVDF-modified substrates, H.sub.2 is the only product. These findings demonstrate that product selectivity is based on proton availability and proton transfer rates. Nafion is a highly proton-conductive polymer that can rapidly shuttle protons, which has a significant effect on product selectivity. With Nafion, the CO* intermediate can be rapidly protonated, which subsequently leads to CH.sub.4 formation.

[0094] To further verify that CO.sub.2 reduction is occurring at the electrode-polymer interface with a 15 μm overlayer, the thickness of Nafion was varied. Faradaic efficiencies as a function of Nafion thickness on a Cu electrode is presented in FIGS. 11A and 11B. Varying the thickness of Nafion on a Cu electrode (FIG. 11A) results in different Faradaic efficiencies of CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH. Without Nafion, Cu produces mostly CO and HCOOH under these experimental conditions. When modified with a 2 μm thick layer of Nafion, CH.sub.4 production is greatly increased and reaches a maximum Faradaic efficiency of 68.4% when modified with 15 μm overlayer of Nafion. Thicker layers of Nafion cause a decrease in products, which indicates that the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) occurs on very thick Nafion membranes. Based on these results, it is posited that CO.sub.2 is reduced at the electrode-polymer interface to produce CO when thinner membranes are used and that the HER occurs at the polymer-electrolyte interface with thicker membranes.

[0095] Partial charge densities (FIG. 11B) for CH.sub.4 follow the same general trends as Faradaic efficiencies. However, 2 μm of a Nafion overlayer inhibits HCOOH formation. Rates of product formation (FIG. 11C) show that on unmodified Cu electrodes, CO and HCOOH formation is similar (4.4 nmol/cm.sup.2 s for CO and 4.3 nmol/cm.sup.2 s for HCOOH), while no CH.sub.4 is produced. Cu electrode modified with 2 μm of Nafion exhibits an increased CO production rate (6.3 nmol/cm.sup.2 s) and a decreased HCOOH production rate (0.8 nmol/cm.sup.2 s) and still no CH.sub.4 is produced. When the Cu electrode is modified with 8 μm thick or 15 μm thick layers of Nafion, CH.sub.4 formation is observed. The rate of CH.sub.4 production is faster with a 15 μm Nafion overlayer (6.12 nmol/cm.sup.2 s) as compared to a 8 μm thick overlayer (6.1 nmol/cm.sup.2 s). These results signify that Nafion should be thick enough to trap CO generated from the Cu electrode and that 15 μm is the optimal Nafion thickness for enhanced CH.sub.4 formation. With thicker Nafion overlayers (30 μm), the CO production rate is slowed, and no CH.sub.4 formation is observed. Furthermore, with extremely thick Nafion overlayers (183 μm), all product rates are significantly decreased, and no CH.sub.4 is produced. This result suggests that on very thick Nafion overlayers, only the HER is occurring on top of the polymer at the polymer-electrolyte interface.

[0096] Voltage-dependent experiments are presented in FIG. 12. At −0.38 V vs. RHE. CH.sub.4 production reaches 88.0% Faradaic efficiency on a Cu electrode modified with 15 μm of Nafion. By comparison, previous literature reports on unmodified Cu electrode at −0.9 V vs. RHE give only 0-1% CH.sub.4..sup.22 These results indicated that a Nafion-modified Cu electrode not only enhances CH.sub.4 production but also produces it at a significantly decreased overpotential. Notably, to the best of the inventors' knowledge, the 88% Faradaic efficiency for CH.sub.4 obtained is higher than any previous literature reports under any experimental conditions. See Table 2, herein below. The currently reported best CO.sub.2 to CH.sub.4 catalysts have a Faradaic efficiency of ˜70%..sup.29 In addition to CO, CH.sub.4, and HCOOH, this polymer-modified Cu electrode also produces ethanol and methanol at Faradaic efficiencies of 0.2% and 0.06%, respectively, at −0.98 V vs. RHE. Both partial charge density and rate of CO and HCOOH formation plots (FIGS. 12B, 12C) follow the same general trends as those of the Faradaic efficiencies. However, at −0.38 V, the partial charge density and rate of CH.sub.4 formation is lower than at −0.9 V due to the lower driving force at this decreased overpotential.

[0097] Given the remarkably high Faradaic efficiency for CH.sub.4 production by Nafion-modified Cu electrodes, several experiments were performed to gain insight into the mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction under these conditions. First was an experiment in which sodium formate was added to the bicarbonate buffer in the absence of dissolved CO.sub.2. This experiment resulted in trace amounts of CO and no CH.sub.4 production, indicating that CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 does not occur via a formate intermediate. Secondly, a CO reduction experiment was performed using a Cu electrode with a 15 μm thick Nafion overlayer at −0.38 V vs. RHE (the electrode with the highest Faradaic efficiency for CH.sub.4 production). This experiment yielded 38% Faradaic efficiency of CH.sub.4. The relatively high Faradaic efficiency for CH.sub.4 production using CO-sparged electrolyte indicates that a good portion of the formed CH.sub.4 in the CO.sub.2 reduction case originates from a CO intermediate. However, the observation that the Faradaic efficiency for CO reduction to CH.sub.4 is still significantly lower than the Faradaic efficiency for CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 (88%) under the same experimental conditions suggests that additional factors need to be considered. In the pathway leading to CH.sub.4 formation, the protonation of CO to CHO on the electrode surface is the rate-determining step..sup.14 Furthermore, previous studies suggest that CH.sub.4 formation is pH dependent and that CH.sub.4 formation is favored at lower pH values..sup.30,31,32,33 CO.sub.2-saturated 0.1 M NaHCO.sub.3 electrolyte has a pH of 6.8 while the pH of CO-saturated electrolyte has a pH closer to 9. The abundance of H.sup.+ in a more acidic CO.sub.2-saturated electrolyte implies rapid protonation of the CO intermediate, favoring CH.sub.4 formation. The higher pH of the CO-saturated electrolyte yields less CH.sub.4 due to less H.sup.+ present in the electrolyte.

[0098] FIGS. 12A-12C present a proposed mechanism of CO.sub.2 reduction to CO and CH.sub.4. With the addition of 2 H.sup.+ and 2 e.sup.− a CO intermediate is formed with two possible resonance structures (FIGS. 12A-12C, dotted box). Each of the two structures can either be released as CO or proceed to be further reduced to CH.sub.4. FIG. 12 proposes a mechanism to explain the extremely enhanced CH.sub.4 production on a Nafion-modified electrode at −0.38 V. First, CO.sub.2 is reduced to CO at the polymer-electrode interface. CO that is not bound to the electrode surface is released as a product, and CO that is bound to the electrode surface (denoted as a ═C═O* intermediate) is stabilized by Nafion, allowing for the subsequent reduction of CO to CH.sub.4 while preventing CO release. CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 also may occur through an alternative pathway that does not proceed through a CO intermediate.

