English

• 1. Introduction

  In the context of escalating global climate change, nitrous oxide (N₂O) has drawn increasing concern as a potent greenhouse gas with profound impacts on the environment, ecology, and public health (Fig. 1) [1]. Despite its low atmospheric concentration, N₂O possesses a global warming potential (GWP) that is approximately 310 times that of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and 21 times that of methane (CH₄) over a 100-year time scale [2]. Notably, emissions from agricultural activities, industrial sources, and vehicles are notably persistent, with an estimated atmospheric lifespan of about 116 ± 9 years, exacerbating stratospheric ozone depletion and posing growing risks to human and environmental health (Fig. 1) [3–6]. As the global population continues to expand and economies advance, the intensity of the emission sources increases, leading to a continuous rise in atmospheric N₂O levels [7]. Specifically, the Euro Ⅶ emission regulations have formally introduced a control standard for the emission of this greenhouse gas [8]. In August 2025, China issued the "Action Plan for Nitrous Oxide Emission Control in the Industrial Sector" [9]. Consequently, it is imperative to implement effective measures to mitigate N₂O emissions.

  Figure 1

  

  Figure 1.  N₂O emission sources and hazards.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  A range of technologies for reducing N₂O emissions have been investigated, including thermal decomposition, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), direct catalytic decomposition, and other emerging approaches [10–15]. Among them, high-temperature thermal decomposition, which cleaves the N−O bond to form N₂ and O₂, typically requires high temperatures between 800 ℃ and 1000 ℃, resulting in significant energy consumption and stringent equipment requirements, thereby limiting its scalability [16]. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology employs a reducing agent (e.g., NH₃, urea, H₂, CO, hydrocarbons) and a catalyst to selectively convert N₂O to N₂ [17,18]. Although its industrial adoption, SCR introduces secondary pollution and increases economic costs associated with reductant handling and consumption. Conversely, direct catalytic decomposition reduces the activation energy required for N−O bond cleavage by using catalysts, thereby enabling efficient conversion at moderate temperatures (250–500 ℃) without the necessity for external reductants [10]. This approach entails a substantial reduction in energy input, facilitates streamlined process design, circumvents high-temperature corrosion and safety concerns, and eliminates secondary pollutants. The aforementioned advantages render it particularly suitable for the treatment of high-concentration N₂O, exhibiting high conversion efficiency. In addition to above conventional methods, several alternative strategies have been explored, including adsorption separation, biological treatment, photo/electrocatalysis, and plasma-assisted decomposition [19–23]. As the emerging technologies, their practical application is currently hindered by high energy requirements, low efficiency and unfavorable economics.

  Direct catalytic decomposition has become the predominant and extensively utilized technology for N₂O abatement owing to its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and environmental friendliness [16], where catalysts play a decisive role in determining both activity and durability in this process. As such, the present review focuses on several categories of catalyst, including noble metal catalysts, transition metal oxides, zeolite-based materials, and other novel systems (Fig. 2), providing recent experimental and theoretical research progress [24,25]. The integration of fundamental understanding with practical performance is intended to delineate a roadmap for the rational design of next-generation N₂O decomposition catalysts and proposing innovative solutions for the future research.

  Figure 2

  

  Figure 2.  Catalysts for the direct catalytic decomposition of N₂O.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  2. Catalysts for N₂O decomposition

  2.1 Noble metal catalysts

  Noble metal catalysts are the first catalysts utilized for N₂O decomposition and have been extensively studied due to their exceptional catalytic efficiency at low temperatures [26,27]. Despite their high activity, these catalysts face scarcity, non-renewability, high cost, susceptibility to deactivation, and limited practical applications. Among Rh, Ru, Pt, Ir, and Pd supported on Al₂O₃, CeO₂, SiO₂, and ZrO₂, the order of catalytic activity is typically as follows: Rh > Ru ≈ Ir ≈ Ag > Pt > Pd, with Rh-, Ru-, and Ir-based catalysts being the most extensively studied ones [28]. This section provides a comprehensive overview of noble metal catalysts employed in N₂O decomposition, detailing preparation methods, noble metal precursor types, support composition and structure, and the effect of promoter incorporation on catalytic performance.

  The catalytic performance of noble metal catalysts in N₂O decomposition is significantly affected by their preparation methods, which dictate metal dispersion, particle size, and surface chemistry. Common techniques employed in this field include impregnation (IMP), hydrothermal synthesis (HS), co-precipitation (COP), deposition-precipitation (DP) and ethylene glycol reduction (EGR). For instance, Ru/Al₂O₃ synthesized via EGR achieved high dispersion and small nanoparticles (≤3 nm), resulting in superior activity, while the DP method enhanced metal-support interactions and thus creating electron-deficient sites [29]. In contrast, IMP can lead to prevalent metallic sites or poisoning by residual species (e.g., Cl⁻), although pre-treatment or cyclic operation can alleviate these effects [30]. Electrodeposition produces Rh/Mg/Al catalysts on FeCrAlloy foams with uniform coatings, reduced activation energy, and 51% conversion retention after 24 h at 475 ℃ with 2.0 ± 1.1 nm Rh nanoparticles [31]. The selection of metal precursors also exerts a substantial influence on the density and accessibility of active sites, thereby affecting the catalytic performance. Chloride-based precursors (e.g., RhCl₃) frequently result in site blocking, whereas nitrate-derived catalysts circumvent such complications [32]. Moreover, post-synthetic treatments, such as calcination atmosphere, further influence catalytic behavior [33].

  Support materials govern reactivity via electronic effects, oxygen mobility, and interfacial synergy [26,34]. Mesoporous supports enhance metal dispersion and accessibility [35,36], and redox-active supports, such as ZrO₂ and CeO₂, facilitate the formation and replenishment of oxygen vacancy (O_v), which is crucial for the rate-determining O₂ desorption step [37]. Furthermore, high-temperature steam treatment of the Rh/CeO₂ catalyst activates the lattice oxygen at Rh–CeO₂ interface, which facilitates oxygen desorption and enhances the redox cycling stability, thereby lowering the T₅₀ by 127 ℃ relative to the untreated catalyst [38]. Supports with high oxygen lability, such as CeO₂-modified Al₂O₃ (ACZ), improve sintering resistance and stability for Ir nanoparticles (Fig. 3a) [39,40]. Metal phosphates optimize the balance between O₂ binding and desorption, improving both activity and durability [41]. Defect-rich supports increase metal exposure and stability, whereas inert supports often lead to sintering. Furthermore, the defect-rich La_1.6Sr_0.4NiO₄ has been demonstrated to promote oxygen vacancy formation and stabilize active Ru states [42]. Ir supported on Fe-substituted La-hexaaluminate demonstrates exceptional activity (T₅₀ = 284 ℃) due to the promotion of electron-rich Ir species by O_v, which enhances N₂O activation synergistically [43]. Similarly, defect-rich CeO₂-supported Rh nanoclusters have been observed to exhibit nearly complete metal exposure and optimal intermediate transformation, delivering a turnover frequency 4.6 times higher than that of Rh nanoparticles (Fig. 3b) [44]. The structure, composition, and redox properties of the support are essential in designing active and durable catalysts for N₂O decomposition.

  Figure 3

  

  Figure 3.  (a) TEM images and models of fresh and aged Ir/γ-Al₂O₃ and Ir/ACZ. Reproduced with permission [40]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (b) Normalized turnover frequency at 250 ℃ for defect-rich CeO₂ with different morphologies. Reproduced with permission [44]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (c) HAADF−STEM and EDX mapping images, and (d) the catalytic activity of Rh(1)/ZrO₂ and Rh(1)−Ir(1)/ZrO₂ for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [47]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  The utilization of promoters has been demonstrated to markedly augment the performance of noble metal catalysts in N₂O decomposition, with enhancements observed in both redox properties and metal-support interactions. For instance, the addition of Ag or Pd to Rh-based catalysts increases reducibility and accelerates O₂ desorption, which is the rate-determining step [45,46]. Furthermore, the modification of Ir has been demonstrated to facilitate oxygen removal (Figs. 3c and d) [47]. The dispersion of alkali metals, such as K, has been observed to enhance surface alkalinity and electron donation, as evidenced in Pt-M/SiO₂ (M = K, Na, Cs) systems, where K enhances both oxygen mobility and catalytic activity [48]. However, the presence of inhibitors such as O₂, and H₂O can lead to reversible deactivation.

  2.2 Transition metal oxide catalysts

  Transition metal oxides are the focus of significant research due to their advantageous redox capacity, thermal stability, and cost-effectiveness in the catalytic decomposition of N₂O [49], which can generally be classified into the following categories: single-metal oxides, composite oxides, hexaaluminates, spinel-structured composite oxides, and perovskite oxides. Each of these exhibits unique benefits and catalytic mechanisms.

  2.2.1   Single-metal oxides

  Single metal oxides are composed of straightforward compositions and easy to prepare. Amongst, Co₃O₄ exhibited remarkable catalytic efficiency, thus promoting deep investigation [50]. In the study by Ma et al., the synthesis of ordered mesoporous single-metal oxides was conducted, which exhibited superior catalytic activity in N₂O decomposition when compared to commercial counterparts [51]. Stelmachowski et al. produced Co₃O₄ with diverse morphologies, finding that the catalyst calcined at 600 ℃ exhibited optimal activity due to its crystalline structure [52]. The findings of the study demonstrated that larger, more crystalline particles exhibited superior catalytic performance in comparison to their smaller counterparts. The unique properties of nanocubic Co₃O₄ were identified as the primary factor contributing to its enhanced catalytic performance (Figs. 4a and b) [53]. Yu et al. developed a Co₃O₄ catalyst with a "Yardang Landform" microstructure, which demonstrated high activity and stability under industrial conditions for N₂O decomposition [54]. In addition to structural optimization, the refinement of synthesis conditions has been shown to markedly enhance the catalytic performance in N₂O decomposition. The selection of precursor is of crucial importance, with β-Co(OH)₂-derived catalysts demonstrating superior performance due to improved Co³⁺ reducibility and defect-rich structures [55]. O_v concentration is also pivotal, with the Mars-van Krevelen mechanism driving the reaction. Li et al. determined the optimal hydrothermal synthesis conditions for Co₃O₄ catalysts, achieving 91% N₂O conversion at 400 ℃ in oxygen/steam atmospheres [56]. This was attributed to specific morphologies, weakened Co³⁺−O⁻ bonds, and an enhanced Co²⁺/Co³⁺ ratio. Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) modification has been demonstrated to enhance the performance of the Co₃O₄ catalyst, with improvements being observed in both the surface Co²⁺ concentration and the O_v density [57]. This enhancement is further confirmed by DFT calculations, which indicated that Co²⁺ is the preferred site for N₂O adsorption. The employment of formic acid-treated Co₃O₄ catalysts results in enhanced N₂O decomposition activity, attributable to increased surface area, elevated Co³⁺ concentration, augmented reducibility, and enhanced oxygen desorption capacity [58]. Despite the divergent views amongst researchers regarding the role of Co ions, it is evident that Co²⁺ sites facilitate N₂O adsorption and activation, while Co³⁺ sites promote oxygen desorption. The overall activity of the catalyst is contingent upon a balanced Co²⁺/Co³⁺ ratio and the specific reaction conditions. Very recently, hydroxyl groups (−OH) were introduced onto Co₃O₄ via hydrothermal treatment, significantly enhancing N₂O decomposition activity by facilitating electron transfer at the gas-solid interface (Figs. 4c and d) [59]. Electronic structure analysis and DFT simulations confirmed that −OH groups donate electrons to N₂O, weakening the N–O bond and lowering the activation barrier.

  Figure 4

  

  Figure 4.  (a) SEM images and (b) N₂O conversions of Co₃O₄ with different morphologies. Reproduced with permission [53]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (c) Hydroxyl group facilitated mechanism for N₂O decomposition activity on the Co₃O₄ surface and (d) normalized reaction rates of Co₃O₄ and Co₃O₄-OH. Reproduced with permission [59]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  2.2.2   Composite oxides

  Comparing with single-metal oxides that exhibit basic and limited catalytic functionality, mixed-metal oxides with precise stoichiometries and well-defined crystal structures often outperform them in N₂O decomposition, which are typically engineered through the introduction of heteroatoms into oxides to modulate the electronic structure and/or induce defects for O_v formation. Based on the underlying regulation mechanisms, these strategies may be classified into three distinct types.

  (1) Alkali and alkaline earth metals

  Alkali metals (e.g., Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs) significantly enhance the performance of N₂O decomposition over transition metal oxide catalysts, primarily via electronic donation and work function reduction [60,61]. For instance, the introduction of Na into Co₃O₄ significantly enhances the low-temperature activity of N₂O decomposition by facilitating Co³⁺/Co²⁺ cycling and electron donation [62]. K lowers the T₅₀ (temperature for 50% conversion) by 150 ℃ for both Co₃O₄ and Mn₃O₄ by forming a K⁺–O_surf⁻ dipole that reduces the work function and promotes oxygen desorption, with optimal activity at 2–8 atoms/nm² [63]. Similarly, the light-off temperature for K-doped Zn_0.4Co_2.6O₄ is reduced to ~150 ℃, attributing to the weakened Co−O bonds derived from the electronic effect of K, which also acts as the sacrificial site for SO₂ adsorption, thus inhibiting the deactivation of the catalyst [64,65]. A monolayer of Cs on Co₃O₄ forms Cs−O−Co sites via 6s–2p orbital hybridization, generating abundant Co²⁺ and achieving over 95% N₂O conversion at 300 ℃, though bulk doping leads to inactive Cs₂O₂/CsOH phases (Figs. 5a and b) [66,67]. Cs_0.1-Co₃O₄ exhibits 39.5 times greater activity in comparison with pure Co₃O₄ and resists O₂ inhibition [68]. However, Cs does not enhance the activity of oxides such as CuO or NiO, which indicates the importance of support-alkali metal interactions (Figs. 5c and d) [66]. In situ DRIFTS and DFT studies highlight the roles of O₂ desorption kinetics and frontier orbital alignment.

