Letter

http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp

Pilot-Scale CO2 Electrolysis Enables a Semi-

empirical Electrolyzer Model
Jonathan P. Edwards, Théo Alerte, Colin P. O’Brien, Christine M. Gabardo, Shijie Liu, Joshua Wicks,
Adriana Gaona, Jehad Abed, Yurou Celine Xiao, Daniel Young, Armin Sedighian Rasouli, Amitava Sarkar,
Shaffiq A. Jaffer, Heather L. MacLean, Edward H. Sargent, and David Sinton*
Cite This: ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584 Read Online
Downloaded via HUAZHONG UNIV SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY on October 12, 2023 at 15:45:34 (UTC).
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: Carbon dioxide (CO2) electrolysis powered with renewable

electricity can help close the carbon cycle by converting emissions into
chemicals and fuels. Two key advancements are required to bridge the
technological gaps for industrial implementation: pilot plant demonstra-
tions with detailed performance data; and chemical engineering process
models built and tested with lab- and pilot-scale data. Here, we develop a
semi-empirical electrolyzer model in Aspen Custom Modeler which is
trained on a 5 cm2 lab-scale CO2 electrolyzer. We then scale to a pilot-scale
800 cm2 single cell and 10 × 800 cm2 stack and use the results to validate
the model; at 100 mA cm−2, the model can predict six of seven cell performance metrics within 16% absolute error and three
of five stack metrics within 11% absolute error. With the combination of the electrolyzer model and the pilot-scale data, this
work provides the prerequisites for further scaling of CO2 electrolysis.

T he decreasing cost of renewable electricity and

increasing demand for renewable energy storage
motivate the electrochemical conversion of CO2 into
chemicals and fuels as a means to decarbonize chemical
manufacturing while closing the carbon cycle to address global
warming.1,2 Of particular interest, multi-carbon products, such
as ethylene (C2H4), have high market value and large global
markets.3,4 Membrane electrode assemblies have been
successfully incorporated into zero-gap CO2 electrolyzers,
yielding stable and efficient conversion of CO2 into multi-
carbon products at industrially relevant current densities (i.e.,
>100 mA cm−2).5−8 Two key advancements are required to
bridge the scale and technological readiness gaps: pilot-scale
demonstrations with detailed performance data; and chemical
engineering process models�built and tested with pilot-scale
data�to design and optimize larger deployments.
Demonstrations of CO2 electrolysis have been limited to the
lab-scale, with most cell areas <10 cm2.9 As the cell size
increases, discrepancies can develop across the active area in
electrode composition,10,11 electrode compression,12 CO2
concentration,13−16 pressure,17−19 temperature,20 and current
density/voltage,21,22 all of which impact CO2 electrolysis
selectivity and efficiency.4,23 For CO2 electrolysis into multi-
carbon products, the largest single cell reported is 25 cm2,24,25
and the largest stack is 30 cm2 (3 × 10 cm2 cell stack).26
Although informative, these demonstrations of CO2 electrol-
ysis are several orders of magnitude too small to inform on
operation at industrial scale (i.e., electrolyzer area >100 m2).27
Industrial CO2 electrolyzers will require integration with
upstream and downstream chemical processes.28−30 To plan
for these deployments, chemical simulations must be able to
accurately predict CO2 electrolyzer behavior at relevant scales.
Multiphysics simulations have been used to estimate reaction
kinetics, model the pH distribution, improve CO2 utilization,
identify failure mechanisms, and provide a better fundamental
understanding of lab-scale reactors.31−35 Most simulations of
CO2 electrolysis are one-dimensional simulations focused on
single-carbon products with cell sizes <10 cm2 (Table S5).
Unfortunately, the computational expense of these simulations
becomes prohibitive as the reactor grows due to the number of
physical parameters and scales involved.36,37 Models have been
developed for CO2 electrolyzers which are useful in predicting
specific elements of electrolyzer performance (e.g., cell
voltage) but do not produce a complete mass and energy
balance.3 A comprehensive prediction of mass and energy
balance is crucial to assess the feasibility of CO2 electrolysis in
the context of competing conventional and emerging
technologies.
Received: March 22, 2023
Accepted: May 8, 2023
Published: May 11, 2023

© 2023 American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620

2576 ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter

Figure 1. CO2 electrolysis at different scales. (a) Key inputs and outputs for the CO2 electrolyzer model. The key inputs are T (the stack
temperature), PCathode (the cathode pressure), PAnode (the anode pressure), jT (the current density) or VCell (the cell voltage), wChannel (the
width of the flow channel), eChannel (the depth of the flow channel), AGeometric (the active area), Sh (the Sherwood number), θChannel (the
empirical mass transfer coefficient modifier), αi (the product-specific electrochemical transfer coefficient), jo,i (the product-specific exchange
current density), tElectrode (the electrode thickness), εElectrode (the electrode porosity), CathodeIn (the cathode supply rate and composition),
and AnodeIn (the anode supply rate and composition). The key outputs are jT or VCell, EC (the cathode half-cell potential), EA (the anode half-
cell potential), ΔVNer (the Nernstian loss), ΔVOhm (the ohmic loss), FEi (the product-specific Faradaic efficiency), ji (the product-specific
partial current density), QReactor (the heat flux generated by the reactor), Electricity (the electricity required for the reactor), CathodeOut (the
cathode exhaust rate and composition), and AnodeOut (the anode exhaust rate and composition). (b) Lab-scale electrolyzer with an active
area of 5 cm2. (c) Pilot-scale electrolyzer stack having 10 cells each with an active area of 800 cm2.

Semi-empirical models have been developed for more
mature electrochemical technologies, such as alkaline water
electrolyzers,38−40 proton exchange membrane water electro-
lyzers,41−43 and proton exchange membrane fuel cells.44−46
These models have achieved relatively high accuracies at low
computational expense and have helped to identify optimal
operating conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure, current
density, electrolyte flow rate) and components (e.g.,
diaphragms, porous transport layers) for use in industrial
applications. A comprehensive semi-empirical model is now
needed for the field of CO2 electrolysis.
In this work, we scale up CO2 electrolysis from the lab-scale
to the pilot-scale. We develop a semi-empirical model of a CO2
electrolyzer (Figure 1a) that is fit to lab-scale data (single 5
cm2 cell, Figure 1b) and validated with pilot-scale experimental
data (800 cm2 single cell or 10 × 800 cm2 cell stack, Figure 1c,
Figure S1). The model is based on a zero-gap CO2 electrolyzer
making use of an anion exchange membrane (SI, Electrolyzer
Custom Model, Figure S2). The model developed in this work,
publicly available in an online repository, is written in the
Aspen Custom Modeler software (Aspen Tech Inc., Bedford,
MA) for better integration with upstream and downstream
process simulations in the Aspen software family.37 When the
cell voltage (or current density), electrolyzer geometry,
electrode properties, and incoming reactant streams are
specified, the model predicts the electrochemical performance,
energy flows, and product streams (Figure 1a). The model
consists of interconnected modules for CO2 transport, anodic
CO2 crossover, voltage losses, and electrochemical kinetics.
2577
Anodic CO2 Crossover. In CO2 electrolyzers using anion
exchange membranes, reactant CO2 can migrate from the
cathode to the anode, so we introduced an anodic CO2 loss
coefficient, denoted by τ.47−49 The primary contributor to τ is
(bi)carbonate formation wherein CO2 chemically reacts with
hydroxides, travels through the membrane, and is released as
CO2 upon reaching the locally acidic environment (e.g., pH <
4) next to the anode (SI, Anodic CO 2 Crossover
Modeling).32,50 If hydroxide, carbonate, or bicarbonate is the
sole charge carrier through the membrane, then τ is 0, 5.2, or
10.4 μmol C−1, respectively.29 Some of the anodic CO2 can
come from liquid products, which are capable of traveling
through anion exchange membranes51,52 and being oxidized
back to CO2 in the presence of an appropriate anode
catalyst.6,53
We hypothesized that τ is dictated by the ratio between
(bi)carbonates and hydroxides at the cathode, with a greater
fraction of (bi)carbonates leading to more (bi)carbonate
transport across the membrane. We assumed that τ could be
approximated by a separable function dependent on two
variables: the bulk CO2 concentration (the average of the
cathode inlet and outlet concentrations) and the rate of
hydroxide generation (i.e., the current density).
In the first set of lab-scale experiments, a constant current of
150 mA cm−2 was maintained while the CO2 supply rate to the
cathode was varied (SI, Anodic CO2 Crossover Measurements,
Figure S3a). By lowering the molar flow rate of CO2 to the
electrolyzer, the bulk CO2 concentration was reduced�
experimental data was fed into the electrolyzer model to
calculate the bulk CO2 concentration (SI, Figure S3b, Model
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter

Figure 2. Lab-scale experiments and simulations on anodic CO2 crossover and voltage losses. (a) Anode gas flow rate and anodic CO2 loss
coefficient at different bulk CO2 concentrations (150 mA cm−2). Derived from data at five different cathode CO2 supply rates to the cathode:
10, 8, 6, 4, and 2 sccm cm−2 of CO2. (b) Anode gas flow rate and anodic CO2 loss coefficient at different current densities (12 sccm cm−2 of
CO2 supply rate). (c) Simulated cathode/anode pH and Nernstian loss at different CO2 concentrations (100 mA cm−2). (d) Simulated
cathode/anode pH and Nernstian loss at different current densities (39 mol m−3 CO2 concentration). (e) Area-specific ohmic resistance
measured at different current densities. (f) Area-specific ohmic resistance measured with different cathode gas feeds (25 mA cm−2). Error
bars correspond to the standard deviation of three independent measurements.

Inputs, Table S2). As the nominal CO2 supply rate to the
cathode was decreased from 10 to 2 sccm cm−2, there was
almost no change in the anode gas flow rate or τ, averaging 9.7
mL min−1 and 6.4 μmol C−1, respectively (Figure 2a). The
results of these experiments suggested that, within the tested
range, the bulk CO2 concentration does not influence τ.
To determine how the current density impacts τ, the lab-
scale electrolyzer was tested at various current densities with a
constant CO2 supply (Figure S4). Although varying the current
density also shifts the CO2 concentration, we previously
showed that the CO2 concentration did not strongly affect τ
(Figure 2a). As the current density increased 6-fold from 50 to
300 mA cm−2, the anode gas flow rate increased only 4-fold,
from 3.8 to 16.1 mL min−1 (Figure 2b). If anodic CO2
crossover remained constant, then the anode gas flow rate
should be directly proportional to the current density. Instead,
it was calculated that τ decreased with current density in a
2578
nearly linear trend (Figure 2b). This shift in charge carrier
from carbonate to hydroxide at high current densities was
consistent with experiments47 and simulations32,50 performed
in other reports. The electrochemical rate of hydroxide
generation grew with the current density, eventually generating
more hydroxides than could react with CO2 to form
(bi)carbonates. At higher current densities, (bi)carbonate
migration through the membrane plateaued and was
increasingly complemented with hydroxide migration. The
increasing proportion of hydroxides (relative to the total anion
concentration) yielded a shift in the dominant charge carrier
through the membrane at high current densities. Taken
together, these lab-scale experiments demonstrate that τ was
largely insensitive to bulk CO2 concentration, within the tested
range, and primarily a linear function of current density (Table
S3).
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter

Figure 3. Model validation against 800 cm2 pilot-scale single cell. The experimental results and model predictions are marked with solid and
patterned fill, respectively (left-hand axis). Error is plotted on the right-hand axis. (a) Cell voltage. (b) CO2 in anode tail gas. (c) H2 in
cathode tail gas. (d) C2H4 in cathode tail gas. The molar fractions shown in (b), (c), and (d) are those of the dry tail gas streams, e.g., with
any water content removed. Error bars correspond to the standard deviation of three independent measurements.