[0099] As described herein novel Nafion-modified electrodes have been fabricated that exhibit significantly enhanced CH.sub.4 production (up to 88% Faradaic efficiency) as a CO.sub.2 reduction product. With variation of the thickness, voltage, and substrate. CO.sub.2 reduction occurs at the electrode-polymer interface under the conditions that produced enhanced yields of CH.sub.4. It is posited that CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 is significantly enhanced because Nafion helps to stabilize the Cu—CO* intermediate, which allows for the stabilized CO to be protonated and further reduced to CH.sub.4. In addition, the hydrophobic polymer PVDF hinders proton transfer, which results in increased hydrogen production and very inhibited carbon product formation. Future studies include tuning the hydrophilicity of Nafion to further modulate proton transfer rates by utilizing different polymer overlayer structures.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Summary of various electrocatalysts for electrochemical CO.sub.2 reduction to CH.sub.4 reported in literature. Voltage CH.sub.4 Faradaic References Catalyst (vs. RHE) Electrolyte Efficiency (%) First Set Cu foil −2.4 V NaClO.sub.4/MeOH 70.5 .sup. .sup.1 Cu-Co electrode −1.19 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 47.5 .sup. .sup.2 Cu foil −1.2 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 40 .sup. .sup.3 Cu electrode −1.04 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 33.3 .sup. .sup.4 Pd electrode −0.80 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 2.9 .sup. .sup.4 Cd electrode −1.23 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 1.3 .sup. .sup.4 Ni electrode −1.08 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 1.8 .sup. .sup.4 N-doped graphene −0.86 V 1M KOH 15 .sup. .sup.5 quantum dots Ti-phthalocyanine −1.58 V — 28.1 .sup. .sup.6 Cu-phthalocyanine −1.23 V — 28.0 .sup. .sup.6 Cu nanofoam −1.5 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 <2 .sup. .sup.7 Pt GDE −1.32 V 0.5M KHCO.sub.3 38.8 .sup. .sup.8 Pt/C 0.0 V — 6.8 .sup. .sup.9 Cu single crystal −1.01 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 6 .sup.10 Cu mesh −1.2 V 2M KBr 28.8 .sup.11 Cu nanocubes (24 nm) −1.1 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 15 .sup.12 Cu nanocubes (44 nm) −1.1 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 22 .sup.12 Cu nanocubes (63 nm) −1.1 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 10 .sup.12 Cu foil −1.1 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 18 .sup.12 Polycrystalline Cu −1.0 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 4.6 .sup.13 Cu nanoparticles −1.35 V 0.1M NaHCO.sub.3 76 .sup.14 Cu.sub.2O/Zn −1.9 V 0.3M KOH in 7.5 .sup.15 MeOH Nanoporous carbon −1.6 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 0.18 .sup.16 Cu electrode −1.05 V 0.1M LiHCO.sub.3 32.2 .sup.17 Cu electrode −1.05 V 0.1M NaHCO.sub.3 55.1 .sup.17 Cu electrode −0.99 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 32.0 .sup.17 Cu electrode −0.98 V 0.1M CsHCO.sub.3 16.3 .sup.17 Cu.sub.2O films −1.1 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 5 .sup.18 Cu.sub.2O films −0.99 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 <1 .sup.19 Cu electrode −1.01 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 29.4 .sup.20 Cu electrode −1.04 V 0.1M KCl 11.5 .sup.20 Cu electrode −0.99 V 0.5M KCl 14.5 .sup.20 Cu electrode −1.00 V 0.1M KClO.sub.4 10.2 .sup.20 Cu electrode −1.00 V 0.1M K.sub.2SO.sub.4 12.3 .sup.20 Cu electrode −0.83 V 0.5M K.sub.2HPO.sub.4 17.0 .sup.20 Cu electrode −0.77 V 0.1M K.sub.2HPO.sub.4 6.6 .sup.20 Cu electrode −0.96 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 22.3 .sup.21 Fe electrode −0.98 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 1.1 .sup.21 Ni electrode −1.09 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 1.1 .sup.21 Cu electrode −1.0 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 3 .sup.22 Cu—Ni electrode −1.3 V 0.5M KHCO.sub.3 20.2 .sup.23 Ag electrode −1.4 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 0.09 .sup.24 Ni electrode −1.00 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 0.6 .sup.25 Ni electrode −1.08 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 1.8 .sup.25 Ni electrode −1.02 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 2.4 .sup.25 Cu sheet −1.00 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 16.3 .sup.26 Cu.sub.2O/carbon black −1.3 V NaCl/MeOH 26.9 .sup.27 Cu sheet −1.35 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 44 .sup.28 Cu porphyrin −1.0 V 0.5M KHCO.sub.3 26 .sup.29 Cu electrode −1.35 V 0.5M KHCO.sub.3 5.3 .sup.30 Cu electrode −1.6 V 1.1M KHCO.sub.3 44 .sup.31 Cu electrode −2.4 V 0.5M LiClO.sub.4/MeOH 71.8 .sup.32 Cu wire electrode −3.35 V Tetraethylammonium 28.1 .sup.33 perchlorate methanol Cu nanoparticles −1.3 V 0.1M KHCO.sub.3 50 .sup.34 Cu.sub.2Pd −1.2 V 0.1M TBAPF.sub.6/CH.sub.3CN 55 .sup.35 Co protoporphyrin −0.8 V 0.1M HClO.sub.4 2.5 .sup.36 Polycrystalline Cu −1.4 V 0.5M KHCO.sub.3 42 .sup.37

Third Set of Experiments

[0100] In this third set of experiments, the concepts which were established in the first two sets of experiments were extended to other substrates. A number of experiments were run as described in FIG. 28-38, to determine the impact that changing the metal substrate as the electrode for conducting the reduction of CO.sub.2 would have on the Faradaic efficiency of the reaction as a function of the use of an overcoating with a change in voltage. In experiments which utilized a brass substrate, the brass was a mixture of 62% Cu, 37% Zn and trace amounts of Fe (<0.15%), Pb (<0.08%) and Sn (<0.005%) by weight. Zinc substrates were also used in this third set of experiments. The experiments conducted here are analogous to the copper experiments which are described herein above and were generally run for a one hour period.

[0101] As set forth in FIG. 28, the Faradaic efficiencies on brass were impacted dramatically by the thickness of the Nafion overcoat (FIG. 28) at −089V vs. RHE over the 1 hour experiment which was conducted, with the greatest Faradaic efficiency occurring with a Nafion overcoating thickness ranging from 2-15 μm.

[0102] FIG. 29 shows the Faradaic efficiencies of CO and methane gas as a function of the voltage on brass foil no overcoating (see FIG. 28 above) over the period of the experiment (I hour). The graph presented in FIG. 29 evidences that the voltage used for the reduction reaction also significantly impacted the production of methane from CO.sub.2 with a voltage vs. RHE ranging from −0.2 to approximately −2.0 V being effective and a voltage within the range of −1.0 to −1.7 V being particularly effective for generating methane gas.

[0103] FIG. 30 shows that the Faradaic efficiencies of CO and ethylene gas production for the 1 hour experiment conducted at −0.89V vs. RHE produced using brass electrodes with an overcoating of an admixture of Nafion/PVDF ranging from 0% by weight PVDF to 100% by weight PDVF and a thickness of 20-90 μm, showed high Faradaic efficiency for ethylene production at 20-90 μm, by weight PVDF in the Nafion/PVDF admixture. The inventors note that the PVDF-Nafion overlayer becomes increasingly thick as the weight percentage of the PVDF in the admixture increases. This is an unexpected and commercially relevant result inasmuch as ethylene is a particularly valuable commercial product.

[0104] FIG. 31 shows the Faradaic efficiencies for CO and ethylene production over a one hour experiment using a brass foil electrode (no overcoating) in acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte solution using a voltage of −0.89V vs. RHE. As evidenced by the data presented in FIG. 31, the Faradaic efficiency for ethylene gas production was greatest between 50% and 80% by volume of acetonitrile.

[0105] FIG. 32 shows that a Nafion coating (15 μm) on a brass electrode using an acetonitrile/bicarbonate electrolyte solution at −0.89V vs. RHE as indicated dramatically influences the Faradaic efficiency of CO and ethylene production and has little impact on methane gas production. An acetonitrile/bicarbonate solution ranging from 10-60% by volume acetonitrile provided the highest Faradaic efficiencies in the experiment.

[0106] FIG. 33 shows the impact of acetonitrile on Faradaic efficiency for the production of CO, methane, ethylene and formic acid on a zinc foil coated with 15 μm thick Nafion performed at −0.89 V vs. RHE. As the acetonitrile volume % increased, much more ethylene was produced, little formic acid was produced at any level of acetonitrile and methane was most efficiently produced (high Faradaic efficiency) at approximately 10-40 volume % acetonitrile in the electrolyte solution.

[0107] FIG. 34 shows the CO Faradaic efficiency as a function of the thickness of Nafion coating on a zinc substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE over the one hour period of the experiment. Noted is that the CO Faradaic efficiency is highest at 2 μm to 15 μm coating thickness and dissipates as the thickness of the coating increases to 90-100 μm.