  Figure 5

  

  Figure 5.  (a) The density of states functions of the Cs−O−Co band and (b) catalytic performance of N₂O decomposition for 4Cs/Co₃O₄ and 4Cs-Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [67]. Copyright 2023, American Chemical Society. (c) N₂O catalytic decomposition performance and (d) Arrhenius plots of N₂O conversion over Cs supporting on different metal oxides. Reproduced with permission [66]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (e) Integral area of O₂-TPD profiles and (f) N₂O decomposition activity of Ba_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Sr_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Ca_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Mg_0.5Co_2.5O₄, and Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [70]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Comparatively, alkaline-earth metals (Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba) enhance catalysts via lattice distortion and improved redox properties [69]. In A_0.5Co_2.5O₄ (A = Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba), Ca, Sr, or Ba facilitates the reduction of Co³⁺ to Co²⁺, increasing O_v concentration and weakening Co−O bonds, with Ba showing the best performance (Figs. 5e and f) [70]. Ca-doped Co₃O₄ with a Ca/Co molar ratio of 1:2 shows remarkable activity, reaching 100% N₂O conversion at 400 ℃ [71]. This is due to preferential exposure of the (111) crystal plane and abundant surface oxygen. Core-shell structured Co_0.24Ba catalysts (Co₃O₄ on BaCO₃) use only 8.91 wt% Co₃O₄ to achieve complete N₂O decomposition at 400 ℃ [72]. Alkaline-earth metals (Mg < Ca < Sr < Ba) are generally weaker promoters than alkali metals (Li < Na < K < Rb < Cs), with the effect of primarily modulating lattice oxygen mobility rather than electronic promotion [73]. DFT calculations confirm that larger dopants (e.g., Ba, Sr) induce greater lattice distortion, thereby improving N₂O adsorption and O₂ desorption.

  In addition to alkali and alkaline earth metals, other main-group metal elements (e.g., Bi, Sn) dopants have been demonstrated to enhance the catalytic performance of N₂O decomposition through electronic and structural modifications. The Bi-enhanced Co₃O₄ maintains a unique "Yardang Landform" microstructure, which exposes high-activity crystal planes (e.g., (422), (533), and (620)) that weaken the Co−O bonds [74]. The 3.0F-Bi_0.015Co catalyst achieves > 88% N₂O conversion at 300 ℃ and is resistant to O₂, H₂O, and NO [75]. The incorporation of Bi into NiO has been shown to increase both O_v and Ni³⁺ sites, whilst simultaneously forming inactive Bi₂O₃ at high loading. SnO₂-Co₃O₄ composites utilize interfacial interactions in order to boost Co²⁺ electron donation and improve Co₃O₄ dispersion [76].

  In summary, the introduction of alkali and alkaline-earth metals primarily serves as an electronic promoter, which facilitates the key O₂ desorption step by lowering the work function and optimizing the surface electron density. Beyond simple electronic donation, the incorporation of redox-active elements, such as rare-earth and transition metal elements, offers a more dynamic pathway to enhance the catalytic cycle.

  (2) Rare-earth and transition metals

  The doping of rare-earth elements (Ce, Sm, Gd, Eu) into metal oxides has been demonstrated to enhance the catalytic performance of N₂O decomposition, which is achieved by modulating the concentration of O_v, the redox kinetics, and the electronic interactions. In the Co₃O₄-CeO₂ systems, the incorporation of Ce promotes the O_v formation, thereby enabling Co²⁺ + Ce⁴⁺ ↔ Co³⁺ + Ce³⁺ redox cycles [77]. The Co₂Ce₁ oxide exhibits a N₂O conversion of over 95% at 300 ℃ (Figs. 6a and b). CeO₂ nanorods with {100/{110} facets optimize Co exposure and outperform nanocubes/polyhedral [78,79]. Furthermore, CuO–CeO₂ nanorods exhibit lower activation energy of 87 kJ/mol, due to efficient Cu²⁺/Cu⁺ and Ce⁴⁺/Ce³⁺ cycling [80,81]. Sm-doped Co₃O₄ induces distortion and enables Co³⁺ + Sm²⁺ ↔ Co²⁺ + Sm³⁺ (Figs. 6c and d), while Gd doping increase in the Co³⁺/Co²⁺ ratio, and weakens Co−O bonds [82,83]. In the case of Pr-doped NiO, the superior catalytic activity (T₁₀₀ = 400–440 ℃) and notable resistance to impurity gases (O₂ and NO) in simulated nitric acid exhaust are achieved by the promoted Ni²⁺/Ni³⁺ redox cycle and regeneration of active Ni²⁺ sites [84]. Eu_0.04Ni shifts the reaction mechanism from Langmuir–Hinshelwood (L−H) to Eley–Rideal (E−R), lowering the O₂ desorption barrier and achieving 100% conversion at 400 ℃ with high impurity tolerance [85]. Furthermore, rare-earth elements also improve bimetallic systems: Nd-doped Cu_0.8Al_0.2 and Co_0.8Al_0.2 oxides form active CuNd₂O₄/NdCoO₃ phases, lowering the full N₂O conversion temperature by 100 ℃ [86,87]. In the Ce/Ba−NiO system, Ce inhibits NiO crystallization while Ba weakens Ni−O bonds, enabling complete N₂O decomposition at 300 ℃ even with 5% O₂ [88]. Dual promoters (e.g., Dy/K-Co₃O₄, Ba/Ce-CuO) further enhance impurity tolerance (Fig. 6e) [89,90].

  Figure 6

  

  Figure 6.  (a) Reaction pathways and (b) catalytic performance for N₂O decomposition over Co_xCe_y binary oxide catalysts. Reproduced with permission [77]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (c) N₂O decomposition performance as a function of the reaction temperature and (d) electron transfer pathway in N₂O decomposition for Co₃O₄ and Sm_0.1-Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [82]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (e) N₂O conversion over Dy_0.01Co, K_0.01Co, K_yDy_0.01Co (y = 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03) and K_0.01Dy_0.07Co catalysts at 400 ℃ changed with time on stream. Reproduced with permission [89]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Transition metal doping demonstrates notable efficacy in N₂O decomposition through O_v generation, redox promotion, and metal-support interactions. Bimetallic Cu_xCo_y and Cu_xMn oxides exhibit enhanced performance in comparison to single-metal oxides: Co₃O₄ offers abundant O_v sites for N₂O adsorption (forming □−Co−ON₂), while CuO or Mn₂O₃ enhances reducibility for N−O cleavage and O_v regeneration [91,92]. Very recently, Long et al. partially substituted Mn into octahedral Co³⁺ sites of Co₃O₄ to generate heterointerfaces between δ-MnO₂ and Co_3-xMn_xO₄ [93]. The enhanced hybridization between Co 3d and O 2p orbitals and high Co−O−Mn covalency lead to the formation of highly active lattice oxygen species, thereby enhancing N₂O decomposition activities and stability. Supports such as m-ZrO₂ strengthen metal-support interactions, increasing Co²⁺ and O_v density in Co₃O₄/m-ZrO₂, while Co₃O₄/CaCO₃ attains complete N₂O conversion at 300 ℃ with highly dispersed Co₃O₄ [94,95]. Moreover, the morphology of the support plays a pivotal role: CeO₂ nanorods in CuO/CeO₂ favor {100}/{110} exposure, whereas Ni/CeO₂ nanocubes exhibit superior activity due to the presence of more NiO clusters and Ni−O−Ce sites [80,96]. The egg-shell-type Cu/γ-Al₂O₃ catalyst with a reducible Cu⁺ shell demonstrates superior stability under temperature, air, and steam conditions [97]. Substitutional doping (e.g., Cd²⁺ in NiO, and Co³⁺ in MnO₂) also optimizes O_v formation and redox behavior, and synergistic systems, such as Co_xTi oxides, maintain 100% conversion for 30 h, even in the presence of O₂, H₂O, and NO [98–100]. Additionally, Zn doping in Co₃O₄/CeO₂ catalyst (Co_2.4Zn_0.6O₄/CeO₂) significantly improved the overall N₂O decomposition performance, evidenced by a 110 ℃ decrease in T₉₀ and robust tolerance to O₂, NO_x, and H₂O [101].

  The strategies previously discussed highlight the critical role of rare-earth and transition metal dopants, which modify the host oxide by tuning the redox properties and O_v dynamics. In addition to the metallic elements, the introduction of non-metallic elements has the potential to enhance the catalytic performance.

  (3) Non-metal dopants

  Non-metallic (e.g., N, F) dopants improve the catalytic performance of N₂O decomposition, primarily by introducing defects and facilitating electronic redistribution. N-doped Co₃O₄ (N-Co₃O₄−0.05) achieves 100% N₂O conversion at 380 ℃, which is 160 ℃ lower than that of pristine Co₃O₄ [102]. This phenomenon can be attributed to N-induced O_v, higher Co²⁺ density, and increased basicity. F-doped Co₃O₄, where F substitutes for lattice oxygen, increases surface area and basicity, thereby lowering the temperature for complete N₂O conversion to 380 ℃, while maintaining stability in O₂ and H₂O [103]. Non-metal doping offers a viable route to induce defects and modify surface electronic properties, thereby boosting N₂O decomposition performance.

  The above-discussed doping or strategic addition of metals and nonmetals has been demonstrated to modulate the surface properties of these catalysts by improving electron transfer, generating Oᵥ, weakening metal−O bonds, and accelerating redox/O₂ desorption kinetics. It has been demonstrated that these alterations increase intrinsic activity and resistance to O₂, H₂O, and NO, and thus providing a framework for developing high-performance N₂O decomposition catalysts. The integration of defect engineering, electronic tuning, and morphological control highlights the potential of mixed-metal oxides in industrial catalysis.

  2.2.3   Hexaaluminates

  Beyond supported or doped oxide systems, well-defined crystalline structures such as hexaaluminates (ABAl₁₁O₁₉, where A = La, Ba and B = Mn, Fe, Ni) offer distinct advantages for high-temperature N₂O decomposition featuring enhanced thermal/chemical stability and cost-effectiveness [104]. Fe- and Mn-substituted hexaaluminates exhibit high activity that are largely independent of the A-site cations (La or Ba), while the activity of Ni-substituted hexaaluminates adheres to a similar perform as unsubstituted counterparts [105]. The catalytic performance of the hexaaluminates is principally determined by the occupancy of specific sites within their crystal structure. In LaFe_xAl_12-xO₁₉, Fe³⁺ ions demonstrate a clear preference for occupying tetrahedral Al(2) and trigonal bipyramidal Al(5) sites within the magnetoplumbite structure, with octahedral Al(3) sites in the mirror plane exhibiting particular activity with regard to N₂O decomposition [106]. It is noteworthy that Fe³⁺ ions derived from perovskite-type LaFeO₃ intermediates show a marked preference for occupying these octahedral Al(3) sites, while the presence of Fe²⁺ species has a detrimental effect on activity. In the context of BaFe_xAl_12-xO₁₉, the stabilization of Fe³⁺ follows a dual-phase mechanism. In the context of low Fe contents (x = 1–4), Fe³⁺ occupies tetrahedral Al(5) sites within the β_I-Al₂O₃ phase. In contrast, at higher loadings (x = 5–12), excess Fe³⁺ is accommodated in trigonal bipyramidal Al(5) and octahedral Al(3) sites within the magnetoplumbite phase [107]. The latter is particularly crucial for N₂O activation. La-hexaaluminates surpass Ba-based ones by substituting a great number of Al sites in the exposed mirror plane, thus enhancing access to active Fe³⁺ centers.

  2.2.4   Spinel-structured composite oxides

  Spinel-structured composite oxides (AB₂O₄) have been identified as highly effective N₂O decomposition catalysts, prized for their adjustable redox properties, thermal stability, and O_v generation [108]. Co₃O₄-based spinels have been shown to be particularly active due to the facile reduction of octahedral Co³⁺ to Co²⁺, which has been demonstrated to promote O_v formation and accelerate O₂ desorption. The Co²⁺/Co³⁺ ratio exerts a substantial influence on catalytic performance, which can be enhanced through elemental substitution and doping. In the context of Ni_xCo_1-xCo₂O₄ spinels, partial substitution of Co²⁺ with Ni²⁺ has been demonstrated to enhance activity by reducing crystallite size, increasing surface area, and facilitating Co³⁺ reduction, with optimal performance observed at intermediate Ni loadings [109]. Similarly, Zn_xCo_1-xCo₂O₄ has been demonstrated to exhibit superior activity in N₂O decomposition at low temperatures, with ZnCo₂O₄ achieving 50% N₂O conversion at 177 ℃ (Fig. 7a) [110]. Furthermore, Mn- and Zn-substituted ferrites (Mn_xFe_1-xFe₂O₄, Zn_xFe_1-xFe₂O₄) have also been observed to demonstrate high activity, with Mn_0.8Fe_0.2Fe₂O₄ and Zn_0.6Fe_0.4Fe₂O₄ reaching complete N₂O conversion at 250 ℃ and 280 ℃, respectively, although they are susceptible to O₂ inhibition [111].