Nernstian Losses. The model divides the voltage applied
to the electrolyzer across four areas: Nernstian loss, ohmic loss,
cathode potential, and anode potential (SI, Voltage Distribu-
tion). Products or reactants which differ from standard
concentrations induce Nernstian losses.3,54 In keeping with
other modeling works, our model assumes that hydroxide is
the only species which differs significantly from standard
concentration.6,32,50 We assume that the CO2 concentration is
not enough to induce a substantial Nernstian loss (a 10-fold
change in CO2 concentration would shift the CO2-to-C2H4
voltage by only 5 mV when operating at 40 °C). Measuring the
pH near the electrodes in situ is challenging,55 so we instead
estimated the local pH by performing COMSOL simulations
following previously published procedures.8,32 To yield a
conservative estimate of the pH difference, the pH values
reported for the cathode and anode were the maximum and
minimum pH from their respective simulation domains. We
hypothesized that the bulk CO2 concentration and the current
density could be the critical parameters in approximating the
electrode pH.
A set of simulations with varied CO2 concentrations was
performed to assess how the Nernstian losses were impacted.
The CO2 concentration was varied by changing the cathode
boundary condition in the simulation. As the CO2 concen-
tration decreased from 39 to 10 mol m−3, the anode pH
remained constant at 4.74, whereas the cathode pH increased
slightly from 12.8 to 13.1 (Figure 2c, Figure S5a). We showed
previously that reduced CO2 concentrations were not enough
to affect CO2 crossover (Figure 2a), but the simulations
indicate that reduced CO2 concentrations lessen (bi)carbonate
formation and thus retain slightly more hydroxides near the
cathode.32,56 Although the pH difference between the cathode
and anode did increase at the lowest CO2 concentration, the
resulting change in Nernstian loss was only 20 mV (Figure 2c).
2579
To determine the impact of current density on electrode pH,
simulations were performed starting at 75 and increased
incrementally to 150 mA cm−2 (Figure 2d, Figure S5b).
Although varying the current density also shifted the CO2
concentration, we previously demonstrated that the CO2
concentration only slightly impacted the Nernstian loss (Figure
2c). The cathode pH increased gradually, starting at 12.7 and
reaching 13.0 at the two current density extremes. This
incremental increase in pH was consistent with other
simulations reported in the literature, as the increased current
density resulted in a local accumulation of hydroxides.32,50 The
anode pH was less affected by current density, dropping from
4.79 to 4.73 over the same range. Given the relatively minor
change in cathode and anode pH with current density, the
Nernstian loss increased by only 20 mV as the current was
increased, reaching 510 mV at 150 mA cm−2 (Figure 2d). In
these simulations, the difference in pH between the cathode
and anode was not very sensitive to CO2 concentration or
current density, so a constant Nernstian loss (510 mV) was
assumed for operation at industrially relevant current densities
(Table S3). This Nernstian loss is comparable to that
predicted in other works.6,50
Ohmic Losses. Resistance measurements of a lab-scale
CO2 electrolyzer were performed at different current densities
to quantify the losses associated with the membrane, interfaces,
and electrolyte (SI, Resistance Measurements).6,9 Area-specific
resistance is commonly used in fuel cell and electrolyzer
literature to deconvolute the dependency of resistance on
cross-sectional area.57,58 As the current density increased, there
was a decrease in the ohmic resistance from 9.23 Ω cm2 at 25
mA cm−2 to 7.41 Ω cm2 at 75 mA cm−2, all at 40 °C (Figure
2e). Similar decreases in ohmic resistance were observed for
the electrolyzer when operated at other temperatures (Figure
S6). Simulations of zero-gap CO2 electrolyzers with liquid
anolytes have suggested that, although ohmic voltage drop
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter

Figure 4. Model validation against 10 × 800 cm2 pilot-scale stack. The experimental results and model predictions are marked with solid and
patterned fill, respectively (left-hand axis). Error is plotted on the right-hand axis. (a) Cell voltage. (b) CO2 in cathode tail gas. (c) H2 in
cathode tail gas. (d) C2H4 in cathode tail gas. The molar fractions shown in (b), (c), and (d) are those of the dry tail gas streams, e.g., with
any water content removed. Error bars correspond to the standard deviation of three independent measurements.

