Table 2. A comparison of reported molecular CO2RR electrocatalysts which display high activity and/or selectivity in aqueous media to CoPc-P4VP and CoPc(py)-P2VP.
| Catalyst | Activity/mA cm–2 | V vs. RHE | pH | Products (ε) | TOF/s–1 | Ref. |
| CoPc-P4VP | 2.0 ± 0.2 | –0.73 | 4.7 | CO (89 ± 3%), H2 (5 ± 1%) | CO: 4.8 | This study |
| CoPc(py)-P2VP | 1.9 ± 0.2 | –0.73 | 4.7 | CO (83 ± 5%), H2 (6 ± 5%) | CO: 4.2 | This study |
| CoPc-(90% P4VP, 10% polystyrene)/BPG | NR | –0.70 | 4.4 | CO (71.6%), H2 (21.0%) | CO: 3.1 a (EA 41) b | 34 |
| CoPc-(90% P4VP, 10% polystyrene)/BPG | NR | –0.66 | 6.8 | CO (77.2%), H2 (16.6%) | CO: 2.9 a (EA 51) b | 34 |
| COF-367-Co | ∼3.5 | –0.67 | 7.3 | CO (91%), H2 (20%) | CO: 0.05 a (EA 0.5) b | 37 |
| COF-367-Co(1%) | ∼0.5 | –0.67 | 7.3 | CO (48%), H2 (51%) | CO: 0.2 a (EA 2.6) b | 37 |
| [Mn(bpy(tBu)2)(CO)3Br]/Nafion/MWCNT | 0.2 | –0.75 | 7 | CO (46%), H2 (44%) | CO: 0.0005 | 38 |
| Ni(cyclam)-PALA c | NA | –0.17 | 8 | CO (92%) | NA | 39 |
| Poly(Cr(vinylterpy)2) | NR d | –0.52 | 5.8 e | HCHO (87%) | NR d | 40 |
| Re[(bpy)(CO3)Br]/Nafion | 0.002 | –0.65 | 7 | HCO2H (48%), CO (16.5%), H2 (39%) | CO: 0.002, HCO2H: 0.006 | 41 |
| Co(Ch)/MWCNT | NR | –0.83 | 4.6 | CO (89%) | CO: 0.04 | 42 |
| Ir-Pincer (2MeCN) | 0.60 | –1.0 | 6.95 | HCOOH (93%), H2 (7%) | NR f | 43 |
| Ni(cyclam) | 0.64–0.97 | –0.67 | 5 | CO (84 ± 4%) | NA | 44 |
| Ni(MTC) | 0.64–0.97 | –0.67 | 5 | CO (88 ± 7%) | NA | 44 |
| Ni(MCC) | 0.64–0.97 | –0.67 | 5 | CO (92 ± 2%) | NA | 44 |
| Ni(HTC) | 0.64–0.97 | –0.67 | 5 | CO (88 ± 7%) | NA | 44 |
aThese TOF values were recalculated from the literature report using the total loading of catalyst cast onto the surface, as opposed to the amount detected by CV. We believe using the total amount of catalyst deposited provides a more accurate comparison to other reported values in the literature.
bReported TOF values based on the electroactive surface coverage of the catalyst.
cSolution phase catalyst at 2.0 mg mL–1 concentration.
dNo time information was provided for the electrolysis in the report, so activity and TOF could not be calculated for the electrolysis. However, the reported Koutecky–Levich analysis in the manuscript yields a TOF of 5.2 s–1.
eEstimated pH of 0.1 M NaClO4 saturated with CO2.
fNo empirical TOF based on electrolysis data was provided. However, the authors did report a TOF value calculated from CV data of 7.3 s¬1.