Tanmay Banerjee1, Frederik Haase1,2, Gökcen Savasci1,2, Kerstin Gottschling1,2, Christian Ochsenfeld2,3, Bettina V Lotsch1,2,3,4. 1. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research , Heisenbergstraße 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany. 2. Department of Chemistry, University of Munich (LMU) , Butenandtstraße 5-13, 81377 München, Germany. 3. Center for Nanoscience , Schellingstraße 4, 80799 München, Germany. 4. Nanosystems Initiative Munich (NIM) , Schellingstraße 4, 80799 München, Germany.
Abstract
We demonstrate photocatalytic hydrogen evolution using COF photosensitizers with molecular proton reduction catalysts for the first time. With azine-linked N2-COF photosensitizer, chloro(pyridine)cobaloxime co-catalyst, and TEOA donor, H2 evolution rate of 782 μmol h-1 g-1 and TON of 54.4 has been obtained in a water/acetonitrile mixture. PXRD, solid-state spectroscopy, EM analysis, and quantum-chemical calculations suggest an outer sphere electron transfer from the COF to the co-catalyst which subsequently follows a monometallic pathway of H2 generation from the CoIII-hydride and/or CoII-hydride species.
We demonstrate photocatalytic hydrogen evolution using COF photosensitizers with molecular proton reduction catalysts for the first time. With azine-linked N2-COF photosensitizer, chloro(pyridine)cobaloximeco-catalyst, and TEOAdonor, H2 evolution rate of 782 μmol h-1 g-1 and TON of 54.4 has been obtained in a water/acetonitrile mixture. PXRD, solid-state spectroscopy, EM analysis, and quantum-chemical calculations suggest an outer sphere electron transfer from the COF to the co-catalyst which subsequently follows a monometallic pathway of H2 generation from the CoIII-hydride and/or CoII-hydride species.
With fossil fuel reserves
dwindling every day, there is an urgent
need for clean and sustainable alternative energy sources. Artificial
photosynthesis, the conversion of solar energy into energy stored
in the bonds of “solar fuels” like hydrogen, could be
one of the most viable and nonintermittent solution in this regard.[1,2] Development of efficient photocatalytic systems for hydrogen evolution
via photoinduced water splitting is thus a very active field of energy
research. In this context, covalent organic frameworks (COFs) have
recently emerged as a new class of photoactive materials for light-induced
hydrogen evolution.[3] Similar to related
polymeric carbon nitrides, but even more so, COFs are modular, versatile,
and adaptive as they are characterized by an easy tunability of (opto)electronic
properties, structure, crystallinity, and porosity.[4,5] In
addition, COFs are solely composed of light elements and thus have
enormous prospects as earth-abundant and synthetically versatile platforms
for modular, heterogeneous photocatalysis.[2−6] The π-electron conjugation in-plane together
with the possibility of axial charge transport in the stacking direction
by the overlap of π-orbitals can result in high charge carrier
mobilities, thus making COFs promising supramolecular architectures
for efficient light harvesting and charge transport.[7,8] Already, even with the very limited number of reports of H2 evolution with COFs, hydrogen evolution rates as high as 1700 μmol
h–1 g–1 have been achieved.[9−12] However, in all such studies platinum has been used as the co-catalyst
to reduce the overpotential of H2 generation. Despite the
excellent activity of metallic platinum, it is rare and expensive
and should thus be replaced by earth-abundant, non-precious-metal-based
co-catalysts in the long run.[13−15] The combination of a COF as the
molecularly defined photoabsorber with an earth-abundant molecular
co-catalyst could provide a highly tunable, single-site heterogeneous
photocatalytic platform which is fully accessible to the toolbox of
organic synthesis. It would thus be an important stepping stone toward
sustainable and inexpensive photocatalytic systems. However, development
of such a system is challenging because of the limited photostability
of molecular co-catalysts and generally slow multielectron diffusion-controlled
proton reduction processes which need to be coupled efficiently to
the light-harvesting and charge-percolation processes on the COF.We report here, for the first time, light-induced proton reduction
catalysis with COFs using cobaloximes as noble-metal-free molecular
co-catalysts (Scheme ). Efficient hydrogen evolution is seen with an azine-linked COF
(N2) and a chloro(pyridine)cobaloximeco-catalyst (Co-1) in the presence of triethanolamine (TEOA) as a sacrificial electron
donor in a water/acetonitrile mixture under AM 1.5 illumination. The
methodology can also be extended to other azine- and hydrazone-based
COFs and other cobaloximes as co-catalysts. The results lead way to
the development of efficient and robust, noble-metal-free, single-site
heterogenized systems for artificial photosynthesis that offer a precise
control over the nature, density, and arrangement of the photocatalytically
active sites.