[0108] FIG. 35 shows the Faradaic efficiencies of CO produced from 20-90 μm PVDF and Nafion admixture coating on zinc substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE over the one hour period of the experiment. Note that the Faradaic efficiency of CO production is highest at low PVDF content and at approximately 40-60% by weight PVDF. Above 60% PVDF by weight of the admixture, the Faradaic efficiency is reduced to close to zero.

[0109] FIG. 36 shows the Faradaic efficiencies over the 1 hour experiment for CO and ethylene gas produced using a copper substrate overcoated with 52 weight % of several different polymers (polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyethylenimine (PEI) in admixture with Nafion at −0.89 V vs. RHE. An admixture of polyvinyl alcohol and Nafion provided the highest faradaic efficiency for the production of ethylene gas among the polymer admixtures tested.

[0110] FIG. 37 shows the Faradaic efficiencies for CO and ethylene gas produced using various polymer blends in Nafion on a copper substrate at −0.89 V vs. RHE. A represents 100% polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). B represents 50 weight % each of Teflon and PVDF in admixture. C represents 52 weight % Teflon and Nafion in admixture. D represents 40 weight % each of Teflon and PVDF in Nafion admixture. E represents 64 weight percent Teflon and 30 weight % PVDF in Nafion admixture and F represents 30 weight % and 64 weight % PVDF in Nafion. The results evidence that a fluoropolymer which excludes Nafion does not produce ethylene gas (or even significant concentrations of CO) and the inclusion of a fluoropolymer (Teflon) with Nafion at approximately 50% by weight (52:48) produced a larger concentration of ethylene gas as did polymer admixtures with greater percentages of fluoropolymer (PVDF) in Nafion.

[0111] FIG. 38 shows the Faradaic efficiencies for the production of CO, methane, ethylene and formic acid producing using 10 weight % nanoparticulate cuprous oxide (Cu.sub.2O) in admixture with Nafion polymer coated on metal substrates (A and B) or a Cu.sub.2O nanoparticulate coating (a thin film of Cu.sub.2O nanoparticulates without Nafion coated onto metal substrates by drop casting from a dispersion of Cu.sub.2O nanoparticulates) on metal substrates (C. D and E) over the one hour experiment at −0.89 V vs. RHE. A represents the results for the Nafion admixture overcoating on copper substrate, B represents the results for the Nafion admixture overcoating on zinc, C represents the results for the Cu.sub.2O thin film on zinc (C), Copper (D) and Nickel (D) substrates. As indicated, the inclusion of Cu.sub.2O in the Nafion overcoating had a significant impact on CO and formic acid production with high Faradaic efficiency for CO. Given the other experiments using fluoropolymers it is anticipated that the inclusion of Teflon and/or PVDF in the Nafion polymer (often at weight % great than 50 weight %) is expected to have a substantial impact in producing methane and ethylene products during CO.sub.2 reduction.

[0112] FIG. 39 shows a mechanism for electrocatalysis at a polymer-substrate (catalyst) interface with an embedded cocatalyst in admixture with the polymer to provide tandem catalysis. Cocatalysts can be small nanoparticulates (having a diameter ranging from 1 to 500 nm) or nanowires which are dispersed in the polymer overcoating. Alternatively, a molecular species which functions as a cocatalyst may be covalently attached to the polymer backbone. By coupling an electrode catalyst that is selective for a partially reduced intermediate and with a membrane/coating bound catalysis which facilitates further reduction, reference cells can be provided for reducing CO.sub.2 to selectively desired products with high Faradaic efficiencies.

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE EXAMPLES

[0113] The experiments evidence that the use of a uniform Nafion overcoating ranging from 2 to 15 μm (often 10-15 μm, most often 15 μm) on a copper electrode at an effective voltage using a bicarbonate solution (with no additional aprotic solvent in the solution) provides high Faradaic efficiency and dramatically high yield of methane gas.

[0114] Also evidenced by the experiments described herein, this work demonstrates that controlling the hydrophobicity of the electrode and proton availability of the electrolyte strongly dictates the production of different CO.sub.2 reduction products. Formate production is favored by a hydrophobic electrode, however, too hydrophobic causes mass transport issues because hydrophobic PVDF is less permeable to CO.sub.2. The decrease in proton concentration slows down the protonation of the M-CO intermediate to generate CH.sub.4, but promotes M-CO and M-CO coupling chemistry to produce C2+ products. This control of hydrophobicity by using polymer blends and mixed aprotic-protic solvent systems is a facile and effective method to tune the selectivity of CO.sub.2 reduction catalysts.

[0115] A skilled practitioner can predict carbon-based product selectivity from CO.sub.2 electrolysis reduction reactions by the design of the electrode, the electrode's polymer coating (including the thickness of the polymer coating) and the composition of the bicarbonate electrolyte solution used as the CO.sub.2 source. CH.sub.4 production is favored when electrodes are modified with a Nafion overlayer and on unmodified electrodes at a very negative reduction potentials. Formate is favored with hydrophobic electrodes (e.g. PVDF-Nafion overlayer) and at less negative reduction potentials. C.sub.2H.sub.4 is favored when Cu alloys are used, when the alloy electrode is hydrophobic (e.g. PVDF-Nafion overlayer), and when aprotic solvents are used in conjunction with the bicarbonate electrolyte. Further, the inventors have surmised that formate can be further enhanced by creating a hydrophobic environment on the electrode and/or in the electrolysis solution. C.sub.2H.sub.4 production can be enhanced by hydrophobic fluoropolymer-Nafion overlayers on an alloy electrode.

[0116] In addition, from the description of the present invention, the polymer overlayers as hosts for tandem catalysis. Cocatalysts can be nanoparticles and/or nanowires dispersed in the polymer overlayers or molecular species covalently attached to the polymer backbone. By coupling an electrode-bound catalyst that is selective for a partially reduced intermediate and with a membrane-bound catalysis that facilitates further reduction, one can envision the ready design of electrolysis systems utilizing CO.sub.2 reduction that selectively form desired products.

Supplemental Information

Mass Transport Calculations

Effect of Mass Transport on CO.SUB.2 .Electrocatalysis on Nafion/PVDF-Modified Electrodes

[0117] The permeability of CO.sub.2 in PVDF and Nafion were taken to be 2.16×10.sup.−17 mol-cm/cm.sup.2-s-Pa and 8.70×10.sup.−6 mol-cm/cm.sup.2-s-Pa, two values obtained from Flaconneche, et al., Oil Gas Sci. Technol.-Rev. IFP. 2001, 56(3) and 261-278; Ren, et al., J. Electrochem. Soc., 2015, 162(10), F1221-F1230. The permeability of CO.sub.2 in PVDF-Nafion mixtures were calculated based on the weight percent of PVDF in Nafion multiplied by the permeability of CO2 in PVDF added to the weight percent of Nafion multiplied by the permeability of CO2 in Nafion. The thickness of the PVDF-Nafion overlayer was determined by cross-sectional SEM. Using the thickness of the PVDF-Nafion mixture (18 μm for 4 weight % PVDF in Nafion overlayer) and the pressure of CO2 is 1 atm. the flux of CO.sub.2 through the membrane is calculated to be 4.7×10.sup.−8 mol/cm.sup.2-s. This flux value is then compared to the maximum theoretical rate of consumption of CO.sub.2 at the electrode-polymer interface. The maximum CO.sub.2 consumption rate is determined from the steady state current of the chronoamperometry, assuming all CO.sub.2 is reduced to either CO or HCOOH. Because these products require only 2 e/mol, they consume CO.sub.2 faster than more highly reduced products such as CH.sub.4. Therefore, assuming a 100% yield of CO or HCOOH is an upper bound for the CO.sub.2 consumption rate. For the Cu electrode modified with 4 weight percent PVDF in Nafion overlayer, the steady state current density is −0.21 mA/cm.sup.2. From this value, the upper bound for the CO.sub.2 consumption rate is 1.1×10.sup.−9 mol/cm.sup.2-s, a value less than the calculated CO.sub.2 flux. Therefore, these calculations suggest that CO.sub.2 mass transport is not a limiting factor for this electrode.