increases monotonically with increasing current density, the
ohmic resistance can decrease with current density.50
Since hydroxides are much more conductive than (bi)-
carbonates,58,59 the ohmic resistance of the membrane and the
electrolyte was expected to decrease at higher currents when
more hydroxides were traveling through the membrane (Figure
2b).60,61 To demonstrate this, we switched the cathode feed
gas from CO2 (i.e., (bi)carbonate charge carriers) to nitrogen
(i.e., hydroxide charge carriers) and the resistance fell by 0.817
Ω cm2 (Figure 2f). Increased current densities may also
improve conductivity through increased local temperature62 or
increased membrane−catalyst contact due to liquid-product-
induced membrane swelling.63−65
Based on the experimental data, we incorporated into the
model a power-law relationship between the ohmic resistance
and the current density for electrolyzer operation at ≤150 mA
cm−2 (Table S3). At higher currents it is likely that the ohmic
resistance will increase, due to flooding of the cathode and/or
membrane dehydration,66−68 and a different relationship will
be needed to predict the ohmic resistance.69,70 The cathode
kinetic constants were determined in situ by coupling the
experimental results, Nernstian losses, ohmic losses, and the
anode kinetic parameters (SI, Kinetic Parameter Determi-
nation, Figures S7 and S8, Tables S1 and S4).
Model Validation against Pilot-Scale CO2 Electrolysis.
CO2 electrolysis was performed with an 800 cm2 pilot-scale
single cell and the experimental results were compared to the
model predictions (SI, Model Inputs, Table S2). Although the
model predicted all elements of electrolyzer performance,
seven of these performance metrics were selected to compare
against experimental results: cell voltage, anodic gas
composition (O2 and CO2), and cathodic gas composition
(H2, C2H4, CO, and CO2). The model underestimated the cell
voltage by only 24−79 mV, and was accurate to within 0.7% to
2580
2.1% of the experimental values across all current densities
(Figure 3a).
The model predicted slightly more CO2 in the anode tail gas
(4.2 mol% on average, Figure 3b) and, since the dry anode gas
is a binary O2−CO2 mixture, correspondingly less O2 when
compared to experimental results (Figure S9a). The model
correctly predicted a decrease in CO2 content at higher current
densities and demonstrated an average error of 6.2% in anodic
CO2 content across all current densities (Figure 3b).
The model accurately predicted the concentration of many
components of the cathode tail gas. The deviation between the
H2 concentration measured experimentally and that predicted
by the model was small (<1.0 mol% across all currents), with
an error between 0.4% and 16% (Figure 3c). The C2H4
concentration had a maximum deviation of 0.49 mol% at
150 mA cm−2 (Figure 3d). Since the concentrations of C2H4
were relatively small (i.e., 1 to 2 orders of magnitude smaller
than the other gas concentrations), they were very sensitive to
minor inaccuracies in CO2 crossover. As a result, the error
reached 55% at 150 mA cm−2, but at slightly lower currents
(i.e., 100−125 mA cm−2) the error was <23% (Figure 3d). The
model predicted much more cathodic CO (Figure S9b) and
less cathodic CO 2 (Figure S9c) than was observed
experimentally. The experimental selectivity for gas production
appeared low compared to the lab-scale, suggesting that
increased liquid production was taking place, possibly due to
differences in CO2 mass transport within the larger cell (SI,
CO/CO2 Concentration Discrepancy, Figure S10). At 100 mA
cm−2, the model could predict six of the seven performance
metrics within an absolute error of 16% (Figure S9d).
CO2 electrolysis was then performed with a 10-cell stack of
800 cm2 cells for further model validation (SI, Model Inputs,
Table S2). Since no anode gas samples were accessible in this
pilot-scale test, there were only five performance metrics for
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
comparison: cell voltage and cathodic gas composition (H2,
C2H4, CO, and CO2). The modeled voltage was again in
relatively good agreement with the experiments, under-
estimating the voltage by 7% to 11% over the range of current
densities tested (Figure 4a). The CO2 concentration exhibited
good agreement between the model and the experimental
results, with an error ranging between 2.6% and 7.2% (Figure
4b). The model accurately predicted the cathodic H 2
concentrations over a range of current densities, demonstrating
a maximum error of only 11% or 0.79 mol% (Figure 4c). On
average, the model predicted 0.19 mol% less C2H4 in the
cathode stream than the experiments which, at 100 mA cm−2,
yielded a substantial error of 33% (Figure 4d). Like the single
cell results, there was some discrepancy between the CO
concentration predicted by the model and the experimental
result (Figure S11a). At 100 mA cm−2, the model could predict
three of the five performance metrics within an absolute error
of 11% and four of the metrics within an absolute error of 34%
(Figure S11b).
Considering the model’s performance at both pilot-scale
single cell and stack levels, the discrepancy between the lab-
scale-trained model and experimental reality increased with
scale. These results indicate both the value of semi-empirical
reactor models and a key limitation: the need for experimental
validation at relevant scales. The latest semi-empirical model
can aid in the design of the next pilot plant, and the resulting
pilot plant data will further validate and refine the model. The
implication is that the future of CO2 electrolysis is a productive
pairing of reactor modeling and ever-larger pilot plants, each
informing the next. Given the semi-empirical nature of the
model, experiments are crucial for training and validation�
electrolyzer variations (i.e., in electrode structure, operating
conditions, and/or flow field geometry) would require
retraining of the model. A broad set of stakeholders can
benefit from this model, including technology developers,
investors performing due diligence, governments evaluating
technologies for funding or making policy decisions, and
systems researchers conducting life cycle or techno-economic
assessments.
This work details the development of a semi-empirical CO2
electrolyzer model written in Aspen Custom Modeler trained
on lab-scale data. The current density was demonstrated to be