Scheme 1
Structures of N2-COF and the Cobaloxime Co-Catalysts
Used in This
Study
Schematic representation of
photocatalytic H2 evolution with N2-COF and Co-1 is shown on the left.
Structures of N2-COF and the Cobaloxime Co-Catalysts
Used in This
Study
Schematic representation of
photocatalytic H2 evolution with N2-COF and Co-1 is shown on the left.
Results and Discussion
Photocatalysis
The azine-based Nx-COFs
were chosen as the photoabsorber, owing to their robustness and efficient
hydrogen evolution activity with metallic platinum.[9] All our primary investigations have been carried out with
N2-COF (Scheme ) because
of a relatively easier synthesis protocol as compared to that of the
most active member of the series, N3-COF.Of the different transition
metal based co-catalysts reported for proton transfer catalysis, cobaltcomplexes with dimethylglyoxime ligands, also known as cobaloximes,
are among the most efficient. They feature low overpotentials for
H2 generation, easy synthesis, and oxygen tolerance, and
can be easily incorporated covalently into natural and artificial
photocatalytic systems.[14−16] Cobaloximes have been used as
earth abundant molecular H2 evolution co-catalysts, e.g.,
with MOF[17] and carbon nitride photosensitizers.[18,19] We thus chose the complex chloro(pyridine)cobaloxime(III) (Co-1, Scheme ) for our studies.In a typical photocatalytic experiment,
5 mg of N2-COF was dispersed
in 10 mL of 4:1 ACN/H2O solvent together with 100 μL
of TEOA (0.075 M final concentration) as the sacrificial electron
donor and 400 μL of a 2.48 mM solution of Co-1 in
acetonitrile (0.1 mM final concentration). When irradiated with 100
mW/cm2 AM 1.5 radiation, the resulting mixture produces
hydrogen actively at a rate of 160 μmol g–1 h–1 over a period of 7 h (Figure a) with a peak hydrogen as high as 701 μ
mol g–1 corresponding to a turnover number (TON)
of 3.54 (based on Co-1), after which the activity of
the system levels off. An induction period of about 1.5 h is however
seen at the onset, which possibly corresponds to the photogeneration
of CoII and then finally CoI and CoIII–H and/or CoII–H species from the initial
CoIII for H2 evolution to occur (vide
infra).[13−16,20−22] In control
experiments without either the COF or TEOA, no H2 evolution
was observed in a period of 3 h. The control experiment without Co-1 produced only 5 μmol g–1 H2 in 3 h. This implies that all the aforementioned three components
are necessary for the photocatalytic system to work and that there
is a charge transfer in the ensemble. The negative Gibbs free energy
of the photoinduced electron transfer reaction (Table ), from either the conduction band of N2-COF
or the reduced radical anion species to either CoIII or
to CoII calculated according to the Weller equation,[23,24] suggests that electron transfer is thermodynamically feasible.
Figure 1
(a) H2 evolution using N2-COF and Co-1 (see
text for details) as well as N2-COF and metallic platinum (5 μL
of 8 wt % H2PtCl6 solution in water) in the
presence of TEOA, when irradiated with 100 mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light. Control experiments in absence of either of the three
components, with all other conditions being the same, show no H2 evolution in 3 h. (b) H2 evolution using optimized
parameters, 5 mg of N2-COF dispersed in 10 mL of 4:1 ACN/H2O solvent together with 100 μL of TEOA, 400 μL of a 2.48
mM solution of Co-1 in ACN, and 4.69 mM dmgH2 at a final pH of 8. The reaction mixture is illuminated with 100
mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light.
Table 1
Gibbs Free Energy of formation of
CoII and CoI by Oxidative and Reductive Electron
Transfer Pathwaysa
ECBN2,V (NHE) in vacuum
E(N2•–), V (NHE) in vacuum
E(CoIII/CoII), V (NHE) in ACN
E(CoII/CoI), V (NHE) in ACN
ΔG1°,
eVb
ΔG2°,
eVb
ΔG3°, eVb
ΔG4°,
eVb
–1.52
–2.31
–0.43
–0.88
–1.09
–0.64
–1.88
–1.43
The N2-COF energy levels are
the calculated values for a model hexagon with hydrazone termination.[9]E(CoIII/CoII) and E(CoII/CoI) potential
values have been obtained from ref (25).
Calculations are as follows: , , , .