[0118] However, for the Cu electrodes modified with 56, 60, and 64 weight percent PVDF in Nafion, the CO2 flux is less than the maximum theoretical CO.sub.2 consumption. This means at these higher weight percentages of PVDF in Nafion, CO.sub.2 mass transport does become a limiting factor and the availability of CO2 at the Cu-polymer interface is an issue.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE S1 Contact angle measurements on PVDF- Nafion-modified Cu electrodes. Electrode (Weight % PVDF in Nafion) Angle (degrees) Bare Cu 28.9 ± 2 0 43.7 ± 2 4 .sup. 38.0 ± 0.8 8 .sup. 43.9 ± 0.7 15 49.7 ± 2 18 70.3 ± 1 30 74.9 ± 3 52 78.7 ± 3 56 84.8 ± 4 60 86.5 ± 2 64 95.1 ± 1 100  124.0 ± 0.4

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE S2 Mass transport calculations. Electrode Max theoretical CO.sub.2 (Weight % PVDF in Nafion) CO.sub.2 flux consumption 4 4.7 × 10.sup.−8 1.1 × 10.sup.−9 8 4.1 × 10.sup.−8 5.7 × 10.sup.−9 15 3.0 × 10.sup.−8 4.5 × 10.sup.−9 30 1.8 × 10.sup.−8 .sup. 6.2 × 10.sup.−10 52 8.6 × 10.sup.−9 1.6 × 10.sup.−9 56 6.0 × 10.sup.−9 6.7 × 10.sup.−9 60 4.5 × 10.sup.−9 5.7 × 10.sup.−9 64 3.5 × 10.sup.−9 5.7 × 10.sup.−9

REFERENCES (FIRST SET)

[0119] 1. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division—Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide—Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO.sub.2 2021. [0120] 2. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division—Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide—Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hi. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html. [0121] 3. Halmann, M. M. M. S., Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Mitigation: Science and Technology. CRC Press LLC, Lewis Publishers: 1999. [0122] 4. Lewis, N. S.; Nocera, D. G., Powering the planet: Chemical challenges in solar energy utilization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2006, 103 (43), 15729-15735. [0123] 5. Mi, Y.; Peng, X.; Liu, X.; Luo, J., Selective Formation of C2 Products from Electrochemical CO2 Reduction over Cu1.8Se Nanowires. ACS Applied Energy Materials 2018, 1(10), 5119-5123. [0124] 6. Kumar, B.; Brian, J. P.; Atla, V.; Kumari, S.; Bertram, K. A. White, R. T.; Spurgeon, J. M., New trends in the development of heterogeneous catalysts for electrochemical CO2 reduction. Catalysis Today 2016, 270, 19-30. [0125] 7. Nitopi, S.; Bertheussen, E.; Scott, S. B.; Liu, X.; Engstfeld, A. K.; Horch. S.; Seger, B.; Stephens, I. E. L.; Chan, K.; Hahn, C.; Norskov. J. K.; Jaramillo, T. F.; Chorkendorff, I., Progress and Perspectives of Electrochemical CO2 Reduction on Copper in Aqueous Electrolyte. Chemical reviews 2019, 119 (12), 7610-7672. [0126] 8. Lee, M.-Y.; Park, K. T.; Lee, W.; Lim, H.; Kwon, Y.; Kang, S., Current achievements and the future direction of electrochemical CO2 reduction: A short review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 2019, 1-47. [0127] 9. Graves, C.; Ebbesen, S. D.; Mogensen, M.; Lackner, K. S., Sustainable hydrocarbon fuels by recycling CO2 and H2O with renewable or nuclear energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011, 15 (1), 1-23. [0128] 10. Loiudice, A.; Lobaccaro, P.; Kamali, E. A.; Thao, T.; Huang, B. H.; Ager, J. W.; Buonsanti, R., Tailoring Copper Nanocrystals towards C2 Products in Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2016, 55 (19), 5789-5792. [0129] 11. Yu, F.; Wei, P.; Yang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Guo, L.; Peng, Z., Material design at nano and atomic scale for electrocatalytic CO2 reduction. Nano Materials Science 2019, 1 (1), 60-69. [0130] 12. Kortlever, R.; Shen, J.; Schouten, K. J. P.; Calle-Vallejo, F.; Koper, M. T. M., Catalysts and Reaction Pathways for the Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2015, 6 (20), 4073-4082. [0131] 13. Calle-Vallejo, F.; Koper. M. T. M., Theoretical Considerations on the Electroreduction of CO to C2 Species on Cu(100) Electrodes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2013, 52 (28), 7282-7285. [0132] 14. Peterson, A. A.; Abild-Pedersen, F.; Studt, F.; Rossmeisl, J.; Norskov, J. K., How copper catalyzes the electroreduction of carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels. Energy & Environmental Science 2010, 3 (9), 1311-1315. [0133] 15. Nie, X.; Esopi, M. R.; Janik, M. J.; Asthagiri, A., Selectivity of CO2 Reduction on Copper Electrodes: The Role of the Kinetics of Elementary Steps. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2013, 52 (9), 2459-2462. [0134] 16. Tripkovic, V.; Vanin, M.; Karamad, M.; Björketun, M. E.; Jacobsen. K. W.; Thygesen, K. S.; Rossmeisl, J., Electrochemical CO2 and CO Reduction on Metal-Functionalized Porphyrin-like Graphene. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2013, 117 (18), 9187-9195. [0135] 17. Liu, X.; Xiao, J.; Peng, H.; Hong, X.; Chan, K.; Norskov, J. K., Understanding trends in electrochemical carbon dioxide reduction rates. Nature communications 2017, 8 (1), 15438. [0136] 18. Hori, Y.; Murata, A.; Takahashi, R., Formation of hydrocarbons in the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide at a copper electrode in aqueous solution. Journal of the Chemical Society Faraday Transactions 1: Physical Chemistry in Condensed Phases 1989, 85 (8), 2309-2326. [0137] 19. Hori, Y.; Kikuchi, K.; Suzuki, S., PRODUCTION OF CO AND CH4 IN ELECTROCHEMICAL REDUCTION OF CO2 AT METAL ELECTRODES IN AQUEOUS HYDROGENCARBONATE SOLUTION. Chemistry Letters 1985, 14 (11). 1695-1698. [0138] 20. Hori, Y.; Takahashi, I.; Koga, O.; Hoshi, N., Selective Formation of C2 Compounds from Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 at a Series of Copper Single Crystal Electrodes. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2002, 106 (1), 15-17. [0139] 21. Kuhl, K. P.; Hatsukade, T.; Cave, E. R.; Abram, D. N.; Kibsgaard, J.; Jaramillo, T. F., Electrocatalytic Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Methane and Methanol on Transition Metal Surfaces. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2014, 136 (40), 14107-14113. [0140] 22. Schouten, K. J. P.; Qin, Z.; Pérez Gallent, E.; Koper, M. T. M., Two Pathways for the Formation of Ethylene in CO Reduction on Single-Crystal Copper Electrodes. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2012, 134 (24), 9864-9867. [0141] 23. Verdaguer-Casadevall, A; Li, C. W.; Johansson, T. P.; Scott. S. B.; McKeown, J. T.; Kumar, M.; Stephens, I. E. L.; Kanan, M. W.; Chorkendorff, I., Probing the Active Surface Sites for CO Reduction on Oxide-Derived Copper Electrocatalysts. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2015, 137(31), 9808-9811. [0142] 24. Mauritz., K. A.; Moore, R B., State of Understanding of Nafion. Chemical reviews 2004, 104 (10), 4535-4586. [0143] 25. Kim, W.; Seok, T.; Choi, W., Nafion layer-enhanced photosynthetic conversion of CO2 into hydrocarbons on TiO2 nanoparticles. Energy & Environmental Science 2012, 223, 6066-6070. [0144] 26. Prakash, G. K. S.; Viva, F. A; Olah, G. A, Electrochemical reduction of CO2 over Sn-Nafion® coated electrode for a fuel-cell-like device. Journal of Power Sources 2013, 223, 68-73. [0145] 27. Dewulf, D. W.; Bard, A. J., The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to CH4 and C2H4 at Cu/Nafion electrodes (solid polymer electrolyte structures). Catalysis Letters 1988, 1 (1), 73-79. [0146] 28. Kreuer, K. D. I., M.; Fuchs, A.; Maier, J., Proton and Water Transport in Nano-separated Polymer Membranes. J. Phys. IV France 2000, 10 (7), 279-281. [0147] 29. Kaneco, S.; Katsumata, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta. K., Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 to Methane at the Cu Electrode in Methanol with Sodium Supporting Salts and Its Comparison with Other Alkaline Salts. Energy & Fuels 2006, 20 (1), 409-414. [0148] 30. Kas, R.; Kortlever, R.; Yilmaz, H.; Koper, M. T. M.; Mul, G., Manipulating the Hydrocarbon Selectivity of Copper Nanoparticles in CO2 Electroreduction by Process Conditions. Chem Electro Chem 2015, 2 (3), 354-358. [0149] 31. Schouten, K. J. P.; Pérez Gallent, E.; Koper, M. T. M., The influence of pH on the reduction of CO and CO2 to hydrocarbons on copper electrodes. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2014, 716, 53-57. [0150] 32. Hori, Y.; Takahashi, R.; Yoshinami, Y.; Murata, A., Electrochemical Reduction of CO at a Copper Electrode. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 1997, 101 (36), 7075-7081. [0151] 33. Koper, M. T. M., Theory of multiple proton-electron transfer reactions and its implications for electrocatalysis. Chemical Science 2013, 4 (7), 2710-2723.