  Figure 7

  

  Figure 7.  (a) Catalytic de-N₂O activity of ZnCo₂O₄ spinel catalysts. Reproduced with permission [110]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (b) N₂O decomposition rates as a function of t_2g or e_g orbital occupancy in 0.37 kPa O₂ [Fill colors represent the substituent cation in LaCoO₃ (no substituent: black fill): Ni (green), Zn (blue), increasing Al fraction (dark to light red). Lines represent least squares fits of the full set or subset of data] and (c) orbital interactions and the respective kinetically relevant step (KRS) for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [113]. Copyright 2020, Nature Publishing Group.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  2.2.5   Perovskite oxides

  Perovskite-type oxides (ABO₃), with A-site cations as rare-earth or alkaline-earth metals and B-sites as transition metals, exhibit exceptional catalytic performance in N₂O decomposition [112]. For instance, LaCoO₃ exhibits superior activity due to its optimal B-site reducibility linking to O 2p-B 3d covalency and e_g orbital occupancy, which are crucial for N₂O activation and O₂ desorption (Figs. 7b and c) [113]. The synthesis methods significantly impact catalytic properties. The mechanochemical preparation of LaMnO₃ under Ar creates oxygen-deficient surfaces, which exhibit enhanced activity in comparison to conventional sol-gel methods [114]. This phenomenon can be attributed to an increased N₂O interaction at O_v. PrBaCoO₃, synthesized via supercritical antisolvent techniques, has been observed to exhibit high mobile oxygen content and a considerable surface area, resulting in reduced operating temperatures [115]. Alternative methods, such as the thermal decomposition of oxalate/carbonate precursors for LaNiO₃, have been demonstrated to preserve high activity while avoiding phase impurities [116]. The B-site identity has been identified as a critical factor in determining performance: ranked as LaMnO₃ > LaCoO₃ > LaNiO₃ > LaFeO₃. DFT calculations have attributed LaMnO₃'s superior activity to its distinct electronic structure and surface characteristics [117].

  Tuning the A-site in ABO₃ perovskites has been shown to significantly boost N₂O decomposition activity by modifying the redox properties of B-sites through charge compensation. In La_1-xSr_xFeO₃, optimal Sr substitution (x = 0.25) maximizes activity by facilitating reverse oxygen uptake from the lattice [118]. N₂O_(ads)⁻ dissociation has been identified as the rate-determining step in this system. In the case of the Ce/Sr-substituted LaCo_0.8Fe_0.2O₃, La-deficiency and Sr-substitution enhance thermal stability and resistance to deactivation [119]. Sr incorporation stabilizes Co³⁺ and generates O_v, while Ce substitution promotes Co exsolution, deactivating the catalyst. In the case of Pr_1-xBa_xMnO₃, 20 mol% Ba substitution (Pr_0.8Ba_0.2MnO₃) maximizes activity by elevating Mn⁴⁺ content without forming impurity phases, with supported configurations proving industrially viable [120]. In Ruddlesden-Popper perovskites (La_2-x(Sr, Ce)_xNiO₄), dual Sr-Ce co-doping has been demonstrated to optimize performance: La_0.7Ce_0.3SrNiO₄ demonstrates remarkable resistance to O₂/H₂O, maintaining 100% conversion at 600 ℃ [121]. This stability is attributed to the stabilization of Ni oxidation states and the promotion of enhanced oxygen vacancy formation.

  B-site doping optimizes catalytic performance for N₂O decomposition through the precise configuration of the active sites and the dynamics of the O_v [122]. In LaFe_1-xNi_xO₃ systems, Ni substitution enhances the catalytic activity for N₂O decomposition [123]. In BaFe_1-xSn_xO_3-δ, the introduction of Sn results in the formation of 5-coordinated Fe³⁺−O₅ active centers, thus reducing the Fe valence state through the establishment of Fe−O−Sn bonds and the expansion of the unit cell [124]. These modifications leads to a reduction in the activation energy from 241 kJ/mol (x = 0) to 178 kJ/mol (x = 0.8), with BaFe_0.2Sn_0.8O_3-δ exhibiting a 4-fold increase in intrinsic rate compared to undoped BaFeO₃. In CaMn_0.7Fe_0.3O_3-δ, the presence of Fe-induced O_v facilitates a regenerative cycle, with activity demonstrating a positive correlation with O_v concentration [125].

  A/B-site co-doping and structural modifications also influence the catalytic performance of ABO₃ in N₂O decomposition [126]. La_0.75Sr_0.25Co_0.81Fe_0.19O_x has exhibited a T₅₀ of 448 ℃ attributed to weakened Co−O bonds and mobile lattice oxygen species [127]. Support interactions and composite formations critically modulate performance. LaCoO₃/ZrO₂-La exhibits enhanced activity due to elevated Co²⁺/Co³⁺ and O_ads./O_L ratios, with coordinatively unsaturated Co²⁺ acting as the active site [128]. The heterostructured LaSrFeO₄/La_0.4Sr_0.6FeO₃ displays superior performance by combining enhanced surface oxygen exchange rates with preserved bulk oxygen diffusion, attributed to interfacial synergy between the LaSrFeO₄ and La_0.4Sr_0.6FeO₃ phases [129].

  2.3 Zeolite-based catalysts

  Zeolites feature well-defined pore structures, high surface areas, and ion-exchange capabilities, rendering them efficient and economical catalysts for N₂O decomposition [25]. Their catalytic performance is significantly influenced by framework topology, which governs the nuclearity, coordination environment, and spatial distribution of active metal sites (e.g., Fe, Cu, Co) (Figs. 8a and b) [130]. A systematic categorization of zeolite catalysts is presented below, with the classification being based upon the porosity.

  Figure 8

  

  Figure 8.  (a) N₂O conversion of Fe-based zeolites with different topological structures and (b) pathway of N₂O decomposition over Fe-ZSM-5. Reproduced with permission [130]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (c) N₂O conversion for Co/zeolites with different topological structures. Reproduced with permission [135]. Copyright 2023, American Chemical Society. (d) Proposed reaction pathway of the N₂O activation and decomposition on the Fe-SSZ-13 catalyst on two adjacent Fe_6MR sites. Reproduced with permission [146]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society. (e) Reaction site mechanism and (f) rate of N₂O decomposition on Fe-, Co-, Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts. Reproduced with permission [148]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  2.3.1   Large-pore zeolites (e.g., MOR, BEA)

  Large-pore zeolites facilitate enhanced molecular diffusion and active site accessibility. In MOR zeolites, the activity order is Co-MOR > Fe-MOR ≫ Ni-MOR, with Co²⁺ and Fe³⁺ facilitating N–O cleavage through redox cycling [131]. The introduction of In³⁺ increases active channel-bound β-type Co²⁺ sites, while La³⁺ and Mo⁶⁺ stabilize framework-coordinated γ-type Co²⁺, thereby inhibiting the formation of inactive Co₃O₄ clusters [132]. Fe-BEA exhibits a predominance of highly dispersed FeO_x species within its straight channels [133]. The Fe(Ⅱ) sites in BEA zeolite undergo framework-induced distortions that favor N₂O binding and isomerization, promoting efficient oxygen transfer [134]. Furthermore, Co-BEA benefits from enhanced Co exchange and N₂O diffusion, achieving 99.6% N₂O conversion at 450 ℃ with minimal NO₂ byproduct formation (Fig. 8c) [135].

  2.3.2   Medium-pore zeolites (e.g., MFI, FER)

  Medium-pore zeolites impose moderate spatial constraints, which significantly influence the nature and stability of active sites. In Fe-MFI zeolite (Fe-ZSM-5), low-nuclearity Fe_xO_y clusters demonstrate greater activity compared to mononuclear sites [136]. High performance is frequently linked to binuclear [Fe–O–Fe] sites, which reduce the activation barrier for N–O dissociation [137]. Post-synthetic treatments, such as alkaline leaching, can remove Si, introduce mesoporosity, and increase Fe²⁺ concentration, thereby enhancing N₂O activation and O₂ desorption [138]. Acid treatment improves stability and promotes the formation of active Fe_xO_y species by extracting Al and increasing the Si/Al ratio [139]. Furthermore, the utilization of ammonia steam treatments can lead to a significant increase in the number of accessible Fe sites, thereby enhancing the activity of the catalyst [140]. Fe-FER exhibits remarkable activity due to its unique β-site configuration, which enables cooperative N₂O activation [141]. Furthermore, it demonstrates exceptional hydrothermal stability, maintaining over 90% N₂O conversion after 24 days under simulated nitric acid plant conditions, whereas Fe-MFI and Fe-BEA suffer from accelerated deactivation due to Fe agglomeration and structural collapse [142]. In Co-MFI, there is a coexistence of multiple Co species, including surface Co₃O₄, framework-associated [Co−O−Co]²⁺/CoO_x clusters, and isolated Co²⁺ at exchange sites [143]. The latter are identified as the primary active sites for N₂O decomposition. Cu-MFI (Cu-ZSM-5) benefits from enhanced Cu⁺ accessibility, with ion-exchanged catalysts displaying superior low-temperatures performance [144].

  2.3.3   Small-pore zeolites (e.g., CHA)

  The confined environment of small-pore zeolites favors the stabilization of specific, highly active metal sites. In Fe-CHA(SSZ-13), both monomeric and dinuclear Fe sites contribute to activity. Monomeric Fe²⁺ site confined within six-membered rings (6MR) of the chabazite cages acts as the active site (Fig. 8d) [145,146]. Dinuclear [HO–Fe–O–Fe–OH]²⁺ species are particularly stable and to facilitate O₂ desorption, which is the rate-limiting step [147]. A comparative study of Cu, Fe, and Co-exchanged SSZ-13 shows that N₂O decomposition on Cu- and Fe-SSZ-13 follows a dual-site mechanism on dimeric centers (Fig. 8e) [148]. The higher activity of Fe-SSZ-13 is attributed to a lower activation barrier for N−O cleavage (Fig. 8f). In contrast, Co-SSZ-13 functions via a single-site mechanism on isolated Co²⁺, which results in a higher pre-exponential factor but is counterbalanced by a considerably greater activation energy. Cu-SSZ-13 also demonstrates notable activity, particularly when featuring dimeric [Cu–Cu] sites.

  2.4 Emerging catalysts

  Recently, the emerging atomic-scale precision engineering and innovative materials and architectures have witnessed the breakthrough in N₂O decomposition. Single-atom catalysts (SACs), such as Pt₁/MgAl_1.2Fe_0.8O₄ and Rh/CeO₂, demonstrate exceptional activity due to optimized metal–support interactions [149,150]. The incorporation of single Pr atoms into Co₃O₄ boosts its activity by 5–7.5 times compared to the pristine oxide (Figs. 9a and b) [151]. Based on the DFT calculations, two-dimensional materials like Fe@C₂N monolayers enable N₂O reduction at ambient temperature, while Co-supported BN systems exhibit distinct configuration-dependent reaction pathways [152,153]. Composite catalysts, including Co₃O₄/g-CN and Ag-modified Co₃O₄/g-CN, show improved low-temperature performance through strengthened Co–N coordination and modulated metal valence states (Fig. 9c) [154,155]. Additionally, high-entropy oxides (HEOs), such as spinel-structured Co-HEOs, have been shown to achieve high N₂O conversion at low temperatures by utilizing multi-element synergy [156]. This enhances reducibility and oxygen vacancy concentration without compromising thermal stability (Figs. 9d-g).

  Figure 9

  

  Figure 9.  (a) N₂O decomposition activity and (b) reaction rates normalized by S_BET on Co₃O₄ and Pr-doped Co₃O₄ samples. Reproduced with permission [151]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (c) Relationship between the content of Co²⁺ and the specific activity or the energy of activation for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [155]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (d) Catalytic activity of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO for N₂O decomposition, (e) H₂-TPR, (f) O₂-TPD of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO, and (g) Stability test of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO at 360 ℃. Reproduced with permission [156]. Copyright 2024, American Chemical Society.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  In order to facilitate a more intuitive comparison of N₂O decomposition performance across different catalyst types, Table 1 lists key parameters of representative catalysts reported in recent years [157–164]. Noble metal catalysts exhibit superior low-temperature activity in comparison with other categories, while they suffer from high cost and limited impurity tolerance. Single-metal oxides offer optimal cost-effectiveness, rendering them ideal for medium-temperature and cost-sensitive applications. Co₃O₄ is the most active, and its performance is highly dependent on the synthesis method. However, their performance is often compromised by the presence of O₂ and NO. In the case of composite oxides, the processes of doping and composite formation enhance activity and stability, especially against inhibitors. Hexaaluminates and perovskites exhibit elevated thermal stability, making them well-suitable for high-temperature applications. Zeolite-based catalysts provide well-dispersed active sites. It is evident that the catalytic activity is significantly impacted by the zeolite framework and preparation method. These catalysts frequently exhibit moderately active characteristics, however they can be susceptible to inhibition by O₂ and H₂O. The development of emerging catalysts has enabled the synthesis of catalysts that exhibit both high activity and durability. Especially, Co-HEO demonstrates promising activity and remarkable resistance to a complex gas mixture comprising O₂, NO, and H₂O.