(a) H2 evolution using N2-COF and Co-1 (see
text for details) as well as N2-COF and metallic platinum (5 μL
of 8 wt % H2PtCl6 solution in water) in the
presence of TEOA, when irradiated with 100 mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light. Control experiments in absence of either of the three
components, with all other conditions being the same, show no H2 evolution in 3 h. (b) H2 evolution using optimized
parameters, 5 mg of N2-COF dispersed in 10 mL of 4:1 ACN/H2O solvent together with 100 μL of TEOA, 400 μL of a 2.48
mM solution of Co-1 in ACN, and 4.69 mM dmgH2 at a final pH of 8. The reaction mixture is illuminated with 100
mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light.The N2-COF energy levels are
the calculated values for a model hexagon with hydrazone termination.[9]E(CoIII/CoII) and E(CoII/CoI) potential
values have been obtained from ref (25).Calculations are as follows: , , , .After photocatalysis, the COF sample was then fully characterized
to check for any decomposition. The framework structure and crystallinity
is fully retained after photocatalysis, as seen in the PXRD pattern
of the post photocatalysis N2-COF sample (Figure S1). FTIR and ssNMR spectra (Figures and S2) again
remain unchanged, demonstrating that molecular connectivity and hence
the structure of the COF remains intact after photocatalysis. SEM
images evidence that the rod-like morphology of N2-COF is unchanged
(Figure S3), and TEM images confirm retention
of the hexagonally ordered crystalline domains after photocatalysis
(Figure S4). Also, no trace of cobalt oxide
or metallic cobalt was seen on the surface of the COF.
Figure 3
(a) 13C CPMAS NMR spectra of N2-COF under different
conditions. No change in chemical shift in the COF signals is seen.
Please see Figure S12 for peak assignments.
(b) ATR-IR spectra of N2-COF under different conditions. Again, no
shift in the frequencies of the bands is seen.
We then
tried to find the optimum working conditions for the hybrid
photocatalytic system. Solvent variation was found to have a profound
influence on H2 production.[26] Different solvents have different coordination abilities for binding
to cobalt; they have different polarities and dielectric constants
which differently stabilize the reduction intermediates. Also, the
solvent dependence of the CoII/CoI redox potential,
and/or the reduction of the CoIII and/or CoII-hydride intermediate greatly affects the driving force for the H2 generation reaction. While in DMF/H2O 4:1, H2 evolution is seen at a rate of 22.6 μmol g–1 h–1; most efficient H2 evolution is
seen with ACN/H2O 4:1 (160 μmol g–1 h–1) (Figure S5). H2 evolves at a rate of only 4.75 μmol g–1 h–1 in a THF/H2O 4:1 system. The ratio
of ACN to H2O in the solvent was found to have an influence
on the H2 evolution efficiency as well and the rate of
hydrogen production increases when the ratio is increased from 2:3
to 3:2 and to finally 4:1 where it reaches a maximum (Figure S6). The induction period also seems to
be somewhat shortened when using a higher ACNcontent.As seen
commonly for many H2 production systems, the
pH of the reaction mixture was also found to have a profound influence
on H2 evolution efficiency.[20] The amount of H2 generated from the photochemical reaction
is maximum at around pH 8. Significantly less H2 evolution
is seen at lower pH values because TEOA is either protonated or else
due to inhibition of proton loss from TEOA+.[20] Likewise, very little H2 evolution
is seen at pH 12 (Figure S7) because of
the reduced thermodynamic driving force and because of protonation
of the cobalt catalyst becoming greatly unfavorable.Next, we
varied the sacrificial donor. Triethylamine (TEA) as the
electron donor led to significantly reduced hydrogen generation (17
μmol g–1 h–1) as compared
to TEOA (160 μmol g–1 h–1; Figure S8). Interestingly, a TEOAconcentration
as low as 0.075 M led to the most efficient H2 production
in our system. When [TEOA] was increased to 0.375 M, H2 evolution was reduced (110 μmol g–1 h–1), most likely as a result of an increase in pH.Cobaloximecomplexes are unstable because of the labile dimethylglyoxime
ligands which undergo exchange with free dimethylglyoxime in solution.[14,15,27] We thus added 8 equiv of dmgH2 to the photocatalytic reaction mixture when absolutely no
further H2 evolution was seen with the initially added Co-1. H2 evolution duly renewed and continued for
an additional 9 h at the rate 170 μmol g–1 h–1 in comparison to H2 evolution for
only 6 h with a slightly lower rate of 150 μmol g–1 h–1 before dmgH2 addition (Figure S9). The improvement in the efficiency
of H2 production with dimethylglyoxime led us to explore
its use as the sacrificial electron donor, replacing TEOA, for long-term
hydrogen evolution. With 0.05 M dimethylglyoxime (this is the limit
of solubility of dmgH2 in 4:1 ACN/H2O solvent),
H2 however evolves at an extremely poor rate of 0.63 μmol
g–1 h–1 for 24 h after an initial
induction period of about 3 h (Figure S10).Crystallinity and porosity of the COF also seem to have
an effect
on the efficiency of H2 evolution. Poorly crystalline samples
(with typically lower porosity) led to poorer H2 generation.