REFERENCES (SECOND SET)

[0152] 1. Zhao, J.; Xue, S.; Barber, J.; Zhou, Y.; Meng, J.; Ke, X., An overview of Cu-based heterogeneous electrocatalysts for CO2 reduction. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2020, 8 (9), 4700-4734. [0153] 2. Chen, X.; Henckel, D. A.; Nwabara, U. O.; Li, Y.; Frenkel, A I.; Fister, T. T.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Gewirth, A. A., Controlling Speciation during CO2 Reduction on Cu-Alloy Electrodes. ACS Catalysis 2020, 10 (1), 672-682. [0154] 3. Chen, Y.; Fan, Z.; Wang, J.; Ling, C.; Niu, W.; Huang, Z.; Liu, G.; Chen, B.; Lai, Z.; Liu, X.; Li, B.; Zong, Y.; Gu, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, X, Zhang, H., Ethylene Selectivity in Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction on Cu Nanomaterials: A Crystal Phase-Dependent Study. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (29), 12760-12766. [0155] 4. Zhu, Q.; Sun, X.; Yang, D.; Ma. J.; Kang, X.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Z.; Han. B., Carbon dioxide electroreduction to C2 products over copper-cuprous oxide derived from electrosynthesized copper complex. Nature communications 2019, 10 (1), 3851. [0156] 5. Kim, D.; Kley, C. S.; Li, Y.; Yang, P., Copper nanoparticle ensembles for selective electroreduction of CO2 to C2-C3 products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017, 114 (40), 10560. [0157] 6. Handoko, A. D.; Ong, C. W.; Huang, Y.; Lee, Z. G.; Lin, L.; Panetti, G. B.; Yeo, B. S., Mechanistic Insights into the Selective Electroreduction of Carbon Dioxide to Ethylene on Cu2O-Derived Copper Catalysts. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2016, 120 (36), 20058-20067. [0158] 7. Huang, Y.; Handoko, A. D.; Hirunsit, P.; Yeo, B. S., Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 Using Copper Single-Crystal Surfaces: Effects of CO* Coverage on the Selective Formation of Ethylene. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7(3), 1749-1756. [0159] 8. Dutta, A.; Rahaman. M.; Mohos, M.; Zanetti, A.; Broekmann, P., Electrochemical CO2 Conversion Using Skeleton (Sponge) Type of Cu Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7 (8), 5431-5437. [0160] 9. Reller, C.; Krause. R.; Volkova. E.; Schmid, B.; Neubauer, S.; Rucki, A.; Schuster, M.; Schmid, G., Selective Electroreduction of CO2 toward Ethylene on Nano Dendritic Copper Catalysts at High Current Density. Advanced Energy Materials 2017, 7 (12), 1602114. [0161] 10. Yang, K. D.; Ko, W. R; Lee, J. H.; Kim, S. J.; Lee, H.; Lee, M. H.; Nam, K. T., Morphology-Directed Selective Production of Ethylene or Ethane from CO2 on a Cu Mesopore Electrode. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2017, 56 (3), 796-800. [0162] 11. Baturina, O. A.; Lu, Q.; Padilla, M. A.; Xin, L.; Li, W.; Serov, A.; Artyushkova, K.; Atanassov, P.; Xu, F.; Epshteyn, A.; Brintlinger, T.; Schuette, M.; Collins, G. E., CO2 Electroreduction to Hydrocarbons on Carbon-Supported Cu Nanoparticles. ACS Catalysis 2014, 4 (10), 3682-3695. [0163] 12. Wu, D.; Dong, C.; Wu, D.; Fu, J.; Liu, H.; Hu, S.; Jiang, Z.; Qiao, S. Z.; Du, X-W., Cuprous ions embedded in ceria lattice for selective and stable electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to ethylene. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2018, 6 (20), 9373-9377. [0164] 13. Pang, Y.; Burdyny, T.; Dinh, C.-T.; Kibria, M. G.; Fan, J. Z.; Liu, M.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D., Joint tuning of nanostructured Cu-oxide morphology and local electrolyte programs high-rate CO2 reduction to C2H4. Green Chemistry 2017, 19 (17), 4023-4030. [0165] 14. Ma, W.; Xie, S.; Liu, T.; Fan, Q.; Ye, J.; Sun, F.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Cheng, J.; Wang, Y., Electrocatalytic reduction of CO2 to ethylene and ethanol through hydrogen-assisted C—C coupling over fluorine-modified copper. Nature Catalysis 2020, 3 (6), 478-487. [0166] 15. Kuhl, K. P.; Cave, E. R.; Abram, D. N.; Jaramillo, T. F., New insights into the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide on metallic copper surfaces. Energy & Environmental Science 2012, 5 (5), 7050-7059. [0167] 16. Vasileff, A.; Zhi, X.; Xu, C.; Ge, L.; Jiao, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Qiao. S.-Z., Selectivity Control for Electrochemical CO2 Reduction by Charge Redistribution on the Surface of Copper Alloys. ACS Catalysis 2019, 9 (10), 9411-9417. [0168] 17. García de Arquer, F. P.; Dinh, C.-T.; Ozden, A.; Wicks, J.; McCallum, C.; Kirmani, A. R.; Nam, D.-H.; Gabardo, C.; Seifitokaldani, A.; Wang, X.; Li, Y. C.; Li, F.; Edwards, J.; Richter, L. J.; Thorpe, S. J.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H., CO2 electrolysis to multicarbon products at activities greater than 1 A cm-2. Science 2020, 367(6478), 661-666. [0169] 18. Hori, Y.; Kikuchi, K.; Suzuki, S., PRODUCTION OF CO AND CH4 IN ELECTROCHEMICAL REDUCTION OF CO2 AT METAL ELECTRODES IN AQUEOUS HYDROGENCARBONATE SOLUTION. Chemistry Letters 1985, 14 (11), 1695-1698. [0170] 19. Janáky, C.; Hursán, D.; Endrödi, B.; Chanmanee, W.; Roy, D.; Liu, D.; de Tacconi, N. R. Dennis, B. H.; Rajeshwar, K., Electro- and Photoreduction of Carbon Dioxide: The Twain Shall Meet at Copper Oxide/Copper Interfaces. ACS Energy Letters 2016, 1 (2), 332-338. [0171] 20. Sander. R., Compilation of Henry's law constants. version 3.99. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2014, 14, 29615-30521. [0172] 21. da Silva, A. H. M.; Raaijman, S. J.; Santana, C. S.; Assaf, J. M.; Gomes, J. F.; Koper, M. T. M., Electrocatalytic CO2 reduction to C2+ products on Cu and CuxZny electrodes: Effects of chemical composition and surface morphology. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2021,880, 114750. [0173] 22. Wang, X.; Klingan, K.; Klingenhof, M.; Möller, T.; Ferreira de Araújo, J.; Martens, I.; Bagger, A.; Jiang, S.; Rossmeisl, J.; Dau, H.; Strasser, P., Morphology and mechanism of highly selective Cu(II) oxide nanosheet catalysts for carbon dioxide electroreduction. Nature communications 2021, 12 (1), 794. [0174] 23. Dutta, A.; Rahaman, M.; Luedi, N. C.; Mohos, M.; Broekmann, P., Morphology Matters: Tuning the Product Distribution of CO2 Electroreduction on Oxide-Derived Cu Foam Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2016, 6 (6), 3804-3814. [0175] 24. Suen, N.-T.; Kong, Z.-R.; Hsu, C.-S.; Chen, H.-C.; Tung, C.-W.; Lu, Y.-R.; Dong, C.-L.; Shen, C.-C.; Chung, J.-C.; Chen, H. M., Morphology Manipulation of Copper Nanocrystals and Product Selectivity in the Electrocatalytic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide. ACS Catalysis 2019, 9 (6), 5217-5222. [0176] 25. Fan, M.; Bai, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Ma, C.; Zhou, X.-D.; Qiao, J., Aqueous CO2 reduction on morphology controlled CuxO nanocatalysts at low overpotential. RSC Advances 2014, 4 (84), 44583-44591. [0177] 26. Igarashi, R.; Takeuchi, R.; Kubo, K.; Mizuta, T.; Kume, S., On-Surface Modification of Copper Cathodes by Copper(I)-Catalyzed Azide Alkyne Cycloaddition and C.sub.02 Reduction in Organic Environments. Frontiers in Chemistry 2019, 7 (860). [0178] 27. Xie, M. S.; Xia, B. Y.; Li, Y.; Yan, Y.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Q.; Chan, S. H.; Fisher, A.; Wang, X., Amino acid modified copper electrodes for the enhanced selective electroreduction of carbon dioxide towards hydrocarbons. Energy & Environmental Science 2016, 9 (5), 1687-1695. [0179] 28. Wang, J.; Zhang, F.; Kang, X.; Chen, S., Organic functionalization of metal catalysts: Enhanced activity towards electroreduction of carbon dioxide. Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2019, 13, 40-46. [0180] 29. Zhou, Y.; Che, F.; Liu, M.; Zou. C.; Liang, Z., De Luna, P.; Yuan, H.; Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Xie, H.; Li, H.; Chen, P.; Bladt, E.; Quintero-Bermudez, R.; Sham, T.-K.; Bals, S.; Hofkens, J.; Sinton, D.; Chen, G., Sargent, E. H., Dopant-induced electron localization drives CO2 reduction to C2 hydrocarbons. Nature Chemistry 2018, 10 (9), 974-980. [0181] 30. Morales-Guio, C. G.; Cave, E. R; Nitopi, S. A.; Feaster, J. T.; Wang, L.; Kuhl, K. P.; Jackson, A. Johnson, N. C.; Abram, D. N.; Hatsukade, T.; Hahn, C.; Jaramillo, T. F., Improved CO2 reduction activity towards C2+ alcohols on a tandem gold on copper electrocatalyst. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (10), 764-771. [0182] 31. Ye, K.; Cao, A.; Shao, J.; Wang, G.; Si, R; Ta, N.; Xiao. J.; Wang, G., Synergy effects on Sn—Cu alloy catalyst for efficient CO2 electroreduction to formate with high mass activity. Science Bulletin 2020, 65 (9), 711-719. [0183] 32. Zheng, X.; Ji, Y.; Tang, J.; Wang, J.; Liu, B.; Steinrück, H.-G.; Lim, K.; Li, Y.; Toney, M. F.; Chan, K.; Cui, Y., Theory-guided Sn/Cu alloying for efficient CO2 electroreduction at low overpotentials. Nature Catalysis 2019, 2 (1), 55-61. [0184] 33. Wang, L.; Higgins, D. C.; Ji, Y.; Morales-Guio, C. G.; Chan, K; Hahn, C.; Jaramillo, T. F., Selective reduction of CO to acetaldehyde with CuAg electrocatalysts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2020, 117 (23), 12572. [0185] 34. Sa, Y. J.; Lee, C. W.; Lee, S. Y.; Na, J.; Lee, U.; Hwang, Y. J., Catalyst-electrolyte interface chemistry for electrochemical CO2 reduction. Chemical Society Reviews 2020, 49 (18), 6632-6665. [0186] 35. Moura de Salles Pupo, M.; Kortlever, R., Electrolyte Effects on the Electrochemical Reduction of CO2. Chem Phys Chem 2019, 20 (22), 2926-2935. [0187] 36. Bondue, C. J.; Graf M.; Goyal, A; Koper, M. T. M., Suppression of Hydrogen Evolution in Acidic Electrolytes by Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (1), 279-285. [0188] 37. Varela, A S.; Kroschel, M.; Reier, T.; Strasser, P., Controlling the selectivity of CO2 electroreduction on copper: The effect of the electrolyte concentration and the importance of the local pH. Catalysis Today 2016, 260, 8-13. [0189] 38. Jiang, C.; Nichols, A. W.; Walzer, J. F.; Machan, C. W., Electrochemical CO2 Reduction in a Continuous Non-Aqueous Flow Cell with [Ni(cyclam)]2+. Inorganic Chemistry 2020, 59 (3), 1883-1892. [0190] 39. Oh, Y.; Vrubel, H.; Guidoux, S.; Hu, X., Electrochemical reduction of CO2 in organic solvents catalyzed by MoO2. Chemical communications 2014, 50 (29), 3878-3881. [0191] 40. Diaz-Duque, A.; Sandoval-Rojas, A P.; Molina-Osorio, A. F.; Feliu, J. M.; Suárez-Herrera, M. F., Electrochemical reduction of CO2 in water-acetonitrile mixtures on nanostructured Cu electrode. Electrochemistry Communications 2015, 61, 74-77. [0192] 41. Figueiredo, M. C.; Ledezma-Yanez. I.; Koper, M. T. M., In Situ Spectroscopic Study of CO2 Electroreduction at Copper Electrodes in Acetonitrile. ACS Catalysis 2016, 6 (4), 2382-2392. [0193] 42. Desilvestro, J.; Pons, S., The cathodic reduction of carbon dioxide in acetonitrile: An electrochemical and infrared spectroelectrochemical study. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry 1989, 267 (1), 207-220. [0194] 43. Pan, H.; Barile, C. J., Electrochemical CO2 reduction to methane with remarkably high Faradaic efficiency in the presence of a proton permeable membrane. Energy & Environmental Science 2020, 13 (10), 3567-3578. [0195] 44. Gautam, R. P.; Lee, Y. T.; Herman, G. L.; Moreno, C. M.; Tse, E. C. M.; Barile. C. J., Controlling Proton and Electron Transfer Rates to Enhance the Activity of an Oxygen Reduction Electrocatalyst. Angwandte Chemie International Edition 2018, 57 (41), 13480-13483. [0196] 45. Mennel, J. A.; Pan, H.; Palladino, S. W.; Barile. C. J., Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction by Self-Assembled Monolayers of Metal Porphyrins. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2020, 124 (36), 19716-19724. [0197] 46. Dinh, C.-T.; Burdyny, T.; Kibria. M. G.; Seifitokaldani, A.; Gabardo, C. M.; García de Arquer, F. P.; Kiani, A.; Edwards, J. P.; De Luna, P.; Bushuyev, O. S.; Zou, C.; Quintero-Bermudez, R; Pang, Y.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H., CO2 electroreduction to ethylene via hydroxide-mediated copper catalysis at an abrupt interface. Science 2018, 360 (6390), 783. [0198] 47. Huo, Y.; Peng, X.; Liu, X.; Li, H.; Luo, J., High Selectivity Toward C2H4 Production over Cu Particles Supported by Butterfly-Wing-Derived Carbon Frameworks. ACS applied materials & interfaces 2018, 10 (15), 12618-12625. [0199] 48. Mistry, H.; Varela, A. S.; Bonifacio, C. S.; Zegkinoglou. I.; Sinev, I.; Choi, Y.-W.; Kisslinger, K.; Stach, E. A.; Yang, J. C.; Strasser, P.; Cuenya, B. R., Highly selective plasma-activated copper catalysts for carbon dioxide reduction to ethylene. Nature communications 2016, 7(1), 12123. [0200] 49. Checco, A.; Hofmann, T.; DiMasi, E.; Black, C. T.; Ocko, B. M., Morphology of Air Nanobubbles Trapped at Hydrophobic Nanopatterned Surfaces. Nano Letters 2010, 10 (4), 1354-1358. [0201] 50. Melnichenko. Y. B.; Lavrik, N. V.; Popov, E.; Bahadur, J.; He, L.; Kravchenko, I. I.; Smith, G.; Pipich, V.; Szekely, N. K., Cavitation on Deterministically Nanostructured Surfaces in Contact with an Aqueous Phase: A Small-Angle Neutron Scattering Study. Langmuir 2014, 30 (33), 9985-9990. [0202] 51. Sakamoto, N.; Arai, T., Enhanced electrochemical CO2 reduction selectivity by application of self-assembled polymer microparticles to a silver electrode. Chemical communications 2019, 55 (77), 11623-11625. [0203] 52. Buckley, A. K.; Lee, M.; Cheng, T.; Kazantsev, R. V.; Larson. D. M.; Goddard lii, W. A.; Toste, F. D.; Toma. F. M., Electrocatalysis at Organic-Metal Interfaces: Identification of Structure-Reactivity Relationships for CO2 Reduction at Modified Cu Surfaces. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2019, 141 (18), 7355-7364. [0204] 53. Li, J.; Chen. G.; Zhu, Y.; Liang, Z.; Pei, A.; Wu, C.-L.; Wang, H.; Lee, H. R.; Liu, K.; Chu. S.; Cui, Y., Efficient electrocatalytic CO2 reduction on a three-phase interface. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (8), 592-600. [0205] 54. Wakerley, D.; Lamaison, S.; Ozanam. F.; Menguy, N.; Mercier, D.; Marcus, P.; Fontecave, M.; Mougel, V., Bio-inspired hydrophobicity promotes CO2 reduction on a Cu surface. Nature materials 2019, 18 (11), 1222-1227. [0206] 55. Pan, H.; Barile, C. J., Bifunctional nickel and copper electrocatalysts for CO2 reduction and the oxygen evolution reaction. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2020, 8 (4), 1741-1748. [0207] 56. Tao, Z.; Wu, Z.; Yuan, X.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H., Copper-Gold Interactions Enhancing Formate Production from Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. ACS Catalysis 2019, 9 (12), 10894-10898. [0208] 57. Li, J.; Kuang, Y.; Meng, Y.; Tian, X.; Hung, W.-H.; Zhang, X.; Li, A.; Xu, M.; Zhou, W.; Ku, C.-S.; Chiang, C.-Y.; Zhu, G.; Guo, J.; Sun, X. Dai, H., Electroreduction of CO2 to Formate on a Copper-Based Electrocatalyst at High Pressures with High Energy Conversion Efficiency. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (16), 7276-7282.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES (FIRST SET)