  Table 1

  

  Table 1.  Performance comparison of different types of N₂O decomposition catalysts.

  DownLoad: CSV

  Catalyst category	Catalysts	Synthesis method	Reaction conditions	Catalytic performance	Publish year	Ref.
  Noble metal catalysts	Pd/Al2O3	Wet impregnation method	1% N2O, He balance, 76,690 h−1	T50: 300 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2020	[30]
  	Rh/Mg/Al/FeCr alloy foams	Electrodeposition method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 6800 h−1	T50: 320 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2020	[31]
  	RhOx/ZrO2	Impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, 10% O2, 2% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2022	[37]
  	Pt-K/SiO2	Wet impregnation method	2000 ppm N2O, He balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 560 ℃	2022	[48]
  	Ir/LFA,	Impregnation method	30 vol% N2O, Ar balance, 100 mL/min, 60,000 cm−3 g−1 h−1	T50: 284 ℃	2023	[43]
  	Ir/LMA			T50: 341 ℃
  	RhOx/Ag/Al2O3	Impregnation method	0.1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 254 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2023	[45]
  	Rh/CeO2	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 260 ℃; T90: 295 ℃	2024	[34]
  	Rh(1)–Pd(1)/ZrO2	Impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 307 ℃; T90: 353 ℃	2024	[46]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 400 ℃; T90: 450 ℃
  	RhNC/CeO2-d	Defects-assisted adsorption method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 120,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 238 ℃	2025	[44]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 120,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 253 ℃
  	Rh(1)/CeO2-S	Incipient wetness impregnation method and steam-treatment	0.3% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 275 ℃	2025	[38]
  			0.3% N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 425 ℃
  	Rh(1)−Ir(1)/ZrO2	Impregnation method	0.1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 296 ℃	2025	[47]
  			0.1% N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 385 ℃
  Single-metal oxides	Co3O4 (nanocube)	Hydrothermal method	30% N2O, He balance, 34,000 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T100: 500 ℃	2021	[53]
  	Co3O4 (Yardang Landform structure)	Sol-gel method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 300 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2023	[54]
  	Co3O4	PVA-assisted precipitation method	500 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 400,000 h−1	T50: 425 ℃	2024	[57]
  	Co3O4	Hydrothermal method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T100: 450 ℃	2024	[59]
  	Co3O4	Precipitation method and etching	2000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 304 ℃; T90: 353 ℃	2025	[50]
  	NiO	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 366 ℃; T90: 419 ℃	2023	[98]
  	CuO	Citric acid method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 455 ℃	2023	[90]
  Composite oxides	CoCe0.1	Hydrothermal method	2000 ppm N2O, 2% O2, He balance, 38,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 420 ℃	2020	[78]
  	Co3O4/m-ZrO2	Incipient wetness impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 375 ℃	2020	[94]
  	Co3O4/CaCO3 (CaCo2.5)	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, 2% O2, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2020	[95]
  Composite oxides	Mg0.5Co(H-120)	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2021	[157]
  	Ba0.5Co2.5O4	Hydrothermal method	0.65% N2O, 0.88% O2, N2 balance, 55,000 h−1	T90: 460 ℃	2021	[70]
  	Bi0.1NiO1.15	Coprecipitation method	220 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 45,000 h−1	T50: 328 ℃; T90: 385 ℃	2021	[75]
  	Sm0.1-Co3O4	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 322 ℃; T90: 375 ℃	2021	[82]
  	Gd0.06Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 260 ℃; T90: 325 ℃	2021	[83]
  	CeCoAl	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 80 mL/min	T50: 300 ℃	2021	[87]
  	N-Co3O4−0.05	g-C3N4-modified citrate sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 320 ℃; T90: 360 ℃	2021	[102]
  	Cs/Co	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 225 ℃; T90: 250 ℃	2022	[66]
  	K0.025Gd0.06Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 225 ℃; T90: 275 ℃	2022	[158]
  			2000 ppm N2O, 5 vol% O2, 100 ppm NO, 2 vol% H2O Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 310 ℃; T90: 345 ℃
  	Na-Co3O4	Hydrothermal method	0.65 vol% N2O, 0.88 vol% O2, N2 balance, 55,000 h−1	T50: 420 ℃	2023	[62]
  	4Cs/Co3O4	Wet impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 272 ℃; T90: 349 ℃	2023	[67]
  	Ba0.2Cu	Citric acid method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T100: 450 ℃	2023	[90]
  	Cd0.04Ni	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 319 ℃; T90: 369 ℃	2023	[98]
  	Cs0.1-Co3O4	Citric acid complexation method	200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T50: 230 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2024	[68]
  	PrxNi	Coprecipitation method	800 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100: 400−440 ℃	2024	[84]
  	Bi0.015Co	Improved sol-gel method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T100: 350 ℃	2024	[74]
  	N-Co3O4	g-C3N4-modifed thermal decomposition method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 270 ℃; T90: 350 ℃	2024	[159]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 3 vol% O2, 3.3 vol% H2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 450 ℃
  	F-Co3O4	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 305 ℃; T90: 350 ℃	2024	[103]
  	Cs-Co3O4	Coprecipitation method	200 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T90: 297 ℃	2025	[69]
  			200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T90: 281 ℃
  	Cu0.15CoOy	Coprecipitation method	500 ppm N2O, 5% O2, Ar balance, 120,000 h−1	T100: 425 ℃	2025	[160]
  	δ-MnO2/Co3-xMnxO4	Permanganate etching strategy	2000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T90: 400 ℃	2025	[93]
  	Co0.1-OMS-2	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T90: 398 ℃	2025	[99]
  	K0.02Dy0.01Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T90: 242 ℃	2025	[89]
  	Co2.4Zn0.6O4/CeO2	Citric acid-assisted impregnation method	2000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, Ar balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T90: 442 ℃	2025	[101]
  	Eu0.04Ni	Coprecipitation method	800 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 325 ℃; T90: 357 ℃	2025	[85]
  			800 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 200 ppm NO, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100: 440 ℃
  	Cu(10)/γ-Al2O3	Spray coating followed by quick drying	1% N2O, N2 balance, 1800 h−1	T50: 410 ℃; T90: 450 ℃	2025	[97]
  			5000 ppm N2O, 7.5% H2O, air balance, 1800 h−1	T50: 500 ℃; T90: 575 ℃
  Spinel-structured composite oxides	ZnCo2O4	Co-precipitation method	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 178 ℃; T100: 250 ℃	2024	[110]
  	CuFe2O4	Hydrothermal method with microwave treatment	100% N2O, 3000 h−1	T50: 540 ℃; T100: 625 ℃	2024	[161]
  	1K-Zn0.4Co2.6O4	Incipient wetness impregnation method	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 h−1	T100: 200 ℃	2024	[64]
  			500 ppm N2O, 3 vol% O2, 6 vol% H2O, 50 ppm SO2, N2 balance, 60,000 h−1	T50: 275 ℃; T100: 350 ℃
  Perovskite oxides	LaMnO3	Sol-gel method	0.5% N2O, 18,000 h−1	T50: 490 ℃; T90: 520 ℃	2020	[114]
  	PrBaCoO3	Supercritical anti-solvent precipitation method	1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 410 ℃	2020	[115]
  		Citric acid preparation		T50: 445 ℃
  	LaSr0.5CoFe0.1O5.8	Citric acid preparation	1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 448 ℃	2022	[127]
  	LaCo0.8Fe0.2O3	Sol-gel method	0.1 vol% N2O, 5 vol% NO, 6 vol% O2, 15 vol% H2O, He balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 564 ℃	2024	[119]
  	LaFe0.4Ni0.6O3	Pechini method	0.15% N2O, 3% О2, 3% Н2О, He balance, 1000 mL/min	T50: 870 ℃	2024	[123]
  	LaCoO3/ZrO2-La	Impregnation method	90% N2O, 10% H2O, 18,000 h−1	T50: 472 ℃; T90: 505 ℃	2024	[128]
  	LaCoO3	Pechini method	0.15% N2O, 3% О2, 3% Н2О, He balance, 1000 mL/min	T50: 785 ℃; T90: 890 ℃	2025	[122]
  	CaMn0.7Fe0.3O3-δ	Pechini method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50,330 h−1	T50: 718 ℃	2025	[125]
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Fe1/SAPO-34 Fe1/SSZ-13	Solid-state ion exchange method	500 ppm N2O, 5% H2O, Ar balance, 400,000 h−1	T50 > 500 ℃; T90 > 600 ℃	2020	[147]
  	FeHZSM-5	Hydrothermal method followed by ion exchange	100% N2O, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100 ≥ 520 ℃	2022	[136]
  	Co/Beta	Ion exchange method	30 vol% N2O, He balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 355 ℃; T90: 395 ℃	2023	[135]
  	Fe-ZSM-5/Fe-SSZ-13/Fe-Beta	Wet impregnation method	200 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 330 ℃/467 ℃/430 ℃	2024	[130]
  	10Co/HZSM-5	Citric acid-complexion impregnation method	0.65% N2O, 0.88% O2, Ar balance, 12,000 mL g−1 h−1	T90: 430 ℃	2024	[143]
  	Fe-SSZ-13	One-pot hydrothermal synthesis	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 374 ℃	2025	[146]
  		Incipient wetness impregnation followed by thermal treatment		T50: 435 ℃
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Fe–ZSM-5	Aqueous impregnation method	200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 100 ppm NO, N2 balance, 80,000 h−1	T50: 440 ℃; T100: 570 ℃	2025	[162]
  	Fe-MFI/Fe-MOR/Fe-FER/Fe-MRE	Mixed-alkali treatment and wet ion exchange	200 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 320 ℃/387 ℃/420 ℃/500 ℃	2025	[163]
  	5%Fe-FER	Incipient wetness impregnation method	100% N2O, 3000 h−1	T100: 460 ℃	2025	[164]
  Emerging catalysts	Pt1/MgAl1.2Fe0.8O4	Colloid deposition method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 520 ℃; T90: 600 ℃	2020	[150]
  	Co3O4/g-CN	Impregnation method	0.1 vol% N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T100: 400 ℃	2021	[154]
  	Rh/CeO2	Incipient wetness impregnation method	0.02% N2O, 5% CO2, Ar balance, 100,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 450 ℃	2023	[149]
  	AgCo-g-CN	Impregnation method	500 ppm N2O, 3% O2, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T100: 400 ℃	2024	[155]
  	Co-HEO	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 800 ppm NO, 4.2% H2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 313 ℃; T90: 356 ℃	2024	[156]

  3. Reaction mechanisms

  In order to facilitate the rational design of efficient catalysts, the optimization of active sites, and the refinement of reaction pathways for practical applications, it is imperative to comprehensively understand the reaction mechanisms of N₂O decomposition. The direct catalytic decomposition of N₂O typically initiates with its adsorption at an active site (*), resulting in the production of N₂ and an adsorbed oxygen species (O*), as depicted by the following reaction: N₂O + * → N₂ + O*. The removal of O* then proceeds via two primary pathways: the recombination of two O* species (L−H mechanism) or the reaction between O* and gaseous N₂O (E−R mechanism) (Fig. 10). Finally, O₂ is formed by the recombination of O*, and subsequently desorbs from the surface of the catalyst. This process is widely accepted as the rate-determining step in N₂O decomposition. Indeed, the predominant mechanism is contingent on the catalyst type, the active site structure, and the surface properties.