This is most likely because of a smaller extension of the π-system
in the less crystalline sample and/or stacking faults which could
impede lateral and/or vertical charge carrier transport in the COF
photosensitizer and likely also the interfacial charge transfer from
the COF to the cobaloxime. We would also expect a less porous COF
sample to impede accessibility to Co-1 and thus limit
effective transfer of charges.With all the above variables
optimized, a H2 evolution
rate of 782 μmol g–1 h–1 is achieved corresponding to a TON of 54.4 at 20 h (Figure b) and an initial TOF of 3.96
h–1. The amount of H2 evolved thus makes
this system competitive with carbon nitride based benchmark photocatalytic
systems such as Pt-modified amorphous melon (720 μmol g–1 h–1),[28] g–C3N4 (840 μmol g–1 h–1),[29] or crystalline
poly(triazine imide) (864 μmol g–1 h–1).[28] The TONs obtained are comparable
to that obtained for a homogeneous photocatalytic system comprising
of a Pt-terpyridyl acetylide chromophore and Co-1 co-catalyst
in MeOH/H2O 3:2 (TON of 56).[26] Even higher TONs may be attained in our system by adding dmgH2 periodically because, as shown above, the COF photosensitizer
is quite stable under photocatalytic conditions. In fact, our previous
report shows it to be stable for more than 120 h under photocatalytic
conditions.[9] The apparent quantum efficiency
(AQE) in the present system was estimated to be 0.027% under AM 1.5
illumination. Under 400 nm irradiation, the AQE is estimated to be
as high as 0.16%. To put this into perspective, the AQE of the photocatalytic
reaction of the Ni bis(diphosphine) catalyst, NiP, in combination
with the heptazinecarbon nitride polymer melon in water is (0.04
± 0.01) % using 460 nm irradiation.[30]In order to further optimize the hydrogen evolution efficiency
of N2-COF with cobaloximes, we tried to circumvent the instability
of the dimethylglyoxime ligands. Indeed, a higher H2 evolution
rate (414 μmol g–1 h–1)
and a higher TON of 9.79 are obtained with the more stable BF2-annulated complex Co-2 as compared to that with Co-1 (160 μmol g–1 h–1, TON 3.54) under the same conditions (Figure a and Table S1).[24] However, cobaloximeCo-3, despite the stable tetradentate diimine-dioxime ligand, produces
very little hydrogen (20 μmol g–1 in 6 h).[25] The low activity could arise from the difficulty
of Co-3 to undergo protonation at the oxime moieties
since they are linked covalently to the boron atom. This makes adjustment
of the redox potentials to the acido-basic conditions of the reaction
mixture difficult and thus probably disfavors proton reduction in
this system.[31] As compared to Co-2, which is also a BF2-annulated complex, H2 evolution with Co-3 is further hindered because of
the single diimine dioxime ligand, whose other diimine end cannot
be protonated. Interestingly, the H2 evolution efficiency
of N2-COF with Co-1 (160 μmol g–1 h–1) is higher as compared to that in the presence
of colloidal platinum (52 μmol g–1 h–1) (Figure a, the
mol % of platinum being the same as Co-1). As seen from
our previous report, photocatalytic hydrogen evolution with N2-COF
in the presence of platinum takes place with much higher efficiency
in water (438 μmol g–1 h–1).[9] The lower H2 evolution
efficiency of N2-COF in this report is thus probably a reflection
of the choice of solvent (4:1 ACN/H2O, instead of pure
water). TEM images of the post photocatalysis (with Pt in 4:1 ACN/H2O) N2-COF sample shows a distribution of ∼2 nm nanoparticles
on the surface of the COF (Figure S11).
Such distributions were however seen only in some areas. In comparison,
well-distributed, though larger, nanoparticle clusters of 10–15
nm size were seen when the reaction was done in water where a significantly
higher H2 evolution was observed. Thus, while smaller nanoparticles
indeed form in 4:1 ACN/H2O and should make H2 evolution more efficient because of a higher availability of surface
Pt atoms, the overall poorer distribution and/or poorer photodeposition
of Pt nanoparticles in this solvent probably reverses the trend in
H2 evolution reaction. The energetics of the charge transfer
processes involved, in 4:1 ACN/H2O vs H2O, might
also vary and could also contribute to the lower H2 evolution
efficiency in the former solvent. A comparison between the activities
of N2-COF with Co-1 and with platinum in 4:1 ACN/H2O is thus difficult.[32]Co-1 is insoluble in pure water, whereas Co-2 is soluble.
However, no hydrogen evolution is seen with N2-COF in the presence
of Co-2 in water.
Figure 2
(a) H2 evolution with N2-COF
and different co-catalysts.
The co-catalyst concentration is 0.1 mM in all measurements. All other
conditions are the same including a pH of 10. (b) H2 evolution
with different COFs at pH 8. 5 mg COF sample has been used in all
the measurements. All other conditions are the same. Rates are 233,
390, 163, and 100 μmol g–1 h–1 for COF-42, N2, N3 and N1 COFs, respectively. TON for the reaction
with N2-COF is 10.89 at 6.5 h.