[0209] 1. Kaneco, S.; Katsumata, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta, K., Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 to Methane at the Cu Electrode in Methanol with Sodium Supporting Salts and Its Comparison with Other Alkaline Salts. Energy & Fuels 2006, 20 (1), 409-414. [0210] 2. Takatsuji, Y.; Nakata, I.; Morimoto. M.; Sakakura, T.; Yamasaki, R.; Haruyama. T.; Highly Selective Methane Production Through Electrochemical CO2 reduction by Electrolytically Plated Cu—Co Electrode. Electrocatalysis 2019, 10 (1), 29-34. [0211] 3. Kuhl, K. P.; Cave, E. R; Abram, D. N.; Jaramillo, T. F., New insights into the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide on metallic copper surfaces. Energy & Environmental Science 2012, 5 (5), 7050-7059. [0212] 4. Hori, Y.; Wakebe, H.; Tsukamoto, T.; Koga, O.; Electrocatalytic process of CO selectivity in electrochemical reduction of CO2 at metal electrodes in aqueous media. Electrochimica Acta 1994, 39 (11), 1833-1839. [0213] 5. Wu, J.; Ma, S.; Sun, J.; Gold, J. I.; Tiwary, C.; Kim, B.; Zhu, L.; Chopra, N.; Odeh, I. N.; Vajtai, R.; Yu, A Z.; Luo, R; Lou, J.; Ding, G.; Kenis, P. J. A; Ajayan, P. M., A metal-free electrocatalyst for carbon dioxide reduction to multi-carbon hydrocarbons and oxygenates. Nature communications 2016, 7 (1), 13869. [0214] 6. Furuya, N.; Koide, S., Electroreduction of carbon dioxide by metal phthalocyanines. Electrochimica Acta 1991, 36 (8), 1309-1313. [0215] 7. Sen, S.; Liu, D.; Palmore, G. T. R., Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 at Copper Nanofoams. ACS Catalysis 2014, 4 (9), 3091-3095. [0216] 8. Hara. K., Electrocatalytic Formation of CH[sub 4] from CO[sub 2] on a Pt Gas Diffusion Electrode. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 1997, 144 (2), 539. [0217] 9. Umeda, M.; Niitsuma, Y.; Horikawa, T.; Matsuda, S.; Osawa, M., Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 to Methane on Platinum Catalysts without Overpotentials: Strategies for Improving Conversion Efficiency. ACS Applied Energy Materials 2020, 3 (1), 1119-1127. [0218] 10. Takahashi, I.; Koga. O.; Hoshi, N.; Hori, Y., Electrochemical reduction of CO2 at copper single crystal Cu(S)-[n(111)×(111)] and Cu(S)-[n(110)×(100)] electrodes. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2002, 533 (1), 135-143. [0219] 11. Yano, H.; Tanaka, T.; Nakayama, M.; Ogura, K., Selective electrochemical reduction of CO2 to ethylene at a three-phase interface on copper(I) halide-confined Cu-mesh electrodes in acidic solutions of potassium halides. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2004, 565 (2), 287-293. [0220] 12. Loiudice, A.; Lobaccaro. P.; Kamali, E. A; Thao, T.; Huang, B. H.; Ager, J. W.; Buonsanti, R., Tailoring Copper Nanocrystals towards C2 Products in Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2016, 55 (19), 5789-5792. [0221] 13. Kwon, Y.; Lum, Y.; Clark, E. L.; Ager, J. W.; Bell, A T., CO2 Electroreduction with Enhanced Ethylene and Ethanol Selectivity by Nanostructuring Polycrystalline Copper. Chem Electro Chem 2016, 3 (6), 1012-1019. [0222] 14. Manthiram, K.; Beberwvyck, B. J.; Alivisatos, A P., Enhanced Electrochemical Methanation of Carbon Dioxide with a Dispersible Nanoscale Copper Catalyst. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2014, 136(38), 13319-13325. [0223] 15. Ohya, S.; Kaneco, S.; Katsumata, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta, K., Electrochemical reduction of CO2 in methanol with aid of CuO and Cu2O. Catalysis Today 2009, 148 (3), 329-334. [0224] 16. Li, W.; Seredych, M.; Rodriguez-Castellón. E.; Bandosz, T. J., Metal-free Nanoporous Carbon as a Catalyst for Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 to CO and CH4. Chem Sus Chem 2016, 9 (6), 606-616. [0225] 17. Murata. A; Hori, Y., Product Selectivity Affected by Cationic Species in Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 and CO at a Cu Electrode. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 1991, 64 (1), 123-127. [0226] 18. Kas, R.; Kortlever, R.; Milbrat, A; Koper. M. T. M.; Mul, G.; Baltrusaitis, J., Electrochemical CO2 reduction on Cu2O-derived copper nanoparticles: controlling the catalytic selectivity of hydrocarbons. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2014, 16 (24), 12194-12201. [0227] 19. Ren, D.; Deng, Y.; Handoko, A. D.; Chen, C. S.; Malkhandi, S.; Yeo, B. S., Selective Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide to Ethylene and Ethanol on Copper(i) Oxide Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2015, 5 (5), 2814-2821. [0228] 20. Hori. Y.; Murata, A; Takahashi, R., Formation of hydrocarbons in the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide at a copper electrode in aqueous solution. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 1: Physical Chemistry in Condensed Phases 1989, 85 (8), 2309-2326. [0229] 21. Hori, Y.; Takahashi, R.; Yoshinami, Y.; Murata, A, Electrochemical Reduction of CO at a Copper Electrode. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 1997, 101 (36), 7075-7081. [0230] 22. Lum. Y.; Yue, B.; Lobaccaro, P.; Bell, A. T.; Ager, J. W., Optimizing C—C Coupling on Oxide-Derived Copper Catalysts for Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121 (26), 14191-14203. [0231] 23. Kaneco, S. S., Y.; Katsumata, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta, K., Cu-deposited Nickel Electrode for the Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 in Water/methanol Mixture Media. Bulletin of the Catalysis Society of India 2007, (6), 71-82. [0232] 24. Hatsukade, T.; Kuhl, K. P.; Cave, E. R.; Abram, D. N.; Jaramillo, T. F., insights into the electrocatalytic reduction of CO2 on metallic silver surfaces. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2014, 16 (27), 13814-13819. [0233] 25. Hori, Y.; Murata, A., Electrochemical evidence of intermediate formation of adsorbed CO in cathodic reduction of CO2 at a nickel electrode. Electrochimica Acta 1990, 35 (11), 1777-1780. [0234] 26. Hori, Y.; Murata, A.; Takahashi, R.; Suzuki, S., Electroreduction of carbon monoxide to methane and ethylene at a copper electrode in aqueous solutions at ambient temperature and pressure. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1987, 109 (16), 5022-5023. [0235] 27. Uemoto, N.; Furukawa, M.; Tateishi, I.; Katsumata. H.; Kaneco, S., Electrochemical Carbon Dioxide Reduction in Methanol at Cu and Cu2O-Deposited Carbon Black Electrodes. Chem Engineering 2019, 3 (1). [0236] 28. Engelbrecht, A.; Uhlig, C.; Stark, O.; Hämmerle, M.; Schmid, G.; Magori, E.; Wiesner-Fleischer, K.; Fleischer, M.; Moos, R., On the Electrochemical CO2Reduction at Copper Sheet Electrodes with Enhanced Long-Term Stability by Pulsed Electrolysis. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2018, 165 (15), J3059-J3068. [0237] 29. Weng, Z.; Jiang, J.; Wu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Guo, X.; Materna, K. L.; Liu, W.; Batista, V. S.; Brudvig, G. W.; Wang, H., Electrochemical CO2 Reduction to Hydrocarbons on a Heterogeneous Molecular Cu Catalyst in Aqueous Solution. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2016, 138 (26), 8076-8079. [0238] 30. Dewulf, D. W.; Bard, A. J., The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to CH4 and C2H4 at Cu/Nafion electrodes (solid polymer electrolyte structures). Catalysis Letters 1988, 1 (1), 73-79. [0239] 31. Kaneco, S.; Hiei, N.-h.; Xing, Y.; Katsumata, H.; Ohnishi, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta, K., High-efficiency electrochemical CO2-to-methane reduction method using aqueous KHCO3 media at less than 273 K. Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry 2003, 7 (3), 152-156. [0240] 32. Kaneco, S.; Iiba, K.; Yabuuchi, M.; Nishio, N.; Ohnishi, H.; Katsumata, H.; Suzuki, T.; Ohta. K., High Efficiency Electrochemical CO2-to-Methane Conversion Method Using Methanol with Lithium Supporting Electrolytes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2002, 41 (21), 5165-5170. [0241] 33. Satoshi Kaneco, K. I. K. O. T. M., Electrochemical CO2 Reduction on a Copper Wire Electrode in Tetraethylammonium Perchlorate Methanol at Extremely Low Temperature. Energy Sources 1999, 21 (7), 643-648. [0242] 34. Kim, M. K.; Kim, H. J.; Lim, H., Kwon, Y.; Jeong, H. M., Metal-organic framework-mediated strategy for enhanced methane production on copper nanoparticles in electrochemical CO2 reduction. Electrochimica Acta 2019, 306, 28-34. [0243] 35. Zhang, S.; Kang, P.; Bakir, M.; Lapides, A. M.; Dares, C. J.; Meyer, T. J., Polymer-supported CuPd nanoalloy as a synergistic catalyst for electrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide to methane. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015, 112 (52), 15809. [0244] 36. Shen, J.; Kortlever, R.; Kas, R.; Birdja, Y. Y.; Diaz-Morales, O.; Kwon, Y.; Ledezma-Yanez, I.; Schouten. K. J. P.; Mul, G.; Koper, M. T. M., Electrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and methane at an immobilized cobalt protoporphyrin. Nature communications 2015, 6 (1), 8177. [0245] 37. Hashiba, H.; Sato, H. K.; Yotsuhashi, S.; Fujii, K.; Sugiyama, M.; Nakano, Y., A broad parameter range for selective methane production with bicarbonate solution in electrochemical CO2 reduction. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 2017, 1 (8), 1734-1739.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES (SECOND SET)