a critical parameter in approximating the CO2 crossover and
ohmic resistance of the electrolyzer. Simulations suggested that
Nernstian losses remain constant irrespective of CO 2
concentration or current density. The model was shown to
accurately predict many aspects of pilot-scale 800 cm2 and
8000 cm2 electrolyzers, including the voltage, cathodic H2,
C2H4, and CO2 gas compositions, and anodic CO2 and O2 gas
compositions. Further data and refinement to the model can
improve the accuracy, especially with respect to cathodic CO
concentrations. When supplied with appropriate lab- and pilot-
scale data, the model can be adapted to model the behavior of
a low CO2 crossover system (i.e., utilizing a porous carbonate
regeneration layer,48 microchanneled solid electrolyte,49 or
bipolar membrane configuration71,72 instead of an anion
exchange membrane). This model presents a framework
which can be augmented to consider additional physics, such
as liquid product and water transport through the membrane,
to model CO2 electrolyzers producing liquid products. To
predict the behavior of larger systems, the model will have to
be trained on ever-larger electrolysis data, necessitating more
scaled-up demonstrations of CO2 electrolysis which build on
2581
Letter
these 800 and 8000 cm2 electrolyzers. Incorporating this semi-
empirical electrolyzer model and the associated pilot-scale data
into chemical process simulations can expedite the design and
deployment of larger pilot plant demonstrations needed for
industrial CO2 electrolysis.
■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
Data Availability Statement
The code for the Aspen Custom Model is available at https://
github.com/jonathanedwards23/CO2-electrolyzer-model.
*
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620.
Experimental methods; electrolyzer custom model
overview and expanded discussion; modeling studies of
CO2 electrolysis with gas diffusion electrodes; perform-
ance of the lab-scale CO2 electrolyzer at different
cathodic CO2 supply rates (150 mA cm−2); performance
of the lab-scale CO2 electrolyzer at different current
densities (12 sccm cm−2 of cathodic CO2 supply);
simulated pH profile within the MEA electrolyzer; area-
specific ohmic resistance at different temperatures;
kinetic parameter determination; model validation
against 800 cm 2 pilot-scale single cell; CO/CO 2
concentration discrepancy; model validation against 10
× 800 cm2 pilot-scale stack (PDF)
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
David Sinton − Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G8, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0003-2714-6408;
Email: sinton@mie.utoronto.ca
Authors
Jonathan P. Edwards − Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario M5S 3G8, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0003-4000-
5802
Théo Alerte − Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G4, Canada; TotalEnergies American Services Inc.,
Hopkinton, Massachusetts 01748, United States
Colin P. O’Brien − Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G8, Canada
Christine M. Gabardo − Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario M5S 3G8, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0002-9456-
6894
Shijie Liu − Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G8, Canada
Joshua Wicks − Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G4, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0001-7819-1167
Adriana Gaona − Department of Civil and Mineral
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
1A4, Canada
Jehad Abed − Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G4, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0003-1387-2740
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters
Yurou Celine Xiao − Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario M5S 3G8, Canada
Daniel Young − Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G8, Canada
Armin Sedighian Rasouli − Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario M5S 3G4, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0002-0807-
9468
Amitava Sarkar − TotalEnergies EP Research & Technology
USA, LLC, Houston, Texas 77002, United States; SUNCAT
Center for Interface Science and Catalysis, Department of
Chemical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California 94305, United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-
9038-2510
Shaffiq A. Jaffer − Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G8, Canada; TotalEnergies American Services Inc.,
Hopkinton, Massachusetts 01748, United States;
orcid.org/0000-0001-9311-4469
Heather L. MacLean − Department of Civil and Mineral
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
1A4, Canada
Edward H. Sargent − Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S
3G4, Canada; orcid.org/0000-0003-0396-6495
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
Notes
The authors declare the following competing financial
interest(s): An invention disclosure has been filed with the
lead authors host institution protecting the cathode structure,
the electrolyzer design, and the hydrophilic spacer contained in
the membrane electrode assembly. J.P.E., C.P.O., C.M.G.,
E.H.S., and D.S. have a financial interest in CERT Systems
Inc., a company commercializing CO2 electrolysis technology.
J.P.E., C.P.O., C.M.G., and D.Y. are employees of CERT
Systems Inc.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC), TotalEnergies SE [TotalEnergies Research &
Technology Feluy (an affiliate of TotalEnergies SE, France)],
the University of Toronto, the Ontario Centre of Innovation
(OCI), and the Natural Resources Canada Clean Growth
Program. D.S. gratefully acknowledges support from the
Canada Research Chairs Program. The authors thank the
XPRIZE Foundation, NRG COSIA, and the Alberta Carbon
Conversion Technology Center (ACCTC) for their support of
carbon utilization technologies.
■ REFERENCES
(1) Masel, R. I.; Liu, Z.; Yang, H.; Kaczur, J. J.; Carrillo, D.; Ren, S.;
Salvatore, D.; Berlinguette, C. P. An Industrial Perspective on
Catalysts for Low-Temperature CO2 Electrolysis. Nat. Nanotechnol.
2021, 16 (2), 118−128.
(2) Jordaan, S. M.; Wang, C. Electrocatalytic Conversion of Carbon
Dioxide for the Paris Goals. Nat. Catal 2021, 4 (11), 915−920.
http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter
(3) Shin, H.; Hansen, K. U.; Jiao, F. Techno-Economic Assessment
of Low-Temperature Carbon Dioxide Electrolysis. Nat. Sustain 2021,
4 (10), 911−919.
(4) Kibria, M. G.; Edwards, J. P.; Gabardo, C. M.; Dinh, C.;
Seifitokaldani, A.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H. Electrochemical CO2
Reduction into Chemical Feedstocks: From Mechanistic Electro-
catalysis Models to System Design. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31 (31),
No. 1807166.
(5) Gu, Z.; Shen, H.; Chen, Z.; Yang, Y.; Yang, C.; Ji, Y.; Wang, Y.;
Zhu, C.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Sham, T.-K.; Xu, X.; Zheng, G. Efficient
Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction to C2+ Alcohols at Defect-Site-Rich
Cu Surface. Joule 2021, 5 (2), 429−440.
(6) Gabardo, C. M.; O’Brien, C. P.; Edwards, J. P.; McCallum, C.;
Xu, Y.; Dinh, C.-T.; Li, J.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Continuous
Carbon Dioxide Electroreduction to Concentrated Multi-Carbon
Products Using a Membrane Electrode Assembly. Joule 2019, 3 (11),
2777−2791.
(7) Ge, L.; Rabiee, H.; Li, M.; Subramanian, S.; Zheng, Y.; Lee, J. H.;
Burdyny, T.; Wang, H. Electrochemical CO 2 Reduction in
Membrane-Electrode Assemblies. Chem 2022, 8 (3), 663−692.
(8) Xu, Y.; Edwards, J. P.; Liu, S.; Miao, R. K.; Huang, J. E.;
Gabardo, C. M.; O’Brien, C. P.; Li, J.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Self-
Cleaning CO2 Reduction Systems: Unsteady Electrochemical Forcing
Enables Stability. ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6 (2), 809−815.
(9) Chen, Y.; Vise, A.; Klein, W. E.; Cetinbas, F. C.; Myers, D. J.;
Smith, W. A.; Deutsch, T. G.; Neyerlin, K. C. A Robust, Scalable
Platform for the Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to Formate:
Identifying Pathways to Higher Energy Efficiencies. ACS Energy
Letters 2020, 5 (6), 1825−1833.
(10) Oh, S.; Park, H.; Kim, H.; Park, Y. S.; Ha, M. G.; Jang, J. H.;
Kim, S.-K. Fabrication of Large Area Ag Gas Diffusion Electrode via
Electrodeposition for Electrochemical CO2 Reduction. Coatings 2020,
10 (4), 341.
(11) Kato, N.; Mizuno, S.; Shiozawa, M.; Nojiri, N.; Kawai, Y.;
Fukumoto, K.; Morikawa, T.; Takeda, Y. A Large-Sized Cell for Solar-
Driven CO2 Conversion with a Solar-to-Formate Conversion
Efficiency of 7.2%. Joule 2021, 5 (3), 687−705.
(12) Hoof, L.; Thissen, N.; Pellumbi, K.; junge Puring, K.;
Siegmund, D.; Mechler, A. K.; Apfel, U.-P. Hidden Parameters for
Electrochemical Carbon Dioxide Reduction in Zero-Gap Electro-
lyzers. Cell Reports Physical Science 2022, 3 (4), No. 100825.
(13) Kaur, A.; Kim, B.; Dinsdale, R.; Guwy, A.; Yu, E.; Premier, G.
Challenges in Scale-up of Electrochemical CO2 Reduction to Formate
Integrated with Product Extraction Using Electrodialysis. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 2021, 96 (9), 2461−2471.
(14) Jung, B.; Park, S.; Lim, C.; Lee, W. H.; Lim, Y.; Na, J.; Lee, C.-
J.; Oh, H.-S.; Lee, U. Design Methodology for Mass Transfer-
Enhanced Large-Scale Electrochemical Reactor for CO2 Reduction.
Chemical Engineering Journal 2021, 424, No. 130265.
(15) Jeanty, P.; Scherer, C.; Magori, E.; Wiesner-Fleischer, K.;
Hinrichsen, O.; Fleischer, M. Upscaling and Continuous Operation of
Electrochemical CO2 to CO Conversion in Aqueous Solutions on
Silver Gas Diffusion Electrodes. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2018, 24,
454−462.
(16) Hawks, S. A.; Ehlinger, V. M.; Moore, T.; Duoss, E. B.; Beck, V.
A.; Weber, A. Z.; Baker, S. E. Analyzing Production Rate and Carbon
Utilization Trade-Offs in CO2RR Electrolyzers. ACS Energy Lett.
2022, 7 (8), 2685−2693.
(17) Legrand, U.; Lee, J. K.; Bazylak, A.; Tavares, J. R. Product
Crossflow through a Porous Gas Diffusion Layer in a CO 2
Electrochemical Cell with Pressure Drop Calculations. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2021, 60 (19), 7187−7196.
(18) Baumgartner, L. M.; Koopman, C. I.; Forner-Cuenca, A.;
Vermaas, D. A. Narrow Pressure Stability Window of Gas Diffusion
Electrodes Limits the Scale-Up of CO2 Electrolyzers. ACS Sustainable
Chem. Eng. 2022, 10 (14), 4683−4693.
(19) Subramanian, S.; Yang, K.; Li, M.; Sassenburg, M.; Abdinejad,
M.; Irtem, E.; Middelkoop, J.; Burdyny, T. Geometric Catalyst
2582 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
Utilization in Zero-Gap CO2 Electrolyzers. ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8
(1), 222−229.
(20) Iglesias van Montfort, H.-P.; Burdyny, T. Mapping Spatial and
Temporal Electrochemical Activity of Water and CO2 Electrolysis on
Gas-Diffusion Electrodes Using Infrared Thermography. ACS Energy
Lett. 2022, 7 (8), 2410−2419.
(21) Subramanian, S.; Middelkoop, J.; Burdyny, T. Spatial Reactant
Distribution in CO2 Electrolysis: Balancing CO2 Utilization and
Faradaic Efficiency. Sustainable Energy Fuels 2021, 5 (23), 6040−
6048.
(22) Hoffmann, H.; Paulisch, M. C.; Gebhard, M.; Osiewacz, J.;
Kutter, M.; Hilger, A.; Arlt, T.; Kardjilov, N.; Ellendorff, B.;
Beckmann, F.; Markötter, H.; Luik, M.; Turek, T.; Manke, I.; Roth,
C. Development of a Modular Operando Cell for X-Ray Imaging of
Strongly Absorbing Silver-Based Gas Diffusion Electrodes. J. Electro-
chem. Soc. 2022, 169 (4), No. 044508.
(23) Nitopi, S.; Bertheussen, E.; Scott, S. B.; Liu, X.; Engstfeld, A. K.;
Horch, S.; Seger, B.; Stephens, I. E. L.; Chan, K.; Hahn, C.; Nørskov,
J. K.; Jaramillo, T. F.; Chorkendorff, I. Progress and Perspectives of
Electrochemical CO2 Reduction on Copper in Aqueous Electrolyte.
Chem. Rev. 2019, 119 (12), 7610−7672.
(24) Jeng, E.; Qi, Z.; Kashi, A. R.; Hunegnaw, S.; Huo, Z.; Miller, J.
S.; Bayu Aji, L. B.; Ko, B. H.; Shin, H.; Ma, S.; Kuhl, K. P.; Jiao, F.;
Biener, J. Scalable Gas Diffusion Electrode Fabrication for Electro-
chemical CO2 Reduction Using Physical Vapor Deposition Methods.
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14 (6), 7731−7740.
(25) Qi, Z.; Biener, M. M.; Kashi, A. R.; Hunegnaw, S.; Leung, A.;
Ma, S.; Huo, Z.; Kuhl, K. P.; Biener, J. Scalable Fabrication of High
Activity Nanoporous Copper Powders for Electrochemical CO2
Reduction via Ball Milling and Dealloying. Journal of CO2 Utilization
2021, 45, No. 101454.
(26) Lee, W. H.; Lim, C. W.; Lee, S. Y.; Chae, K. H.; Choi, C. H.;
Lee, U.; Min, B. K.; Hwang, Y. J.; Oh, H.-S. Highly Selective and
Stackable Electrode Design for Gaseous CO2 Electroreduction to
Ethylene in a Zero-Gap Configuration. Nano Energy 2021, 84,