(a) H2 evolution with N2-COF
and different co-catalysts.
The co-catalyst concentration is 0.1 mM in all measurements. All other
conditions are the same including a pH of 10. (b) H2 evolution
with different COFs at pH 8. 5 mg COF sample has been used in all
the measurements. All other conditions are the same. Rates are 233,
390, 163, and 100 μmol g–1 h–1 for COF-42, N2, N3 and N1 COFs, respectively. TON for the reaction
with N2-COF is 10.89 at 6.5 h.We also measured the activity of other COFs which are known
to
produce H2 photocatalytically with metallic platinum, namely,
the azine-linked COFs N1 and N3, and the hydrazone linked COF-42 (Figure b, Schemes S1 and S2 and Table S2). With COFs N1 and N3, nonoptimized
TONs of 2.03 and 5.65 could be obtained at pH 8 with Co-1 co-catalyst, respectively, while a TON of 5.79 was obtained with
COF-42 under similar conditions. The reaction methodology can thus
be extended to different types of COFs producing H2 under
photocatalytic conditions.Interestingly, the H2 evolution
rate of N3-COF (163
μmol g–1 h–1) is lower than
that of N2-COF (390 μmol g–1 h–1) with Co-1 at pH 8 in 4:1 ACN/H2O. This
is contrary to our previously reported results with Ptco-catalyst
in water where N3-COF was seen to be 4 times as active as N2-COF (1703
vs 438 μmol g–1 h–1, respectively).[9] However, the H2 evolution rate of
N3-COF (175 μmol g–1 h–1) with metallic Pt in 4:1 ACN/H2O is still about 3.5 times
higher than that of N2-COF (52 μmol g–1 h–1) with Pt under the same conditions (Table S3). Therefore, the charge transfer processes between
the COF and Co-1 seem to dictate the lower reaction rate
of N3-COF with Co-1 as compared to N2-COF.
Outer versus
Inner Sphere Electron Transfer
Cobaloximes,
as discussed before, are known to be quite labile complexes, more
so under photocatalytic conditions. The dimethylgloxime ligands as
well as the axial pyridine ligands exchange readily and this limits
the long-term usability of such catalysts.[27] This ligand exchange could have far reaching implications in the
present photocatalytic system in terms of what the actual proton reduction
catalyst is or what way the electron is actually transferred from
the COF photosensitizer to the cobalt center. The lability of the
dimethylglyoxime ligands might lead to the formation of an entirely
different H2 evolution catalyst, with the primary coordination
sphere of cobalt being occupied by N atoms of the azine linkers (the
N atoms of the pyrimidine nodes might be too sterically hindered to
interact). However, this seems unlikely looking at the importance
of the dimethylglyoxime ligands in keeping the catalyst active for
proton reduction.[13−15,26,27] A quite possible alternative could be axial coordination of a N
atom of the azine linker to the cobalt center after the labile pyridine
is lost. This would mean that the COF backbone forms a part of the
coordination sphere of the co-catalyst and electrons are transferred
from the COF photosensitizer to the catalyst in an inner sphere mechanism.[33]In order to probe any interaction between
N2-COF and Co-1, we recorded 13C cross-polarization
magic angle spinning (CPMAS) NMR spectra of N2-COF post photocatalysis
and found it absolutely identical to pristine N2-COF including the
signal for the azinecarbon at 162 ppm (Figures a and S12), thus suggesting no chemical interaction
between the COF and Co-1. Neither peaks corresponding
to Co-1 could be seen, nor were effects due to the presence
of any paramagnetic cobalt species such as line broadening or loss
of signal intensity observed. No interactions could again be seen
in an illuminated and dried mixture of N2-COF and 8 or 35 wt % Co-1 in ACN. This time, while peaks corresponding to Co-1 are seen owing to higher amounts of Co-1 in the sample, the chemical shifts again remain unchanged. No interactions
were observed in the 1H MAS NMR spectra as well (Figure S2). ATR-IR spectra of the COF sample
before and after photocatalysis are again identical, including the
ν(C=N)stretch appearing at 1620 cm–1, as is the IR spectrum of an illuminated and dried mixture of N2-COF
and 8 wt % Co-1 in acetonitrile. In the latter sample,
the new features arising can easily be assigned to Co-1 and the spectrum is simply additive (Figure b). Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopic
analysis in TEM shows no trace of cobalt in the post-photocatalysis
sample (Figure S14). However, in the illuminated
and dried mixture of N2-COF and 8 wt % Co-1, cobalt and
chlorine can easily be detected (Figure S15). Also, the filtered, washed, and thus recovered N2-COF sample after
photocatalysis does not produce any H2 in the presence
of TEOA without Co-1, all other conditions being exactly
the same as before. These results combined prove beyond doubt that
(i) Co-1 rather than the photochemically decomposed metallic
cobalt is the catalytically active species and (ii) that it does not
chemically interact with N2-COF. Also, physisorption, if any, is weak
enough for Co-1 to be washed away very easily with standard
solvents.(a) 13C CPMAS NMR spectra of N2-COF under different
conditions. No change in chemical shift in the COF signals is seen.