  Figure 10

  

  Figure 10.  Representative reaction mechanisms of N₂O decomposition.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Mechanistic studies combining theoretical and experimental methods have revealed that charge state and support interactions significantly affect reactivity [165]. For instance, DFT calculations on Rh₆⁻ and Rh₆⁺ clusters have indicated that anionic clusters lower activation barriers for N₂O reduction [166]. In situ DRIFTS studies on Ir-supported rutile TiO₂ have demonstrated the formation of peroxide (O₂^2–) intermediates, thus highlighting the importance of oxygen spillover and O_v regeneration [39]. An Fe-substituted La-hexaaluminate-supported Ir catalyst (Ir/LFA) operates via a dual-path mechanism: N₂O dissociation on Ir and O_v-mediated oxygen transfer has been shown to achieve high activity (T₅₀ = 284 ℃) [43]. On defect-rich CeO₂-supported Rh SACs, the L−H mechanism dominates, with O_v facilitating oxygen transfer and recombination (Fig. 11a) [44]. Redox mechanisms involving O_v govern N₂O decomposition on metal oxides. In the Cu_xCo_y mixed oxides, Co₃O₄ supplies O_v for N₂O adsorption, forming □-Co-ON₂ species, while the interfacial CuO_x promotes N−O cleavage (Fig. 11b) [91]. Kinetic and DFT analyses reveal first-order kinetics with N₂O concentration, identifying N−O cleavage as the rate-determining step. Similarly, in the Cu/CeO₂ system, binuclear [Cu–O–Cu]²⁺ sites on CeO₂ {100}/{110} planes have been shown to drive the reaction, facilitated by the presence of Ce³⁺/Ce⁴⁺ redox cycling (Fig. 11c) [167]. Nevertheless, the presence of H₂ has been demonstrated to cause dissociative adsorption on O_v, resulting in the competition between NO and active oxygen, which consequently leads to the reversible deactivation of the catalyst. In the context of Co-doped CeO₂, an increase in O_v density has been demonstrated to lower the light-off temperature (T₉₀ = 375 ℃) and improve stability [168]. Notably, the doping of Zn introduces a dual modulation mechanism for the Co₃O₄/CeO₂ catalyst: it alters the geometric/electronic structure of Co sites and enhances electron injection from CeO₂, collectively leading to an electron-rich Co₃O₄ and increased O_v. This synergy effectively overcomes the energy barrier limiting the N−O activation and cleavage rate-determining step [101]. In Mn-modified Co₃O₄, the heterointerface between δ-MnO₂ and Co_3–xMn_xO₄ enhances Co 3d−O 2p hybridization and Co−O−Mn covalency, generating highly active lattice oxygen near the interface [93]. Isotope studies have confirmed a shift from the L−H mechanism on pristine Co₃O₄ to a dominant lattice-oxygen-mediated Mars-van Krevelen pathway, leading to improved N₂O decomposition activity and stability (Fig. 11d). The presence of "boxed dot-Co²⁺" sites in Cu-doped Co₃O₄ has been identified through in situ DRIFTS, which has detected trans-N₂O₂⁻ as an intermediate [160]. Perovskites, such as LaMnO_3+δ, have been demonstrated to have high oxygen mobility, as evidenced by isotopic exchange (¹⁸O₂/N₂¹⁶O), thereby enabling efficient lattice oxygen involvement [169].

  Figure 11

  

  Figure 11.  (a) Main mechanism of catalytic N₂O decomposition on Rh_NC/CeO₂-d. Reproduced with permission [44]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (b) Key roles of CuO and Co₃O₄ in the Cu_xCo_y catalysts for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [91]. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. (c) Proposed mechanism of N₂O decomposition over CuO/CeO₂ catalyst. Reproduced with permission [167]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (d) Different reaction mechanism for δ-MnO₂/Co_3-xMn_xO₄ and pristine Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [93]. Copyright 2025, John Wiley & Sons. (e) Calculated energy profile and (f) intermediate structures for N₂O decomposition on Fe–2O–Fe/SSZ-13. Red, gray-purple, and blue balls represent O, Fe, and N atoms, respectively. Reproduced with permission [147]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Transition metal-exchanged zeolites, such as those containing Fe, Cu, and Co, have been observed to exhibit metal-specific mechanisms that are sensitive to nuclearity and zeolite topology. In Rh- and Fe-modified ZSM-5, transient product analysis distinguishes between pathways: Rh-ZSM-5 follows the E−R mechanism, while Fe-ZSM-5 adheres to the L−H mechanism [170]. Mononuclear Fe sites have been found to present high activation barriers (> 180 kJ/mol), whereas binuclear clusters promote O₂ release through spin-crossover cycles [171]. In Fe/CHA catalysts (e.g., SAPO-34, SSZ-13), dinuclear [HO−Fe−O−Fe−OH]²⁺ species enhance both O₂ desorption and stability (Figs. 11e and f) [147]. Cu-ZSM-5 zeolites operate via dimeric [Cu−Cu]²⁺ sites using an E−R mechanism [172,173]. For Co-zeolites, isolated Co²⁺ ions are active, but their aggregation into Co₃O₄ results in diminished performance [148].

  Notably, the reaction mechanisms of emerging N₂O decomposition catalysts vary across different systems. In Rh/CeO₂ SACs, the promotion of O_v formation and enhancement of redox properties is observed to be a consequence of engineered Rh−O coordination [149]. The doping of single Pr atoms into Co₃O₄ results in the formation of a "Pr 4f-O 2p-Co 3d" electronic network, which redistributes electron density redistribution to Co²⁺ sites, thereby reducing the N−O cleavage barrier [84]. In the case of Co-supported BN systems, the catalysts exhibit configuration-dependent pathways: CoN₃ sites follow an E−R mechanism, whereas CoB₃ sites adopt L−H kinetics [153]. Spinel-structured Co-HEOs achieve high conversion rates at low temperatures and maintain thermal stability at high temperature due to the enhanced reducibility and O_v concentration through multi-element synergy [156].

  The mechanistic insights discussed above provide a fundamental blueprint for the rational design of next-generation N₂O decomposition catalysts. A central tenet is that O₂ desorption is often the rate-determining step, which directly informs strategies such as weakening metal−O bonds via alkali metal promoters (Section 2.2.2-(1)) or facilitating O₂ release through O_v generation using redox-active dopants (Section 2.2.2-(2)). Moreover, the highly active of binuclear sites in zeolites emphasizes the critical need to control the nuclearity and coordination environment of metal cations during synthesis (Section 2.3). As outlined in Table 2, the predominant pathway, whether L−H or E−R, and the pivotal mechanistic steps are found to be contingent on the catalyst's architecture. Noble metal catalysts depend on efficient N₂O dissociation at metal sites in conjunction with oxygen spillover to O_v-rich supports. Conversely, transition metal oxide catalysts are governed by redox cycles that hinge on the formation and replenishment of O_v. Zeolite-based catalysts exhibit metal-specific mechanisms that are sensitive to the nuclearity of active sites (mono- vs. binuclear) and the confinement effect of the zeolite topology. The advent of novel materials, such as SACs, underscores the significance of meticulously customizing the coordination environment and electronic structure to optimize reaction pathways. In conclusion, a targeted manipulation of the catalyst structure, guided by a deep mechanistic understanding, is the key to overcoming the activity and stability bottlenecks in N₂O decomposition.

  Table 2

  

  Table 2.  Key mechanistic steps and regulation mechanisms for different N₂O decomposition catalysts.

  DownLoad: CSV

  Catalyst category	Active site combination	N2O activation mode	O* desorption regulation mechanism	Rate-determining step
  Noble metal catalysts	Metal sites+support Ov	Metal-support electronic interaction weakens N−O bonds	Support Ov accepts O* to lower desorption energy	O* desorption from support Ov
  Transition metal oxide catalysts	Metal ions+Ov	Metal ions donate electrons; Ov adsorbs N2O	Redox cycles regenerate Ov	O* desorption from Ov
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Mono-/binuclear metal sites	Binuclear sites synergistically reduce activation energy of N−O dissociation	Zeolite pore confinement promotes O* recombination	O* desorption
  Emerging catalysts	Metal ions+Ov	Coordination environment and electronic structure reduce activation energy	Metal ions modulate Ov electron density	O* desorption

  4. The practice of direct decomposition catalysts

  Based on the extensive theoretical research, various catalysts have been investigated for practical engineering applications [174]. Indeed, the performance of N₂O decomposition catalysts under real industrial conditions and in engineering applications is influenced by multiple factors, including catalyst composition, support material, operating temperature, and the presence of inhibitors. The Pd/Al₂O₃ catalyst exhibited high activity in the monopropellant thruster, sustaining N₂O decomposition at efficiencies > 75% and temperatures > 1500 K [175]. This high performance, which is attributed to a reduction in activation energy under elevated pressure, positions it as a viable substitute for toxic hydrazine propellants. Catalysts, such as K/Zn−Co₃O₄ and K-doped Co−Mn−Al mixed oxides derived from hydrotalcite precursors, have been validated in pilot-scale nitric acid plants [176,177]. These materials maintain N₂O conversions above 70%–90% at 400–450 ℃ under realistic tail gas conditions containing O₂, H₂O, NO_x, and NH₃, with operational stability exceeding 10 weeks. In the context of high-temperature applications (750−900 ℃), such as in the production of nitric acid via ammonia oxidation, FeO_x/Al₂O₃ catalysts supported on metastable Al₂O₃ (δ, θ-Al₂O₃) exhibit remarkable stability and activity, sustaining over 90% N₂O conversion for more than 12 days under realistic gas mixtures containing NO, O₂, and H₂O [178].

  5. Challenges and perspectives

  The development of efficient N₂O decomposition catalysts faces several critical challenges, including limited activity and stability, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and insufficient scalability. For instance, catalyst deactivation often occurs under practical conditions due to competitive adsorption of H₂O and O₂ inhibition at O_v sites. To address these issues, innovative materials designs, such as the core-shell structures, are being explored to protect active sites from poisoning. As highlighted in above discussions, the rate-determining step in N₂O decomposition is typically O₂ desorption. Catalytic performance is thus strongly influenced by the oxygen adsorption and desorption properties of the active sites. Only when these properties are optimally tuned can high catalytic activity be achieved. Accordingly, for novel catalysts (particularly the multicomponent catalyst systems, such composite oxides, spinel-structured composite oxides, perovskite oxides, and high-entropy oxides), rational design strategies should prioritize the modulation of oxygen interaction energetics through advanced computational approaches. Machine learning-guided catalyst discovery has demonstrated considerable promise in accelerating the identification of optimal compositions and structures with improved activity and durability. In parallel, fundamental gaps remain in elucidating the dynamic behavior of active sites under working conditions. The deployment of advanced in situ/operando characterization techniques, such as DRIFTS, XAS, and environmental TEM, is essential to monitor structural evolution in real time and identify key reactive intermediates throughout the catalytic cycle. These insights are critical for the rational design of next-generation catalysts that combine high activity and stability with reduced economic and environmental impacts.

  Nowadays, emerging strategies for N₂O elimination, such as solar-thermal activation and plasma-assisted decomposition, leverage renewable energy sources to enable more sustainable and energy-efficient emission control, in alignment with global energy transition trends to reduce the carbon footprint of industrial processes. Scaling up these technologies requires careful balancing of the catalytic performance with scaling feasibility. A thorough techno-economic analysis (TEA) is essential to evaluate synthesis costs, catalyst lifetime, regeneration needs, and energy consumption under realistic operating conditions. Notably, a significant trade-off exists between noble-metal-based catalysts (which often exhibit superior activity at higher costs) and transition-metal-based alternatives. The latter may offer improved economic sustainability, though often at the expense of lower tolerance to feed variability or reduced stability. Concurrently, a full life cycle assessment (LCA) is needed to quantify environmental impacts across all stages, from raw material extraction and catalyst production to deactivation and disposal or recycling. Such a comprehensive evaluation ensures that the net environmental benefit of N₂O abatement is not offset by hidden burdens associated with energy-intensive synthesis or the use of scarce resources.

  CRediT authorship contribution statement

  Yingxue Lu: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ying Xin: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Hao Wu: Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation. Jin Wang: Methodology, Formal analysis. Zhaoliang Zhang: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.

  Declaration of competing interest

  The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

  Acknowledgments

  This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 22376078 and 22276070), Taishan Scholar Program of Shandong Province (Nos. tsqn202408207 and tstp20230628), Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Nos. ZR2023ZD39 and ZR2024MB064).

  
  
• 1. [1]

     United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2024, Global Nitrous oxide assessment, https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/46562.

  2. [2]

     H. Tian, R. Xu, J.G. Canadell, et al., Nature 586 (2020) 248–256. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

  3. [3]

     M.J. Prather, J. Hsu, N.M. DeLuca, et al., J. Geophys. Res. : Atmos. 120 (2015) 5693–5705.

  4. [4]

     X. Cui, S. Chen, J. Yang, et al., J. Environ. Manag. 377 (2025) 124580. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124580

  5. [5]

     S. Christensen, K. Rousk, iScience 27 (2024) 109042. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109042

  6. [6]

     G. Zhu, H. Shi, L. Zhong, et al., Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 6 (2025) 574–592. doi: 10.1038/s43017-025-00707-5

  7. [7]

     R. Feng, Z. Li, Environ. Pollut. 338 (2023) 122664. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122664

  8. [8]

     Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, 2024. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1257/oj.

  9. [9]

     Action Plan for Nitrous Oxide Emission Control in the Industrial Sector, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, National Development and Reform Commission of China, and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China, 2025. https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk03/202508/t20250829_1126396.html.

