Figure 11.

a) Illustration of the synthetic route for the UfD‐RuO₂/CC. b) Top view of defective RuO₂ structure. Gray and red spheres present Ru and O atoms, respectively. c) Polarization curves of UfD‐RuO₂/CC, RuO₂/CC, and commercial RuO₂/CC after capacitance‐correction and iR‐correction. a–c) Reproduced with permission.^{[ 22b ]} Copyright 2019, Wiley‐VCH. d) Illustration of the synthetic route for the E‐Zn‐RuO₂ and C‐Zn‐RuO₂. e) LSV polarization curves of E‐RuO₂ (RuO₂), E‐Zn‐RuO₂, C‐Zn‐RuO₂, and commercial RuO₂. f) Stability of C‐Zn‐RuO₂ and E‐Zn‐RuO₂ at 10 mA cm⁻²; the insets are the morphologies of the two samples after the OER. d–f) Reproduced with permission.^{[ 115 ]} Copyright 2022, Royal Society of Chemistry. g) Surface and cross‐sectional SEM images of the W‐Ir‐B alloy catalyst after the 120 h acidic OER test. The inset shows the magnified cross‐section image of the nanochannel structure (yellow solid box). h) Chronopotentiometry curves of the W‐Ir‐B alloy catalyst in 0.5 m H₂SO₄ electrolyte at a current density of 100 mA cm⁻² _geo for 120 h. The inset shows the LSV curves taken periodically during the test (every 24 h). g,h) Reproduced with permission.^{[ 152 ]} Copyright 2021, Springer Nature. i) Schematic illustration of Th‐MOF electrocatalysis. Reproduced with permission.^{[ 155 ]} Copyright 2022, ACS Publications.