Please see Figure S12 for peak assignments.
(b) ATR-IR spectra of N2-COF under different conditions. Again, no
shift in the frequencies of the bands is seen.Quantum-chemical calculations with Co-1 and
model
compounds further confirm this argument. Four different cobaloxime-COFcomposites were modeled in order to mimic possible binding sites of
the cobaltco-catalyst to the framework (Figure and Quantum-Chemical Calculations section).
Two different cobaloximes with pyridine and ACN as the axial N donor
ligands (Figures S16 and S17) were also
modeled in order to compare cobalt–axial nitrogen bond lengths
of these optimized compounds against the corresponding distances in
cobaloxime-COF models, in order to estimate their binding strength.
For cobaloxime-COF models, the shortest cobalt–nitrogen distance
obtained is 2.79 Å for the surface-diazenecobaloxime-COF
model (Table S5), which is still significantly
larger than the longest cobalt–axial nitrogen bond distance
of 1.96 Å observed among the modeled cobaloximes (Table S4). A distance-based approximation thus
suggests that cobalt tends to form more stable complexes with its
axial N donor ligands in the parent complexes, pyridine or ACN, than
with a N center on the COF framework. Interaction energies were also
calculated on PBE0-D3/def2-TZVP level of theory[34−39] using the FermiONs++ program package[40,41] and, as anticipated
from the analysis of cobalt–nitrogen distances, all four COF-cobaloxime
models, especially pore-diazene and pore-diazene-90°, were seen to be distinctly unfavored in comparison to the parent
complexes with either pyridine, ACN or H2O as the axial
ligands (Table S6). Combined experimental
and quantum-chemical investigations thus refute the possibility of
an inner sphere electron transfer from the COF to the co-catalyst
via covalent interactions and suggest possibly an outer sphere collisional
electron transfer mechanism.
Figure 4
Constrained optimized geometry of (a) pore-diazene, (b) pore-diazene-90°, (c) surface-diazene, and (d) surface-triazine cobaloxime-COF
models, obtained
on the PBE0-D3/def2-SVP level of theory using the Turbomole program
package.[34−39] The surface-diazene and triazine models are for possible interactions
on the surface of the COF microstructure. Other details of the calculations
can be found in the Supporting Information. The dashed pink lines show the shortest Co–N distance obtained
and are 4.197, 4.082, 2.792, and 3.00 Å, respectively, in panels
a–d.
Constrained optimized geometry of (a) pore-diazene, (b) pore-diazene-90°, (c) surface-diazene, and (d) surface-triazinecobaloxime-COF
models, obtained
on the PBE0-D3/def2-SVP level of theory using the Turbomole program
package.[34−39] The surface-diazene and triazine models are for possible interactions
on the surface of the COF microstructure. Other details of the calculations
can be found in the Supporting Information. The dashed pink lines show the shortest Co–N distance obtained
and are 4.197, 4.082, 2.792, and 3.00 Å, respectively, in panels
a–d.
Mechanism
A general
mechanism of proton reduction by
cobaltcomplexes involves stepwise reduction of the CoIIIcomplex to the resting state of the complex, CoII, then
to CoI which is then protonated to form a CoIII hydride intermediate.[14−16,20,22,27] A direct proton
coupled electron transfer step from CoII to H–CoIII has also been proposed.[21] Likewise,
in the present COF-cobaloxime photocatalytic system, CoII and the CoI intermediates can actually be identified
in the photolysis solutions owing to their unique spectroscopic signatures.Prior to irradiation of the reaction mixture containing COF-42
as the photosensitizer and Co-1 as the co-catalyst, cobalt
is only present in the +3 oxidation state and has no significant absorption
in the visible region. After irradiation for 2 h at pH 8, an absorption
band centered at 440 nm corresponding to CoII can be seen,
and the reaction mixture is visibly dark yellow (Figure a).[20,24,26,31,42,43] Measurements were impeded
by the use of N2-COF, since the COF particles took an extraordinarily
long time to settle down for us to be able to record an absorption
spectrum of the supernate. This problem could be avoided with COF-42.