No. 105859.
(27) Smith, W. A.; Burdyny, T.; Vermaas, D. A.; Geerlings, H.
Pathways to Industrial-Scale Fuel Out of Thin Air from CO2
Electrolysis. Joule 2019, 3 (8), 1822−1834.
(28) Greenblatt, J. B.; Miller, D. J.; Ager, J. W.; Houle, F. A.; Sharp,
I. D. The Technical and Energetic Challenges of Separating
(Photo)Electrochemical Carbon Dioxide Reduction Products. Joule
2018, 2 (3), 381−420.
(29) Alerte, T.; Edwards, J. P.; Gabardo, C. M.; O’Brien, C. P.;
Gaona, A.; Wicks, J.; Obradović, A.; Sarkar, A.; Jaffer, S. A.; MacLean,
H. L.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H. Downstream of the CO2 Electrolyzer:
Assessing the Energy Intensity of Product Separation. ACS Energy
Lett. 2021, 6 (12), 4405−4412.
(30) van Bavel, S.; Verma, S.; Negro, E.; Bracht, M. Integrating CO2
Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids−Power-to-Liquids Process. ACS
Energy Lett. 2020, 5 (8), 2597−2601.
(31) Heßelmann, M.; Bräsel, B. C.; Keller, R. G.; Wessling, M.
Simulation-based Guidance for Improving CO2 Reduction on Silver
Gas Diffusion Electrodes. Electrochemical Science Adv. 2023, 3 (1),
No. 2100160.
(32) McCallum, C.; Gabardo, C. M.; O’Brien, C. P.; Edwards, J. P.;
Wicks, J.; Xu, Y.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Reducing the Crossover of
Carbonate and Liquid Products during Carbon Dioxide Electro-
reduction. Cell Reports Physical Science 2021, 2 (8), No. 100522.
(33) Burdyny, T.; Graham, P. J.; Pang, Y.; Dinh, C.-T.; Liu, M.;
Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Nanomorphology-Enhanced Gas-Evolution
Intensifies CO2 Reduction Electrochemistry. ACS Sustainable Chem.
Eng. 2017, 5 (5), 4031−4040.
(34) Kas, R.; Star, A. G.; Yang, K.; Van Cleve, T.; Neyerlin, K. C.;
Smith, W. A. Along the Channel Gradients Impact on the
Spatioactivity of Gas Diffusion Electrodes at High Conversions
during CO2 Electroreduction. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2021, 9
(3), 1286−1296.
2583
Letter
(35) Yang, Z.; Li, D.; Xing, L.; Xiang, H.; Xuan, J.; Cheng, S.; Yu, E.
H.; Yang, A. Modeling and Upscaling Analysis of Gas Diffusion
Electrode-Based Electrochemical Carbon Dioxide Reduction Systems.
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2021, 9 (1), 351−361.
(36) Brée, L. C.; Wessling, M.; Mitsos, A. Modular Modeling of
Electrochemical Reactors: Comparison of CO2-Electolyzers. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 2020, 139, No. 106890.
(37) Fang, Y.; Cui, H.; Chen, B.; Chen, W.; Ruan, X.; Wu, X.; Cui,
F.; Guo, M.; He, G. A Kinetics-Mass Transport Model for CO2
Electroreduction Reactor to Investigate Performance Limitation
Factors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2022, 262, No. 117996.
(38) Sánchez, M.; Amores, E.; Abad, D.; Rodríguez, L.; Clemente-
Jul, C. Aspen Plus Model of an Alkaline Electrolysis System for
Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45 (7), 3916−
3929.
(39) Sánchez, M.; Amores, E.; Rodríguez, L.; Clemente-Jul, C. Semi-
Empirical Model and Experimental Validation for the Performance
Evaluation of a 15 KW Alkaline Water Electrolyzer. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 2018, 43 (45), 20332−20345.
(40) de Groot, M. T.; Kraakman, J.; Garcia Barros, R. L. Optimal
Operating Parameters for Advanced Alkaline Water Electrolysis. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47 (82), 34773−34783.
(41) Sartory, M.; Wallnöfer-Ogris, E.; Salman, P.; Fellinger, T.; Justl,
M.; Trattner, A.; Klell, M. Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of
an Asymmetric High Pressure PEM Water Electrolyser up to 155 bar.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42 (52), 30493−30508.
(42) Espinosa-López, M.; Darras, C.; Poggi, P.; Glises, R.; Baucour,
P.; Rakotondrainibe, A.; Besse, S.; Serre-Combe, P. Modelling and
Experimental Validation of a 46 KW PEM High Pressure Water
Electrolyzer. Renewable Energy 2018, 119, 160−173.
(43) Ojong, E. T.; Kwan, J. T. H.; Nouri-Khorasani, A.;
Bonakdarpour, A.; Wilkinson, D. P.; Smolinka, T. Development of
an Experimentally Validated Semi-Empirical Fully-Coupled Perform-
ance Model of a PEM Electrolysis Cell with a 3-D Structured Porous
Transport Layer. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42 (41), 25831−
25847.
(44) Andronie, A.; Stamatin, I.; Girleanu, V.; Ionescu, V.; Buzbuchi,
N. Simplified Mathematical Model for Polarization Curve Validation
and Experimental Performance Evaluation of a PEM Fuel Cell
System. Procedia Manufacturing 2019, 32, 810−819.
(45) Wishart, J.; Dong, Z.; Secanell, M. Optimization of a PEM Fuel
Cell System Based on Empirical Data and a Generalized Electro-
chemical Semi-Empirical Model. J. Power Sources 2006, 161 (2),
1041−1055.
(46) Barelli, L.; Bidini, G.; Gallorini, F.; Ottaviano, A. Analysis of the
Operating Conditions Influence on PEM Fuel Cell Performances by
Means of a Novel Semi-Empirical Model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2011, 36 (16), 10434−10442.
(47) Larrazabal, G. O.; Strøm-Hansen, P.; Heli, J. P.; Zeiter, K.;
Therkildsen, K. T.; Chorkendorff, I.; Seger, B. Analysis of Mass Flows
and Membrane Cross-over in CO2 Reduction at High Current
Densities in an MEA-Type Electrolyzer. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
2019, 11 (44), 41281−41288.
(48) O’Brien, C. P.; Miao, R. K.; Liu, S.; Xu, Y.; Lee, G.; Robb, A.;
Huang, J. E.; Xie, K.; Bertens, K.; Gabardo, C. M.; Edwards, J. P.;
Dinh, C.-T.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Single Pass CO2 Conversion
Exceeding 85% in the Electrosynthesis of Multicarbon Products via
Local CO2 Regeneration. ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6 (8), 2952−2959.
(49) Xu, Y.; Miao, R. K.; Edwards, J. P.; Liu, S.; O’Brien, C. P.;
Gabardo, C. M.; Fan, M.; Huang, J. E.; Robb, A.; Sargent, E. H.;
Sinton, D. A Microchanneled Solid Electrolyte for Carbon-Efficient
CO2 Electrolysis. Joule 2022, 6 (6), 1333−1343.
(50) Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. Towards Membrane-
Electrode Assembly Systems for CO2 Reduction: A Modeling Study.
Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12 (6), 1950−1968.
(51) Miao, R. K.; Xu, Y.; Ozden, A.; Robb, A.; O’Brien, C. P.;
Gabardo, C. M.; Lee, G.; Edwards, J. P.; Huang, J. E.; Fan, M.; Wang,
X.; Liu, S.; Yan, Y.; Sargent, E. H.; Sinton, D. Electroosmotic Flow
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Letter