  10. [10]

      Z. Zhuang, B. Guan, J. Chen, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 486 (2024) 150374. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.150374

  11. [11]

      J. Quan, R. Yin, Z. Zhao, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145 (2023) 12044–12050. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c01127

  12. [12]

      M.L. Ovcharov, V.M. Granchak, Theor. Exp. Chem. 57 (2021) 30–63. doi: 10.1007/s11237-021-09674-6

  13. [13]

      X. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, et al., Chem. Commun. 58 (2022) 2777–2787. doi: 10.1039/d1cc06690k

  14. [14]

      M. Liu, H. Zhang, J. Li, et al., ChemCatChem 16 (2024) e202400922. doi: 10.1002/cctc.202400922

  15. [15]

      A. Shigemoto, Y. Sekine, Chem. Commun. 61 (2025) 1559–1573. doi: 10.1039/d4cc05135a

  16. [16]

      X. Wu, J. Du, Y. Gao, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 53 (2024) 8379–8423. doi: 10.1039/d3cs00919j

  17. [17]

      Y. Zhang, J. Du, Y. Shan, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 54 (2025) 1151–1215. doi: 10.1039/d4cs00140k

  18. [18]

      M. Qian, B. Guan, Z. Zhuang, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 15 (2025) 2061–2103. doi: 10.1039/d4cy01416b

  19. [19]

      L. Wang, C. Lin, I. Boldog, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 63 (2024) e202317435. doi: 10.1002/anie.202317435

  20. [20]

      K.H. Kang, M. Yang, S. Raza, et al., Chemosphere 335 (2023) 139114. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139114

  21. [21]

      Z. Li, Y. Wu, H. Wang, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 58 (2024) 8976–8987. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c00765

  22. [22]

      L.S. Ko, Y.S. Chen, K.L. Pan, et al., Catal. Commun. 177 (2023) 106666. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2023.106666

  23. [23]

      A. Shigemoto, T. Higo, C. Ukai, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 14 (2024) 4471–4478. doi: 10.1039/d4cy00698d

  24. [24]

      Z. Liu, F. He, L. Ma, et al., Catal. Surv. Asia 20 (2016) 121–132. doi: 10.1007/s10563-016-9213-y

  25. [25]

      R. Zhang, N. Liu, Z. Lei, et al., Chem. Rev. 116 (2016) 3658–3721. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00474

  26. [26]

      Y. Zhang, Z. Tian, L. Huang, et al., Catalysts 13 (2023) 943. doi: 10.3390/catal13060943

  27. [27]

      H. Yu, X. Wang, X. Wu, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 334 (2018) 800–806. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.079

  28. [28]

      M. Jabłońska, R. Palkovits, Catal. Sci. Technol. 6 (2016) 7671–7687. doi: 10.1039/C6CY01126H

  29. [29]

      V.G. Komvokis, M. Marti, A. Delimitis, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 103 (2011) 62–71. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2011.01.009

  30. [30]

      N. Richards, J.H. Carter, E. Nowicka, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 264 (2020) 118501. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118501

  31. [31]

      P.H. Ho, M. Jabłońska, R. Palkovits, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 379 (2020) 122259. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122259

  32. [32]

      S.S. Kim, S.J. Lee, S.C. Hong, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 18 (2012) 1263–1266. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2012.01.004

  33. [33]

      C. Sui, F. Yuan, Z. Zhang, et al., Catalysts 6 (2016) 173. doi: 10.3390/catal6110173

  34. [34]

      H. Liu, S. Yang, J. Mi, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 58 (2024) 17125–17136.

  35. [35]

      M. Piumetti, M. Hussain, D. Fino, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 165 (2015) 158–168. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.10.008

  36. [36]

      H. Liu, Y. Lin, Z. Ma, Chin. J. Catal. 37 (2016) 73–82. doi: 10.1016/S1872-2067(15)60951-2

  37. [37]

      Y. Jing, K. Taketoshi, N. Zhang, et al., ACS Catal. 12 (2022) 6325–6333. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.2c01321

  38. [38]

      N. Zhang, C. He, Y. Jing, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 64 (2025) e202517403. doi: 10.1002/anie.202517403

  39. [39]

      E. Pachatouridou, E. Papista, A. Delimitis, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 187 (2016) 259–268. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.01.049

  40. [40]

      I.V. Yentekakis, G. Goula, P. Panagiotopoulou, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 192 (2016) 357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.04.011

  41. [41]

      H. Liu, Z. Ma, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 26 (2018) 109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.cjche.2017.02.007

  42. [42]

      C. Sui, X. Niu, Z. Wang, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 6 (2016) 8505–8515. doi: 10.1039/C6CY01920J

  43. [43]

      M. Wang, W. Li, S. Wang, J. Phys. Chem. C 127 (2023) 20344–20353. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c04876

  44. [44]

      S. Bao, X. Lu, L. Yu, et al., Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 693 (2025) 120122. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2025.120122

  45. [45]

      Y. Jing, C. He, N. Zhang, et al., ACS Catal. 13 (2023) 12983–12993. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.3c02446

  46. [46]

      N. Zhang, C. He, Y. Jing, et al., Surf. Interfaces 46 (2024) 104120. doi: 10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104120

  47. [47]

      N. Zhang, C. He, Y. Jing, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 59 (2025) 1598–1607. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c08083

  48. [48]

      B. Bozorgi, J. Karimi-Sabet, P. Khadiv-Parsi, Environ. Technol. Innovation 26 (2022) 102344. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2022.102344

  49. [49]

      M. Konsolakis, ACS Catal. 5 (2015) 6397–6421. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.5b01605

  50. [50]

      Y. Long, X. Zhu, C. Gao, et al., Nat. Commun. 16 (2025) 1048. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56487-5

  51. [51]

      Z. Ma, Y. Ren, Y. Lu, et al., J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 13 (2013) 5093–5103. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2013.7580

  52. [52]

      P. Stelmachowski, K. Ciura, G. Grzybek, Catal. Sci. Technol. 6 (2016) 5554–5560. doi: 10.1039/C6CY00365F

  53. [53]

      M. Li, R. Zhang, H. Wang, et al., Catal. Today 376 (2021) 177–187. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2020.06.042

  54. [54]

      H. Yu, X. Qi, X. Du, et al., Mol. Catal. 537 (2023) 112960.

  55. [55]

      Ž. Chromčáková, L. Obalová, F. Kovanda, et al., Catal. Today 257 (2015) 18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.03.030

  56. [56]

      H. Li, L. Zheng, T. Zhao, et al., J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 46 (2018) 717–724. doi: 10.1016/S1872-5813(18)30031-8

  57. [57]

      S. Li, J. Zhao, Z. Song, et al., Fuel 362 (2024) 130745. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130745

  58. [58]

      Y. Wang, X. Wei, X. Hu, et al., Catal. Lett. 149 (2019) 1026–1036. doi: 10.1007/s10562-019-02681-2

  59. [59]

      H. Ou, Y. Yue, T. Yang, et al., ACS ES T Eng. 5 (2024) 1032–1042.

  60. [60]

      P. Stelmachowski, G. Maniak, A. Kotarba, et al., Catal. Commun. 10 (2009) 1062–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2008.12.057

  61. [61]

      L. Nowakowski, C. Hudy, F. Zasada, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 146 (2024) 24450–24466. doi: 10.1021/jacs.4c06587

  62. [62]

      J. Sun, A. Song, Y. Tian, et al., ChemCatChem 15 (2023) e202201449. doi: 10.1002/cctc.202201449

  63. [63]

      G. Maniak, P. Stelmachowski, F. Zasada, et al., Catal. Today 176 (2011) 369–372. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2010.11.043

  64. [64]

      H. Prajitno, J. Kim, M.H. Jeong, et al., Chemosphere 367 (2024) 143642. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143642

  65. [65]

      G. Grzybek, J. Gryboś, P. Indyka, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 297 (2021) 120435. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120435

  66. [66]

      F. Zhao, D. Wang, X. Li, et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 61 (2022) 13854–13862. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01955

  67. [67]

      Y. Gong, Z. Liu, Z. Li, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 58 (2023) 906–914.

  68. [68]

      H. Zhao, P. Wang, Z. Li, et al., J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 12 (2024) 113907. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2024.113907

  69. [69]

      H. Zhao, P. Wang, Z. Li, et al., Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 166 (2025) 110522. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110522

  70. [70]

      J. Sun, L. Wang, L. Zhang, et al., ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4 (2021) 8496–8505. doi: 10.1021/acsaem.1c01690

  71. [71]

      Q. Zhang, X. Tang, P. Ning, et al., RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 51263–51270. doi: 10.1039/C5RA04062K

  72. [72]

      H. Yu, X. Wang, X. Wu, Mol. Catal. 460 (2018) 69–73.

  73. [73]

      L. Xue, H. He, C. Liu, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 890–895. doi: 10.1021/es801867y

  74. [74]

      K. Wang, Y. Du, Y. Li, et al., Mol. Catal. 569 (2024) 114604.

  75. [75]

      M. Xu, H. Wang, H. Ouyang, et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 401 (2021) 123334. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123334

  76. [76]

      Y. Wang, X. Hu, K. Zheng, et al., Catal. Commun. 111 (2018) 70–74. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2018.04.004

  77. [77]

      M.G. Jung, J.E. Seo, H.P. Ha, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 505 (2025) 159305. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2025.159305

  78. [78]

      C. He, A. Li, Z. Liu, Catal. Surv. Asia 24 (2020) 232–238. doi: 10.1007/s10563-020-09303-7

  79. [79]

      M. Lykaki, E. Papista, N. Kaklidis, et al., Catalysts 9 (2019) 233. doi: 10.3390/catal9030233

  80. [80]

      M. Zabilskiy, P. Djinović, E. Tchernychova, et al., ACS Catal. 5 (2015) 5357–5365. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.5b01044

  81. [81]

      Z. Liu, C. He, B. Chen, et al., Catal. Today 297 (2017) 78–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2017.05.074

  82. [82]

      H. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Wang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 414 (2021) 128643. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.128643

  83. [83]

      Y. Xiong, Y. Zhao, X. Qi, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. (2021) 13335–13344.

  84. [84]

      Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, Y. Sun, et al., ACS ES T Eng. 4 (2024) 2542–2552. doi: 10.1021/acsestengg.4c00314

  85. [85]

      S. Cao, Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. 696 (2025) 137880. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2025.137880

  86. [86]

      P.H. Ho, M. Jabłońska, M. Nocuń, et al., ChemCatChem 11 (2019) 5580–5592. doi: 10.1002/cctc.201901394

  87. [87]

      P.H. Ho, M. Jabłońska, G. Beltrami, et al., J. Mater. Sci. 56 (2021) 15012–15028. doi: 10.1007/s10853-021-06245-x

  88. [88]

      F. Zhang, X. Wang, X. Zhang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 256 (2014) 365–371. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.007

  89. [89]

      H. Yu, Y. Li, Y. Pan, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 504 (2025) 159032. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.159032

  90. [90]

      Y. Li, X. Wang, C. Shi, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 11 (2023) 109970. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2023.109970

  91. [91]

      S. Xiong, J. Chen, N. Huang, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (2019) 10379–10386. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02892

  92. [92]

      Y. Wang, X.L. Liu, X. Hu, et al., React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 129 (2019) 165–179.

  93. [93]

      Y. Long, Y. Peng, Y. Bai, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 64 (2025) e202516326. doi: 10.1002/anie.202516326

  94. [94]

      X. Hu, Y. Wang, R. Wu, et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 514 (2020) 145892. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.145892

  95. [95]

      H. Yu, X. Wang, Y. Li, Catal. Today 339 (2020) 274–280. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2018.10.036

  96. [96]

      P. Zhao, F. Qin, Z. Huang, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 8 (2018) 276–288. doi: 10.1039/c7cy02301d

  97. [97]

      E.H. Lee, I.H. Kwak, H. Kim, et al., J. Mater. Chem. A 13 (2025) 5056–5067. doi: 10.1039/d4ta07764d

  98. [98]

      F.L. Zhao, C. Wang, D. Wang, et al., Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 649 (2023) 118946. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2022.118946

  99. [99]

      H. Dang, L. Li, H. Sun, et al., J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 680 (2025) 699–711. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2024.11.096

  100. [100]

       C. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C. Sui, et al., ChemCatChem 8 (2016) 2155–2164. doi: 10.1002/cctc.201600231

  101. [101]

       H. Liu, S. Cheng, J. Chen, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 59 (2025) 22927–22939. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c07320

  102. [102]

       X. Hu, Y. Wang, R. Wu, et al., Mol. Catal. 509 (2021) 111656.

  103. [103]

       R. Wu, Q. Wang, R. Wang, et al., ChemCatChem 17 (2024) e202401659.

  104. [104]

       J.J. Torrez-Herrera, S.A. Korili, A. Gil, Catal. Rev. 64 (2020) 592-630.

  105. [105]

       M. Santiago, J. Pérez-Ramírez, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (2007) 1704–1709. doi: 10.1021/es061894b

  106. [106]

       Y. Zhang, X. Wang, Y. Zhu, et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 118 (2014) 1999–2010. doi: 10.1021/jp410207d

  107. [107]

       Y. Zhu, X. Wang, G. Wu, et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 116 (2011) 671–680. doi: 10.1049/mnl.2011.0265

  108. [108]

       R. Li, Y. Li, Z. Liu, Fuel 355 (2024) 129405. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129405

  109. [109]

       B.M. Abu-Zied, S.A. Soliman, S.E. Abdellah, Chin. J. Catal. 35 (2014) 1105–1112. doi: 10.1016/S1872-2067(14)60058-9

  110. [110]

       H. Prajitno, J. Kim, M.H. Jeong, et al., Fuel 371 (2024) 132053. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.132053

  111. [111]

       R. Amrousse, T. Katsumi, Catal. Commun. 26 (2012) 194–198. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2012.05.024

  112. [112]

       M. Jabłońska, R. Palkovits, Catal. Sci. Technol. 9 (2019) 2057–2077. doi: 10.1039/c8cy02458h

  113. [113]

       J. Simböck, M. Ghiasi, S. Schönebaum, et al., Nat. Commun. 11 (2020) 652. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14305-0

  114. [114]

       R.H. Blackmore, M.E. Rivas, G.F. Tierney, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22 (2020) 18774–18787. doi: 10.1039/d0cp00793e

  115. [115]

       N. Richards, J.H. Carter, L.A. Parker, et al., ACS Catal. 10 (2020) 5430–5442. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.0c00698

  116. [116]

       P. Bělina, G. Sádovská, V. Krejčíková, et al., J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 138 (2019) 4197–4202. doi: 10.1007/s10973-019-08596-9

  117. [117]

       X. Gao, Y. Li, J. Chen, et al., Mol. Catal. 510 (2021) 111713.

  118. [118]

       A.G. Margellou, T.C. Vaimakis, P.J. Pomonis, et al., React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. 127 (2019) 825–838. doi: 10.1007/s11144-019-01608-7

  119. [119]

       P. Zheng, F. He, Y. Wu, et al., ChemistrySelect 9 (2024) e202304026. doi: 10.1002/slct.202304026

  120. [120]

       S. Kumar, A. Vinu, J. Subrt, et al., Catal. Today 198 (2012) 125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.06.015

  121. [121]

       K.L. Pan, S.J. Yu, S.Y. Yan, et al., J. Air Waste Manage. 64 (2014) 1260–1269. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2014.941513

  122. [122]

       L.A. Isupova, Y.A. Ivanova, I.P. Prosvirin, et al., Kinet. Catal. 66 (2025) 297–311. doi: 10.1134/s0023158425600191

  123. [123]

       L.A. Isupova, Y.A. Ivanova, I.P. Prosvirin, et al., Dalton Trans. 53 (2024) 15273–15283. doi: 10.1039/D4DT01897D

  124. [124]

       C. Huang, Y. Zhu, X. Wang, et al., J. Catal. 347 (2017) 9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2016.12.020

  125. [125]

       A. Serrano-Lotina, E. Mastronardo, J.M. Coronado, Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 689 (2025) 120026. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2024.120026

  126. [126]

       H. Arandiyan, S.S. Mofarah, C.C. Sorrell, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 50 (2021) 10116–10211. doi: 10.1039/d0cs00639d

  127. [127]

       N. Richards, L.A. Parker, J.H. Carter, et al., Catal. Lett. 152 (2021) 213–226.

  128. [128]

       P. Zemlianskii, D. Morozov, G. Kapustin, et al., Colloid. Surf. A 698 (2024) 134546. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.134546

  129. [129]

       D.V. Ivanov, L.G. Pinaeva, L.A. Isupova, et al., Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 457 (2013) 42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2013.03.007

  130. [130]

       A. Li, P. Wang, L. Zhang, et al., Fuel 378 (2024) 132888. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.132888

  131. [131]

       D. Pietrogiacomi, M.C. Campa, L.R. Carbone, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 240 (2019) 19–29. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.08.046

  132. [132]

       X. Zhang, Q. Shen, C. He, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 226 (2013) 95–104. doi: 10.3901/JME.2013.03.095

  133. [133]

       B. Chen, N. Liu, X. Liu, et al., Catal. Today 175 (2011) 245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2011.04.010

  134. [134]

       M.L. Bols, B.E.R. Snyder, H.M. Rhoda, et al., Nat. Catal. 4 (2021) 332–340. doi: 10.1038/s41929-021-00602-4

  135. [135]

       B. Kang, R. Zhang, M. Guo, et al., Energ. Fuel 37 (2023) 18019–18029. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.3c01958

  136. [136]

       A.A. Gainanova, G.M. Kuz'micheva, L.V. Pirutko, et al., J. Mater. Res. 38 (2022) 532–546.

  137. [137]

       G. He, B. Zhang, H. He, et al., Sci. Total Environ. 673 (2019) 266–271. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.481

  138. [138]

       B. Louis, F. Ocampo, H.S. Yun, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 161 (2010) 397–402. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2009.09.041

  139. [139]

       M. Wu, H. Wang, L. Zhong, et al., Chin. J. Catal. 37 (2016) 898–907. doi: 10.1016/S1872-2067(15)61052-X

  140. [140]

       X. Liang, H. Tang, F. Yang, et al., Micropor. Mesopor. Mat. 290 (2019) 109655. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2019.109655

  141. [141]

       K. Jíša, J. Nováková, M. Schwarze, et al., J. Catal. 262 (2009) 27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2008.11.025

  142. [142]

       E. Tabor, G. Sádovská, M. Bernauer, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 240 (2019) 358–366. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.11.014

  143. [143]

       S. Li, J. Wang, R. Su, et al., Mol. Catal. 552 (2024) 113706.

  144. [144]

       S.A. Yashnik, A.V. Salnikov, N.T. Vasenin, et al., Catal. Today 197 (2012) 214–227. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.08.033

  145. [145]

       J.B. Lim, S.H. Cha, S.B. Hong, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 243 (2019) 750–759. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.10.068

  146. [146]

       D.C. Cano-Blanco, J.W.A. Fischer, F. Buttignol, et al., ACS Catal. 15 (2025) 15579–15595. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.5c01616

  147. [147]

       T. Zhang, Y. Qiu, G. Liu, et al., J. Catal. 392 (2020) 322–335. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2020.10.015

  148. [148]

       F. Lin, T. Andana, Y. Wu, et al., J. Catal. 401 (2021) 70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2021.07.012

  149. [149]

       S. Xie, D. Kim, K. Ye, et al., J. Rare Earth. 41 (2023) 941–951. doi: 10.1016/j.jre.2023.01.006

  150. [150]

       K. Liu, Y. Tang, Z. Yu, et al., Sci. China Mater. 63 (2020) 949–958. doi: 10.1007/s40843-020-1267-2

  151. [151]

       H. Liu, S. Yang, G. Wang, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 56 (2022) 16325–16335. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06677

  152. [152]

       X. Liu, L. Sheng, Mater. Today Commun. 28 (2021) 102585. doi: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102585

  153. [153]

       W. Qu, C. Wang, P. Wang, et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 636 (2023) 157792. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.157792

  154. [154]

       X. Hu, Y. Wang, R. Wu, et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 538 (2021) 148157. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.148157

  155. [155]

       Y. Yin, R. Xiao, L. Qiu, et al., Fuel 366 (2024) 131303. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.131303

  156. [156]

       B. Li, X. Duan, T. Zhao, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 58 (2024) 2153–2161. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c09741

  157. [157]

       Y. Li, F. Tang, D. Wang, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 11 (2021) 3737–3745. doi: 10.1039/d1cy00137j

  158. [158]

       Y. Xiong, Y. Zhao, W. Shan, et al., Chemosphere 303 (2022) 135257. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135257

  159. [159]

       X. Hu, J. Meng, L. Feng, et al., Catal. Lett. 154 (2024) 4367–4377. doi: 10.1007/s10562-024-04669-z

  160. [160]

       Y. Zhang, Q. Dong, J. Zhang, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 15 (2025) 3848–3858. doi: 10.1039/d5cy00381d

  161. [161]

       P. Zemlianskii, D. Morozov, G. Kapustin, et al., Ceram. Int. 50 (2024) 34081–34090. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.06.227

  162. [162]

       A. Li, P. Wang, T. Yan, et al., Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 164 (2025) 110394. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110394

  163. [163]

       H. Yang, D. Cheng, Q. Zhang, et al., J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 13 (2025) 117715. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2025.117715

  164. [164]

       A. Makova, O. Tkachenko, G. Kapustin, et al., Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 51 (2026) 1391–1400. doi: 10.1007/s13369-025-10033-z

  165. [165]

       L.Y. Wu, C. Chen, L. Luo, et al., ChemistrySelect 5 (2020) 5391–5399. doi: 10.1002/slct.202000752

  166. [166]

       H. Francisco, V. Bertin, J.R. Soto, et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 120 (2016) 23648–23659. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b08172

  167. [167]

       M. Zabilskiy, P. Djinović, E. Tchernychova, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 197 (2016) 146–158. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.02.024

  168. [168]

       X. Wang, R. Duan, Z. Li, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 59 (2025) 5839–5847. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c00180

  169. [169]

       D.V. Ivanov, L.G. Pinaeva, E.M. Sadovskaya, et al., J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 412 (2016) 34–38. doi: 10.1016/j.molcata.2015.11.018

  170. [170]

       E. Kondratenko, V. Kondratenko, M. Santiago, et al., J. Catal. 256 (2008) 248–258. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2008.03.016

  171. [171]

       G. Li, E.A. Pidko, I.A.W. Filot, et al., J. Catal. 308 (2013) 386–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2013.08.010

  172. [172]

       K.M. Farhan, P.K. Sajith, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 64 (2025) 5257–5268. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04220

  173. [173]

       M.L. Tsai, R.G. Hadt, P. Vanelderen, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136 (2014) 3522–3529. doi: 10.1021/ja4113808

  174. [174]

       F. Buttignol, P. Biasi, A. Garbujo, ACS ES T Eng. 5 (2025) 2170–2180. doi: 10.1021/acsestengg.5c00384

  175. [175]

       G.D. Di Martino, G. Gallo, S. Mungiguerra, et al., Acta Astronaut. 180 (2021) 460–469. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9040460

  176. [176]

       M. Inger, M. Wilk, M. Saramok, et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53 (2014) 10335–10342. doi: 10.1021/ie5014579

  177. [177]

       K. Pacultová, K. Karásková, F. Kovanda, et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55 (2016) 7076–7084. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b01206

  178. [178]

       G. Sádovská, E. Tabor, M. Bernauer, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 8 (2018) 2841–2852. doi: 10.1039/c8cy00383a

• 

  Figure 1  N₂O emission sources and hazards.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 2  Catalysts for the direct catalytic decomposition of N₂O.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 3  (a) TEM images and models of fresh and aged Ir/γ-Al₂O₃ and Ir/ACZ. Reproduced with permission [40]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (b) Normalized turnover frequency at 250 ℃ for defect-rich CeO₂ with different morphologies. Reproduced with permission [44]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (c) HAADF−STEM and EDX mapping images, and (d) the catalytic activity of Rh(1)/ZrO₂ and Rh(1)−Ir(1)/ZrO₂ for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [47]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 4  (a) SEM images and (b) N₂O conversions of Co₃O₄ with different morphologies. Reproduced with permission [53]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (c) Hydroxyl group facilitated mechanism for N₂O decomposition activity on the Co₃O₄ surface and (d) normalized reaction rates of Co₃O₄ and Co₃O₄-OH. Reproduced with permission [59]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 5  (a) The density of states functions of the Cs−O−Co band and (b) catalytic performance of N₂O decomposition for 4Cs/Co₃O₄ and 4Cs-Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [67]. Copyright 2023, American Chemical Society. (c) N₂O catalytic decomposition performance and (d) Arrhenius plots of N₂O conversion over Cs supporting on different metal oxides. Reproduced with permission [66]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (e) Integral area of O₂-TPD profiles and (f) N₂O decomposition activity of Ba_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Sr_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Ca_0.5Co_2.5O₄, Mg_0.5Co_2.5O₄, and Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [70]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 6  (a) Reaction pathways and (b) catalytic performance for N₂O decomposition over Co_xCe_y binary oxide catalysts. Reproduced with permission [77]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (c) N₂O decomposition performance as a function of the reaction temperature and (d) electron transfer pathway in N₂O decomposition for Co₃O₄ and Sm_0.1-Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [82]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (e) N₂O conversion over Dy_0.01Co, K_0.01Co, K_yDy_0.01Co (y = 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03) and K_0.01Dy_0.07Co catalysts at 400 ℃ changed with time on stream. Reproduced with permission [89]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 7  (a) Catalytic de-N₂O activity of ZnCo₂O₄ spinel catalysts. Reproduced with permission [110]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (b) N₂O decomposition rates as a function of t_2g or e_g orbital occupancy in 0.37 kPa O₂ [Fill colors represent the substituent cation in LaCoO₃ (no substituent: black fill): Ni (green), Zn (blue), increasing Al fraction (dark to light red). Lines represent least squares fits of the full set or subset of data] and (c) orbital interactions and the respective kinetically relevant step (KRS) for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [113]. Copyright 2020, Nature Publishing Group.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 8  (a) N₂O conversion of Fe-based zeolites with different topological structures and (b) pathway of N₂O decomposition over Fe-ZSM-5. Reproduced with permission [130]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (c) N₂O conversion for Co/zeolites with different topological structures. Reproduced with permission [135]. Copyright 2023, American Chemical Society. (d) Proposed reaction pathway of the N₂O activation and decomposition on the Fe-SSZ-13 catalyst on two adjacent Fe_6MR sites. Reproduced with permission [146]. Copyright 2025, American Chemical Society. (e) Reaction site mechanism and (f) rate of N₂O decomposition on Fe-, Co-, Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts. Reproduced with permission [148]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 9  (a) N₂O decomposition activity and (b) reaction rates normalized by S_BET on Co₃O₄ and Pr-doped Co₃O₄ samples. Reproduced with permission [151]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (c) Relationship between the content of Co²⁺ and the specific activity or the energy of activation for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [155]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (d) Catalytic activity of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO for N₂O decomposition, (e) H₂-TPR, (f) O₂-TPD of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO, and (g) Stability test of Co₃O₄ and Co-HEO at 360 ℃. Reproduced with permission [156]. Copyright 2024, American Chemical Society.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 10  Representative reaction mechanisms of N₂O decomposition.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 11  (a) Main mechanism of catalytic N₂O decomposition on Rh_NC/CeO₂-d. Reproduced with permission [44]. Copyright 2025, Elsevier. (b) Key roles of CuO and Co₃O₄ in the Cu_xCo_y catalysts for N₂O decomposition. Reproduced with permission [91]. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. (c) Proposed mechanism of N₂O decomposition over CuO/CeO₂ catalyst. Reproduced with permission [167]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (d) Different reaction mechanism for δ-MnO₂/Co_3-xMn_xO₄ and pristine Co₃O₄. Reproduced with permission [93]. Copyright 2025, John Wiley & Sons. (e) Calculated energy profile and (f) intermediate structures for N₂O decomposition on Fe–2O–Fe/SSZ-13. Red, gray-purple, and blue balls represent O, Fe, and N atoms, respectively. Reproduced with permission [147]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片

  Table 1.  Performance comparison of different types of N₂O decomposition catalysts.

  Catalyst category	Catalysts	Synthesis method	Reaction conditions	Catalytic performance	Publish year	Ref.
  Noble metal catalysts	Pd/Al2O3	Wet impregnation method	1% N2O, He balance, 76,690 h−1	T50: 300 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2020	[30]
  	Rh/Mg/Al/FeCr alloy foams	Electrodeposition method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 6800 h−1	T50: 320 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2020	[31]
  	RhOx/ZrO2	Impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, 10% O2, 2% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2022	[37]
  	Pt-K/SiO2	Wet impregnation method	2000 ppm N2O, He balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 560 ℃	2022	[48]
  	Ir/LFA,	Impregnation method	30 vol% N2O, Ar balance, 100 mL/min, 60,000 cm−3 g−1 h−1	T50: 284 ℃	2023	[43]
  	Ir/LMA			T50: 341 ℃
  	RhOx/Ag/Al2O3	Impregnation method	0.1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 254 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2023	[45]
  	Rh/CeO2	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 260 ℃; T90: 295 ℃	2024	[34]
  	Rh(1)–Pd(1)/ZrO2	Impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 307 ℃; T90: 353 ℃	2024	[46]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 400 ℃; T90: 450 ℃
  	RhNC/CeO2-d	Defects-assisted adsorption method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 120,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 238 ℃	2025	[44]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 120,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 253 ℃
  	Rh(1)/CeO2-S	Incipient wetness impregnation method and steam-treatment	0.3% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 275 ℃	2025	[38]
  			0.3% N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 425 ℃
  	Rh(1)−Ir(1)/ZrO2	Impregnation method	0.1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 296 ℃	2025	[47]
  			0.1% N2O, 10% O2, 5% CO2, 1% H2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 385 ℃
  Single-metal oxides	Co3O4 (nanocube)	Hydrothermal method	30% N2O, He balance, 34,000 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T100: 500 ℃	2021	[53]
  	Co3O4 (Yardang Landform structure)	Sol-gel method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 300 ℃; T100: 400 ℃	2023	[54]
  	Co3O4	PVA-assisted precipitation method	500 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 400,000 h−1	T50: 425 ℃	2024	[57]
  	Co3O4	Hydrothermal method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T100: 450 ℃	2024	[59]
  	Co3O4	Precipitation method and etching	2000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 304 ℃; T90: 353 ℃	2025	[50]
  	NiO	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 366 ℃; T90: 419 ℃	2023	[98]
  	CuO	Citric acid method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 455 ℃	2023	[90]
  Composite oxides	CoCe0.1	Hydrothermal method	2000 ppm N2O, 2% O2, He balance, 38,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 420 ℃	2020	[78]
  	Co3O4/m-ZrO2	Incipient wetness impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 375 ℃	2020	[94]
  	Co3O4/CaCO3 (CaCo2.5)	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, 2% O2, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2020	[95]
  Composite oxides	Mg0.5Co(H-120)	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 240 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2021	[157]
  	Ba0.5Co2.5O4	Hydrothermal method	0.65% N2O, 0.88% O2, N2 balance, 55,000 h−1	T90: 460 ℃	2021	[70]
  	Bi0.1NiO1.15	Coprecipitation method	220 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 45,000 h−1	T50: 328 ℃; T90: 385 ℃	2021	[75]
  	Sm0.1-Co3O4	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 322 ℃; T90: 375 ℃	2021	[82]
  	Gd0.06Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 260 ℃; T90: 325 ℃	2021	[83]
  	CeCoAl	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 80 mL/min	T50: 300 ℃	2021	[87]
  	N-Co3O4−0.05	g-C3N4-modified citrate sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 320 ℃; T90: 360 ℃	2021	[102]
  	Cs/Co	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 225 ℃; T90: 250 ℃	2022	[66]
  	K0.025Gd0.06Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 225 ℃; T90: 275 ℃	2022	[158]
  			2000 ppm N2O, 5 vol% O2, 100 ppm NO, 2 vol% H2O Ar balance, 50 mL/min	T50: 310 ℃; T90: 345 ℃
  	Na-Co3O4	Hydrothermal method	0.65 vol% N2O, 0.88 vol% O2, N2 balance, 55,000 h−1	T50: 420 ℃	2023	[62]
  	4Cs/Co3O4	Wet impregnation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 272 ℃; T90: 349 ℃	2023	[67]
  	Ba0.2Cu	Citric acid method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T100: 450 ℃	2023	[90]
  	Cd0.04Ni	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 319 ℃; T90: 369 ℃	2023	[98]
  	Cs0.1-Co3O4	Citric acid complexation method	200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T50: 230 ℃; T100: 300 ℃	2024	[68]
  	PrxNi	Coprecipitation method	800 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100: 400−440 ℃	2024	[84]
  	Bi0.015Co	Improved sol-gel method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T100: 350 ℃	2024	[74]
  	N-Co3O4	g-C3N4-modifed thermal decomposition method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 270 ℃; T90: 350 ℃	2024	[159]
  			1000 ppm N2O, 3 vol% O2, 3.3 vol% H2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 450 ℃
  	F-Co3O4	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T50: 305 ℃; T90: 350 ℃	2024	[103]
  	Cs-Co3O4	Coprecipitation method	200 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T90: 297 ℃	2025	[69]
  			200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, N2 balance, 90,000 h−1	T90: 281 ℃
  	Cu0.15CoOy	Coprecipitation method	500 ppm N2O, 5% O2, Ar balance, 120,000 h−1	T100: 425 ℃	2025	[160]
  	δ-MnO2/Co3-xMnxO4	Permanganate etching strategy	2000 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 350 ℃; T90: 400 ℃	2025	[93]
  	Co0.1-OMS-2	Sol-gel method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T90: 398 ℃	2025	[99]
  	K0.02Dy0.01Co	Coprecipitation method	2000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 h−1	T90: 242 ℃	2025	[89]
  	Co2.4Zn0.6O4/CeO2	Citric acid-assisted impregnation method	2000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, Ar balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T90: 442 ℃	2025	[101]
  	Eu0.04Ni	Coprecipitation method	800 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 325 ℃; T90: 357 ℃	2025	[85]
  			800 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 200 ppm NO, N2 balance, 60,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100: 440 ℃
  	Cu(10)/γ-Al2O3	Spray coating followed by quick drying	1% N2O, N2 balance, 1800 h−1	T50: 410 ℃; T90: 450 ℃	2025	[97]
  			5000 ppm N2O, 7.5% H2O, air balance, 1800 h−1	T50: 500 ℃; T90: 575 ℃
  Spinel-structured composite oxides	ZnCo2O4	Co-precipitation method	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 178 ℃; T100: 250 ℃	2024	[110]
  	CuFe2O4	Hydrothermal method with microwave treatment	100% N2O, 3000 h−1	T50: 540 ℃; T100: 625 ℃	2024	[161]
  	1K-Zn0.4Co2.6O4	Incipient wetness impregnation method	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 60,000 h−1	T100: 200 ℃	2024	[64]
  			500 ppm N2O, 3 vol% O2, 6 vol% H2O, 50 ppm SO2, N2 balance, 60,000 h−1	T50: 275 ℃; T100: 350 ℃
  Perovskite oxides	LaMnO3	Sol-gel method	0.5% N2O, 18,000 h−1	T50: 490 ℃; T90: 520 ℃	2020	[114]
  	PrBaCoO3	Supercritical anti-solvent precipitation method	1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 410 ℃	2020	[115]
  		Citric acid preparation		T50: 445 ℃
  	LaSr0.5CoFe0.1O5.8	Citric acid preparation	1% N2O, He balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 448 ℃	2022	[127]
  	LaCo0.8Fe0.2O3	Sol-gel method	0.1 vol% N2O, 5 vol% NO, 6 vol% O2, 15 vol% H2O, He balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 564 ℃	2024	[119]
  	LaFe0.4Ni0.6O3	Pechini method	0.15% N2O, 3% О2, 3% Н2О, He balance, 1000 mL/min	T50: 870 ℃	2024	[123]
  	LaCoO3/ZrO2-La	Impregnation method	90% N2O, 10% H2O, 18,000 h−1	T50: 472 ℃; T90: 505 ℃	2024	[128]
  	LaCoO3	Pechini method	0.15% N2O, 3% О2, 3% Н2О, He balance, 1000 mL/min	T50: 785 ℃; T90: 890 ℃	2025	[122]
  	CaMn0.7Fe0.3O3-δ	Pechini method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 50,330 h−1	T50: 718 ℃	2025	[125]
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Fe1/SAPO-34 Fe1/SSZ-13	Solid-state ion exchange method	500 ppm N2O, 5% H2O, Ar balance, 400,000 h−1	T50 > 500 ℃; T90 > 600 ℃	2020	[147]
  	FeHZSM-5	Hydrothermal method followed by ion exchange	100% N2O, 30,000 mL g−1 h−1	T100 ≥ 520 ℃	2022	[136]
  	Co/Beta	Ion exchange method	30 vol% N2O, He balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 355 ℃; T90: 395 ℃	2023	[135]
  	Fe-ZSM-5/Fe-SSZ-13/Fe-Beta	Wet impregnation method	200 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T50: 330 ℃/467 ℃/430 ℃	2024	[130]
  	10Co/HZSM-5	Citric acid-complexion impregnation method	0.65% N2O, 0.88% O2, Ar balance, 12,000 mL g−1 h−1	T90: 430 ℃	2024	[143]
  	Fe-SSZ-13	One-pot hydrothermal synthesis	500 ppm N2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 374 ℃	2025	[146]
  		Incipient wetness impregnation followed by thermal treatment		T50: 435 ℃
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Fe–ZSM-5	Aqueous impregnation method	200 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 100 ppm NO, N2 balance, 80,000 h−1	T50: 440 ℃; T100: 570 ℃	2025	[162]
  	Fe-MFI/Fe-MOR/Fe-FER/Fe-MRE	Mixed-alkali treatment and wet ion exchange	200 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 15,000 h−1	T50: 320 ℃/387 ℃/420 ℃/500 ℃	2025	[163]
  	5%Fe-FER	Incipient wetness impregnation method	100% N2O, 3000 h−1	T100: 460 ℃	2025	[164]
  Emerging catalysts	Pt1/MgAl1.2Fe0.8O4	Colloid deposition method	1000 ppm N2O, Ar balance, 20,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 520 ℃; T90: 600 ℃	2020	[150]
  	Co3O4/g-CN	Impregnation method	0.1 vol% N2O, Ar balance, 10,000 h−1	T100: 400 ℃	2021	[154]
  	Rh/CeO2	Incipient wetness impregnation method	0.02% N2O, 5% CO2, Ar balance, 100,000 mL g−1 h−1	T50: 365 ℃; T90: 450 ℃	2023	[149]
  	AgCo-g-CN	Impregnation method	500 ppm N2O, 3% O2, N2 balance, 30,000 h−1	T100: 400 ℃	2024	[155]
  	Co-HEO	Coprecipitation method	1000 ppm N2O, 5% O2, 800 ppm NO, 4.2% H2O, N2 balance, 100 mL/min	T50: 313 ℃; T90: 356 ℃	2024	[156]

  下载: 导出CSV

  Table 2.  Key mechanistic steps and regulation mechanisms for different N₂O decomposition catalysts.

  Catalyst category	Active site combination	N2O activation mode	O* desorption regulation mechanism	Rate-determining step
  Noble metal catalysts	Metal sites+support Ov	Metal-support electronic interaction weakens N−O bonds	Support Ov accepts O* to lower desorption energy	O* desorption from support Ov
  Transition metal oxide catalysts	Metal ions+Ov	Metal ions donate electrons; Ov adsorbs N2O	Redox cycles regenerate Ov	O* desorption from Ov
  Zeolite-based catalysts	Mono-/binuclear metal sites	Binuclear sites synergistically reduce activation energy of N−O dissociation	Zeolite pore confinement promotes O* recombination	O* desorption
  Emerging catalysts	Metal ions+Ov	Coordination environment and electronic structure reduce activation energy	Metal ions modulate Ov electron density	O* desorption

  下载: 导出CSV
•