We also recorded an X-band EPR spectrum of this photocatalytic reaction
mixture before and after illumination and could observe formation
of the one electron reduced paramagnetic CoII species with
Lorentzian line broadening corresponding to geff = 2.006 (Figure b) as has been reported previously.[17,18,44−46] Before illumination
there seems to be a weak signal at geff = 2.058 possibly corresponding to paramagnetic impurities in the
starting complex Co-1.[17,18] At low pH
the formation rate of CoI is itself very low. At high pH,
H2 production is supposed to be greatly decreased and photoaccumulation
of the CoI state should be possible.[20] Nevertheless, our efforts to spectroscopically monitor
the CoI state at pH 12 proved unsuccessful. However, a
4 h illumination of the reaction mixture at pH 10 with 5 equiv of
added P(n-Bu)3 led to an intense blue
color corresponding to an absorption band at 500–700 nm (Figure a). The blue color
which disappears immediately upon air exposure can have three possible
origins. It can be attributed to the phosphinecoordinated CoI species,[31,47] namely, [CoI(dmgH)2(P(n-Bu)3)]− or bridge protonated [CoI(dmgH)(dmgH2)(P(n-Bu)3)]. It could also be attributed to a solvent
stabilized charge-transfer state of [CoIIIH(dmgH)2(P(n-Bu)3)], i.e., the H–CoIII species,[47,48] as all of these have a similar
absorption spectrum. However, an initially formed photoreduced CoI species uncoordinated to P(n-Bu)3 or the CoII-hydride species can safely be ruled out.[20,21,24,26,31,42,43] P(n-Bu)3 is actually
reported to increase the efficiency in some hydrogen evolving photocatalytic
systems by stabilizing the aforesaid intermediate CoI state.[31,49]However, the fact that no hydrogen evolution is seen in our system
with added P(n-Bu)3 makes us believe that
it is the CoIII hydride [CoH(dmgH)2(P(n-Bu)3)], known to produce H2 only
on thermolysis at 150 °C,[50] which
is actually formed.
Figure 5
(a) Red trace: UV–vis spectra of the degassed photocatalytic
reaction dispersion containing 2.5 mg of COF-42, 50 μL of TEOA
and 200 μL of Co-1 (2.48 mM in ACN) in 5 mL 4:1
ACN/H2O mixture at pH 8 illuminated with 100 mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light. The reaction mixture was allowed to
stand for 1 h after illumination before a spectrum was recorded. Blue
trace: similar reaction conditions as before except at pH 10 of the
reaction mixture and 5 equiv of externally added P(n-Bu)3. The noise in the spectra is from the still suspended
COF particles. (b) X-band EPR spectrum at 4K of the photocatalytic
reaction dispersion containing COF-42 before and after illumination.
The microwave frequencies are 9.47614 GHz in both cases. The reaction
conditions are identical to those in Figure 5a. (c) H2 evolution
at 3 h after illumination under different [Co-1]. In
all measurements, 5 mg of N2-COF and 100 μL of TEOA in 10 mL
of 4:1 ACN/H2O has been used. The reaction pH is 8.
(a) Red trace: UV–vis spectra of the degassed photocatalytic
reaction dispersion containing 2.5 mg of COF-42, 50 μL of TEOA
and 200 μL of Co-1 (2.48 mM in ACN) in 5 mL 4:1
ACN/H2O mixture at pH 8 illuminated with 100 mW cm–2 AM 1.5 light. The reaction mixture was allowed to
stand for 1 h after illumination before a spectrum was recorded. Blue
trace: similar reaction conditions as before except at pH 10 of the
reaction mixture and 5 equiv of externally added P(n-Bu)3. The noise in the spectra is from the still suspended
COF particles. (b) X-band EPR spectrum at 4K of the photocatalytic
reaction dispersion containing COF-42 before and after illumination.
The microwave frequencies are 9.47614 GHz in both cases. The reaction
conditions are identical to those in Figure 5a. (c) H2 evolution
at 3 h after illumination under different [Co-1]. In
all measurements, 5 mg of N2-COF and 100 μL of TEOA in 10 mL
of 4:1 ACN/H2O has been used. The reaction pH is 8.The cobaltIII and/or
cobaltII hydride formed
in the reaction mixture can produce hydrogen by either a homolytic/bimetallic
pathway involving two cobalt centers or a kinetically distinguishable
heterolytic/monometallic pathway involving a single cobalt center.[14−16,26,51,52] In order to distinguish between these two
pathways for the present photocatalytic system, we studied the amount
of hydrogen evolved for different concentrations of Co-1, while keeping all other conditions the same. From Figure c it can be seen that H2 evolution after 3 h of photolysis exhibits a linear dependence
on [Co-1], thus supporting a single cobalt mechanism
for hydrogen generation (Scheme S4).[14,26,52]The other reversible cycle,
i.e., the photochemical COF cycle,
can proceed along either oxidative or reductive quenching of the COF
upon photoexcitation. Our previously published theoretical studies
on the Nx-COFs show that the formation of a radical
cation intermediate during the photocatalytic cycle is less likely
for these COFs for energetic reasons.[9] In
fact, a radical anionic state has been identified in an ongoing experimental
study. This speculation however does not undermine the importance
of a correct identification of the reaction pathway adopted in our
COF-cobaloxime photocatalytic system. Detailed transient absorption
measurements are underway in this regard and will be reported elsewhere.We also tried to explore the charge transfer pathways in our photocatalytic
system by photoluminescence measurements. Unfortunately, N2-COF is
scarcely emissive; thus, it was not possible to collect reproducible
emission spectra or quantum yields of the photolysis dispersions to
check whether Co-1 or TEOA quench emission. Measurements
were further impeded by simultaneous absorption of Co-1. Photoluminescence lifetimes recorded using time-correlated single-photon
counting method (TCSPC), however, show almost no change in the decay
of N2-COF in the presence of either TEOA, Co-1 or both
(Figure S23 and Table S8), which probably
suggests a different time scale of the electron transfer process from
TEOA and to Co-1 under these conditions.[53]
Conclusions and Outlook
Photocatalytic
hydrogen evolution with COF photosensitizers using
molecular, earth-abundant co-catalysts has been demonstrated with
large H2 evolution rates and good TONs, as exemplified
with the Nx-COF series and COF-42 with Co-1 and other cobaloximes. No external proton source is required for
H2 evolution. Metallic cobalt, which could possibly form
by photodecomposition of Co-1, could be ruled out as
the hydrogen evolving co-catalyst; Co-1 in solution thus
acts as the proton reduction catalyst transferring reducing equivalents
from the photosensitizer to the protons. Experimental results and
quantum-chemical calculations suggest an outer sphere electron transfer
from N2-COF to co-catalyst Co-1 and a monometallic, i.e.,
a single cobalt pathway was identified in the present system for H2 generation from the intermediate CoIII- and/or
CoII-hydride. Long-term stability needs to be further addressed
with other more stable and efficient H2 evolving co-catalysts
or by engineering the COF so as to prevent ligand dissociation.[17] A possible improvement of the H2 evolution
efficiency by optimizing the electron transfer process between the
COF and the co-catalyst by covalently linking the molecular co-catalyst
to the COF backbone also needs to be explored and is currently underway.To conclude, it is important to understand the implications of
the results presented in this article. The quest for earth abundant
molecular replacements of co-catalyst platinum for photocatalytic
H2 evolution using COF photosensitizers is a big challenge
because: (i) COFs that produce H2 photocatalytically are
themselves rare. A number of factors come into play such as crystallinity,
porosity, rigidity, and stability on the one hand and light harvesting,
charge separation/recombination, and charge transport on the other,
which have to be retained throughout the course of the photocatalytic
reaction. (ii) Electron transfer from the COF to the co-catalyst has
to be thermodynamically and kinetically favorable. There needs to
be an efficient coupling of single-photon electron events with the
multielectron redox reactions necessary for H2 evolution.
(iii) Molecular co-catalysts, unlike metallic platinum, possess limited
photostability and could have slow multielectron diffusion controlled
rates.The observation of photocatalytic H2 evolution
from
COFs with molecular cobaloxime based co-catalysts is thus the first
step in overcoming these challenges. The results presented herein
lead way to the development of efficient “COF-molecular co-catalyst”
based photocatalytic systems entirely free of noble metals which,
with the robustness and tunability of the COF backbone, enables a
precise control over the nature, the arrangement and the density of
photocatalytically active sites for optimal competence.[54] The results show that water splitting or CO2 reduction catalysts could be combined with COF-based light-harvesting
systems in a “leaf”-like architecture for stable generation
of solar fuels in future. While covalently linked COF-co-catalyst
architectures could be envisaged for better performance, our results
also show that design and optimization of the COF photosensitizer
and the co-catalyst as independent components is another worthwhile
avenue.
Authors: Christine A Caputo; Manuela A Gross; Vincent W Lau; Christine Cavazza; Bettina V Lotsch; Erwin Reisner Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Kerstin Gottschling; Gökcen Savasci; Hugo Vignolo-González; Sandra Schmidt; Philipp Mauker; Tanmay Banerjee; Petra Rovó; Christian Ochsenfeld; Bettina V Lotsch Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Christian B Meier; Rob Clowes; Enrico Berardo; Kim E Jelfs; Martijn A Zwijnenburg; Reiner Sebastian Sprick; Andrew I Cooper Journal: Chem Mater Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 9.811
Authors: Aoibhín A Cullen; Katharina Heintz; Laura O'Reilly; Conor Long; Andreas Heise; Robert Murphy; Joshua Karlsson; Elizabeth Gibson; Gregory M Greetham; Michael Towrie; Mary T Pryce Journal: Front Chem Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.221