“…This is not unreasonable, since electrocatalytic FF-to-FA and FF-to-MF conversions follow distinct pathways, unlike in thermocatalytic hydrogenolysis where FA is an intermediate to MF. , Regarding electrocatalytic FF-to-FA conversion (Figure b, left panel), it requires hydrogenation of the aldehyde group in FF mostly via a hydrogen atom transfer (HAT) process using adsorbed hydrogen atoms (H*), or a 2H + /2e – -involved proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) process . While for electrocatalytic FF-to-MF conversion (Figure b, right panel), it necessitates hydrogenolysis of the aldehyde group in FF predominantly via a 4H + /4e – -involved PCET process. , The reactivity of the HAT process is influenced by the H* coverage on the electrode surface, which is facilitated by a decrease of electrolyte’s pH (which corresponds to the higher concentration of hydronium ions) and also affected by catalyst’s activity [which determines the reduction reactivity of H + (or H 2 O) to H*]. , In contrast, a PCET process was reported to be proportional to the concentration of hydronium ions and thus is favorable in a strong acid solution. , Hence, FF-to-FA conversion via the HAT process is preferentially conducted in a nonacidic solution, in a way to suppress FF-to-MF conversion (that is, via the PCET process), while FF-to-MF conversion is prone to be performed in acidic solution. , …”