[0246] 1. B. Flaconneche, J. Martin and M. H. Klopffer, Permeability, Diffusion and Solubility of Gases in Polyethylene, Polyamide 11 and Poly (Vinylidene Fluoride). Oil Gas Sci. Technol.—Rev. IFP, 2001, 56 (3), 261-278. [0247] 2. X. Ren, T. D. Myles, K. N. Grew and W. K. S. Chiu, Carbon Dioxide Transport in Nafion 1100 EW Membrane and in a Direct Methanol Fuel Cell. J Electrochem. Soc., 2015, 162 (10), F1221-F1230. [0248] 3. F. W. Giacobbe. Permeability of Teflon-PFA tubing Toward Carbon Dioxide. Mater. Lett., 1990, 9 (4), 142-146. [0249] 4. H. Pan and C. J. Barile. Electrochemical CO.sub.2 Reduction to Methane with Remarkably High Faradaic Efficiency in the Presence of a Proton Permeable Membrane. Energy Environ. Sci., 2020, 13, 3567-3578. [0250] 5. Z. Tao, Z. Wu, X. Y, Y. Wu, and H. Wang. Copper-Gold Interactions Enhancing Formate Production from Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. ACS Catal. 2019, 9 (12), 10894-10898. [0251] 6. J. Li, Y. Kuang, Y. Meng, X. Tian, W.-H. Hung, X. Zhang, A. Li, M. Xu, W. Zhou. C.-S. Ku, C.-Y. Chiang, G. Zhu, J. Guo, X. Sun, H. Dai. Electroreduction of CO.sub.2 to Formate on a Copper-Based Electrocatalyst at High Pressure with High Energy Conversion Efficiency. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142 (16), 7276-7282. [0252] 7. X. Chen, D. A. Henckel, U. O. Nwabara, Y. Li, A. I. Frenkel, T. T. Fister, P. J. A. Kenis, and A. A Gewirth. Controlling Speciation during CO.sub.2 Reduction on Cu-Alloy Electrodes. ACS Catal., 2020, 10 (1), 672-682. [0253] 8. K. J. P. Schouten, E. P. Gallent, and M. T. M. Koper. Structure Sensitivity of the Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide on Copper Single Crystals. ACS Catal. 2013, 3 (6), 1292-1295.