Steers Neutral Products and Enables Concentrated Ethanol Electro- (69) Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. A Systematic Analysis of
production from CO2. Joule 2021, 5 (10), 2742−2753. Cu-Based Membrane-Electrode Assemblies for CO2 Reduction
(52) Robb, A.; Ozden, A.; Miao, R. K.; O’Brien, C. P.; Xu, Y.; through Multiphysics Simulation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13
Gabardo, C. M.; Wang, X.; Zhao, N.; García de Arquer, F. P.; Sargent, (10), 3592−3606.
E. H.; Sinton, D. Concentrated Ethanol Electrosynthesis from CO2 (70) Gerhardt, M. R.; Pant, L. M.; Bui, J. C.; Crothers, A. R.;
via a Porous Hydrophobic Adlayer. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, Ehlinger, V. M.; Fornaciari, J. C.; Liu, J.; Weber, A. Z. Method�
14 (3), 4155−4162. Practices and Pitfalls in Voltage Breakdown Analysis of Electro-
(53) Hasa, B.; Cherniack, L.; Xia, R.; Tian, D.; Ko, B. H.; Overa, S.; chemical Energy-Conversion Systems. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021, 168
Dimitrakellis, P.; Bae, C.; Jiao, F. Benchmarking Anion-Exchange (7), No. 074503.
Membranes for Electrocatalytic Carbon Monoxide Reduction. Chem. (71) Eriksson, B.; Asset, T.; Spanu, F.; Lecoeur, F.; Dupont, M.;
Catalysis 2023, 3 (1), 100450. Garces-Pineda, F.; Galan Mascaros, J. R.; Cavaliere, S.; Rozière, J.;
(54) Singh, M. R.; Clark, E. L.; Bell, A. T. Effects of Electrolyte, Jaouen, F. Mitigation of Carbon Crossover in CO2 Electrolysis by Use
Catalyst, and Membrane Composition and Operating Conditions on of Bipolar Membranes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2022, 169 (3), No. 034508.
the Performance of Solar-Driven Electrochemical Reduction of (72) Yang, K.; Li, M.; Subramanian, S.; Blommaert, M. A.; Smith, W.
Carbon Dioxide. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17 (29), 18924− A.; Burdyny, T. Cation-Driven Increases of CO2 Utilization in a
18936. Bipolar Membrane Electrode Assembly for CO2 Electrolysis. ACS
(55) Lu, X.; Zhu, C.; Wu, Z.; Xuan, J.; Francisco, J. S.; Wang, H. In Energy Lett. 2021, 6 (12), 4291−4298.
Situ Observation of the PH Gradient near the Gas Diffusion Electrode
of CO2 Reduction in Alkaline Electrolyte. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142
(36), 15438−15444.
(56) Jouny, M.; Luc, W.; Jiao, F. High-Rate Electroreduction of
Carbon Monoxide to Multi-Carbon Products. Nature Catalysis 2018,
1 (10), 748−755.
(57) Njodzefon, J.-C.; Klotz, D.; Kromp, A.; Weber, A.; Ivers-Tiffée,
E. Electrochemical Modeling of the Current-Voltage Characteristics
of an SOFC in Fuel Cell and Electrolyzer Operation Modes. J.
Electrochem. Soc. 2013, 160 (4), F313−F323.
(58) Liu, Z.; Sajjad, S. D.; Gao, Y.; Yang, H.; Kaczur, J. J.; Masel, R.
I. The Effect of Membrane on an Alkaline Water Electrolyzer. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42 (50), 29661−29665.
(59) Liu, Z.; Yang, H.; Kutz, R.; Masel, R. I. CO2 Electrolysis to CO
and O2 at High Selectivity, Stability and Efficiency Using Sustainion
Membranes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165 (15), J3371−J3377.
(60) Endrő di, B.; Kecsenovity, E.; Samu, A.; Halmágyi, T.; Rojas-
Carbonell, S.; Wang, L.; Yan, Y.; Janáky, C. High Carbonate Ion
Conductance of a Robust PiperION Membrane Allows Industrial
Current Density and Conversion in a Zero-Gap Carbon Dioxide Recommended by ACS
Electrolyzer Cell. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13 (11), 4098−4105.
(61) Mardle, P.; Cassegrain, S.; Habibzadeh, F.; Shi, Z.; Holdcroft, S. Techno-economic Analysis and Carbon Footprint Accounting
Carbonate Ion Crossover in Zero-Gap, KOH Anolyte CO 2 for Industrial CO2 Electrolysis Systems
Electrolysis. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125 (46), 25446−25454.
(62) Shafaque, H. W.; Lee, J. K.; Krause, K.; Lee, C.; Fahy, K. F.; Tianqi Gao, Jingjing Duan, et al.
Shrestha, P.; Balakrishnan, M.; Bazylak, A. Temperature Enhances the JULY 10, 2023
ENERGY & FUELS READ
Ohmic and Mass Transport Behaviour in Membrane Electrode
Assembly Carbon Dioxide Electrolyzers. Energy Conversion and
Management 2021, 243, No. 114302. An Advanced Guide to Assembly and Operation of CO2
(63) García-Nieto, D.; Barragán, V. M. A Comparative Study of the Electrolyzers
Electro-Osmotic Behavior of Cation and Anion Exchange Membranes Hugo-Pieter Iglesias van Montfort, Thomas Burdyny, et al.
in Alcohol-Water Media. Electrochim. Acta 2015, 154, 166−176. SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
(64) Laín, L.; Barragán, V. M. Swelling Properties of Alkali-Metal ACS ENERGY LETTERS READ
Doped Polymeric Anion-Exchange Membranes in Alcohol Media for
Application in Fuel Cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41 (32), Energy, Cost, and Environmental Assessments of Methanol
14160−14170. Production via Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 from
(65) Kutz, R. B.; Chen, Q.; Yang, H.; Sajjad, S. D.; Liu, Z.; Masel, I. Biosyngas
R. Sustainion Imidazolium-Functionalized Polymers for Carbon
Dioxide Electrolysis. Energy Technology 2017, 5 (6), 929−936. Fangfang Li, Xiaoyan Ji, et al.
FEBRUARY 07, 2023
(66) Reyes, A.; Jansonius, R. P.; Mowbray, B. A. W.; Cao, Y.;
ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING READ
Wheeler, D. G.; Chau, J.; Dvorak, D. J.; Berlinguette, C. P. Managing
Hydration at the Cathode Enables Efficient CO2 Electrolysis at
Commercially Relevant Current Densities. ACS Energy Letters 2020, 5 Toward a Stackable CO2-to-CO Electrolyzer Cell
(5), 1612−1618. Design─Impact of Media Flow Optimization
(67) Wheeler, D. G.; Mowbray, B. A. W.; Reyes, A.; Habibzadeh, F.; Maximilian Quentmeier, Rüdiger-A. Eichel, et al.
He, J.; Berlinguette, C. P. Quantification of Water Transport in a CO2 JANUARY 04, 2023
Electrolyzer. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13 (12), 5126−5134. ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING READ
(68) Shafaque, H. W.; Lee, C.; Fahy, K. F.; Lee, J. K.; LaManna, J.
M.; Baltic, E.; Hussey, D. S.; Jacobson, D. L.; Bazylak, A. Boosting
Membrane Hydration for High Current Densities in Membrane
Get More Suggestions >
Electrode Assembly CO2 Electrolysis. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
2020, 12 (49), 54585−54595.

2584 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00620
ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 2576−2584