As shown in
Fig. 2a, the formation of intermediates *HCOO and *COOH on CoS
4-C SAN requires the free energy of 0.07 and 0.37 eV, respectively. The hydrogenation of these two intermediates directly forms HCOOH(dl) at the catalysts-electrolyte interface instead of adsorbed *HCOOH, which prevents the continuous hydrogenation of *HCOOH. In addition, *COOH can be further converted into *CO. However, the release of CO or further hydrogenation of *CO to *CHO needs to overcome a large free energy barrier, which is 1.00 and 2.01 eV, respectively, indicating the formation of other C
1 products
via *CO, such as CH
3OH and CH
4, is unfavorable. Therefore, HCOOH is the predominant product of CO
2 reduction on CoS
4-C, and the PDS is * + CO
2 + H
+ + e
− → *HCOO, with the
UL of −0.07 V. The reaction mechanism on the surface of CoN
4-C is quite different from that of CoS
4-C. It can be seen from
Fig. 1b that the intermediate *HCOO is hydrogenated to form *HCOOH, and *COOH is hydrogenated to form *CO. *HCOOH is formed
via the hydrogenation of *HCOO, and *CO is formed
via the hydrogenation of *COOH. *HCOOH and *CO either desorb from the surface to generate 2e
− products HCOOH and CO due to the weak adsorption of *HCOOH and *CO, or occur subsequent hydrogenation to generate 6e
− product CH
3OH and 8e
− product CH
4. The PDS of the formation of HCOOH, CH
3OH and CH
4 is the step of *HCOO + H
+ + e
− → *HCOOH, with a limiting potential of −0.30 V, and the PDS of the formation of CO is the step of * + CO
2 + H
+ + e
− → *COOH with
UL= −0.46 V. These results show that CoN
4-C can catalyze the reduction of CO
2 to multiple C
1 products, but suffers poor product selectivity. Obviously, CoS
4-C shows better activity and product selectivity than CoN
4-C. As shown in
Fig. 2b, both NiS
4-C and NiN
4-C tend to generate HCOOH through the HCOO pathway, and the first hydrogenation step * + CO
2 + H
+ + e
− → *HCOO is the PDS, corresponding to the
UL of −0.42 and −0.66 V, respectively. So NiS
4-C exhibits better performance for HCOOH production than NiN
4-C. On RhS
4-C, as shown in
Fig. 2c, CO
2RR to HCOOH
via the *HCOO intermediate is more favorable than CO generation
via *COOH. The first dehydrogenation step is the PDS for HCOOH formation, and the
UL is −0.84 V. For RhN
4-C, in addition to generating HCOOH, since *CO is facile to be hydrogenated to *CHO, which makes the subsequent PCET steps feasible, various products may be generated in the CO
2RR process, including CO, HCOOH, CH
3OH, CH
4, with the same PDS (* + CO
2 + H
+ + e
− → *COOH). The limiting potentials of RhS
4-C and RhN
4-C are −0.84 and −1.08 V, respectively. IrS
4-C mainly generates HCOOH and CO
via *COOH at the limiting potential of −0.93 V, while for IrN
4-C, four C
1 products CO, HCOOH, CH
3OH, and CH
4 will be produced at the limiting potential of −1.16 V. And the PDS of these two catalysts is the step of * + CO
2 + H
+ + e
− → *COOH (Fig. S3 in Supporting information). Thus, Rh/IrS
4-C also shows better activity and product selectivity than Rh/IrN
4-C.