Science Advances

Supplementary Materials

This PDF file includes:

  • Fig. S1. Histograms for the rod length and width distribution of MIL-88A with different doping amounts.
  • Fig. S2. The influence of dopant amount on the pore size distribution of MIL-88A.
  • Fig. S3. The influence of temperature of phytic acid solution on the morphology and structure of NM-3 nanorods.
  • Fig. S4. The influence of temperature of phytic acid solution on the composition of NM-3 nanorods.
  • Fig. S5. Morphology and structure characterizations of FeP/C, NFP/C-1, and NFP/C-2.
  • Fig. S6. Elemental composition characterization of NFP/C-3 hollow nanorods.
  • Fig. S7. Characterization of the carbon in the hybrids.
  • Fig. S8. The nitrogen sorption characterizations of as-prepared phosphides.
  • Fig. S9. Reference electrode calibrations.
  • Fig. S10. Calculations of the onset potential in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Fig. S11. The contribution of the CFP substrate toward HER.
  • Fig. S12. The influences of temperature and time on composition and crystallinity.
  • Fig. S13. The influence of crystallinity on electrochemical performances.
  • Fig. S14. Structure and composition characterizations of Ni-doped Fe2O3 and Ni-doped FeP.
  • Fig. S15. The influence of carbon on electrochemical performances.
  • Fig. S16. Calculations of the exchange current density in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Fig. S17. CV curves at different scan rates in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Fig. S18. Characterizations of Rs and Rct in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Fig. S19. Characterization of hydrophilicity.
  • Fig. S20. Calculations of the onset potential and exchange current density for NFP/C-3 in 1.0 M KOH and 1.0 M PBS solutions.
  • Fig. S21. Stability performances of NFP/C-3 in 0.5 M H2SO4, 1.0 M PBS, and 1.0 M KOH solutions.
  • Fig. S22. Electrochemistry, structure, and composition characterizations of NFP/C-3 after HER stability test in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Fig. S23. Morphological characterization of as-prepared metal phosphides with various shapes derived from different precursors.
  • Fig. S24. XRD patterns of as-prepared metal phosphides.
  • Fig. S25. High-resolution XPS spectra of C 1s and Ni 2p.
  • Fig. S26. The optimized unit cell vc-relaxation of FeP.
  • Fig. S27. Optimized structures of FeP (002) with different sites.
  • Fig. S28. Optimized structures of FeP (002) with different sites at a θH of 50%.
  • Fig. S29. Optimized structures of FeP (002) with different sites at a θH of 75% and 100%.
  • Fig. S30. Optimized structures of Ni-doped FeP.
  • Fig. S31. Optimized structures of Ni-doped FeP with different sites.
  • Fig. S32. Optimized structures of Ni-doped FeP with different sites at a θH of 50%.
  • Fig. S33. Optimized structures of Ni-doped FeP with different sites at a θH of 75 and 100%.
  • Table S1. Comparisons of the electrocatalytic activities of FeP/C and Ni-doped FeP/C in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Table S2. Comparison of the electrocatalytic activities of NFP/C-3 with some representative HER electrocatalysts in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution.
  • Table S3. Comparison of the electrocatalytic activities of NFP/C-3 with some representative phosphide-based HER electrocatalysts recently reported in neutral/alkaline media.
  • Table S4. Calculation details about atomic positions for FeP (002).
  • Table S5. Calculation details about atomic positions for Ni-doped FeP (002).

Download PDF

Files in this Data Supplement: