| Literature DB >> 30464988 |
Xiaoping Chen1,2, Zhixiang Zhang1,2, Lina Chi2,3, Aathira Krishnadas Nair2, Wenfeng Shangguan1, Zheng Jiang2.
Abstract
Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting using solar energy has attracted great attention for generation of renewable hydrogen with less carbon footprint, while there are enormous challenges that still remain for improving solar energy water splitting efficiency, due to limited light harvesting, energy loss associated to fast recombination of photogenerated charge carriers, as well as electrode degradation. This overview focuses on the recent development about catalyst nanomaterials and nanostructures in different PEC water splitting systems. As photoanode, Au nanoparticle-decorated TiO2 nanowire electrodes exhibited enhanced photoactivity in both the UV and the visible regions due to surface plasmon resonance of Au and showed the largest photocurrent generation of up to 710 nm. Pt/CdS/CGSe electrodes were developed as photocathode. With the role of p-n heterojunction, the photoelectrode showed high stability and evolved hydrogen continuously for more than 10 days. Further, in the Z-scheme system (Bi2S3/TNA as photoanode and Pt/SiPVC as photocathode at the same time), a self-bias (open-circuit voltage V oc = 0.766 V) was formed between two photoelectrodes, which could facilitate photogenerated charge transfers and enhance the photoelectrochemical performance, and which might provide new hints for PEC water splitting. Meanwhile, the existing problems and prospective solutions have also been reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: Heterojuction; Hybrid systems; Nanostructures; Photoelectrochemical water splitting; Reaction system
Year: 2015 PMID: 30464988 PMCID: PMC6223929 DOI: 10.1007/s40820-015-0063-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomicro Lett ISSN: 2150-5551
Fig. 1The schematic setup of PEC water splitting system
Different photoelectrodes and their photoelectrochemical performance
| Photoelectrode | Photocurrent (mA cm−2) | Experimental condition | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2− | 1.0 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 1 M KOH(aq), 2500 W Xe lamp (100 mw cm−2), >420 nm | 35 |
| N-doped TiO2 nanotube arrays | 0.182 | 0 V versus calomel electrode, 0.01 M Na2SO4 (aq), 250 W halogen lamp, >400 nm | 36 |
| S-doped TiO2 nanotube arrays | 0.41 | 0.1 V versus SCE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 (aq), 50 W fiber optic illuninator, >400 nm | 37 |
| Au nanoparticle-decorated TiO2 nanowire electrodes | 1.49 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 1 M NaOH(aq), white-light illumination (100 mW cm−2) | 40 |
| Au decorated ZnO nanowire arrays | 1.5 | 1 V versus RHE, 0.5 M Na2SO4 (aq), 300 W Xe lamp (100 mW cm−2), >420 nm | 42 |
| CdTe/TiO2 | 0.44 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.6 M Na2S (aq), 300 W Xe arc lamp (6.0 W cm−2 >400 nm | 43 |
| CdS/TiO2 | 5.6 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.1 M Na2S (aq), 300 W Oriel solar simulator (100 mW cm−2) | 46 |
| Bi2WO6/TiO2 | 0.014 | 1 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.5 M Na2SO4 (aq), 300 W Xe lamp, >420 nm | 47 |
| CdS/TiO2/WO3 | 1.6 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.05 M Na2S (aq), 300 W Xe lamp, >495 nm | 50 |
| Hydrogen-treated TiO2 nanowire arrays | 1.97 | −0.6 V versus Ag/AgCl, 1 M NaOH(aq), 150 W Xe lamp (100 mW cm−2) | 52 |
| N-doped ZnO nanowire arrays | ~0.15 | 0.5 V versus NHE, 0.5 M NaClO4 (aq), white light source (100 mW cm−2) | 56 |
| WO3/BiVO4 | 0.8 | 0.5 V versus NHE, 0.5 M Na2SO4 (aq), chopped white light (100 mW cm−2) | 58 |
| FeOOH | 10 | 0.55 V versus RHE, 1 M Na2CO3 (aq), 150 W Xe arc lamp (100 mW cm−2), >400 nm | 60 |
| IrO2·nH2O/TaON | ~3.75 | 0.6 V versus Ag/AgCl,, 0.1 M Na2SO4 (aq), chopped visible light | 65 |
| IrO2-loaded Ta3N5 | 3.6 | 0.6 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.1 M Na2SO4 (aq), 300 W Xe lamp, >400 nm | 67 |
| TiO2 nanoarrays sensitized with CdS quantum dots | 3.98 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 1.0 M KOH (aq), 300 W Xe lamp (100 mW cm−2), >420 nm | 68 |
| Pt–In2S3/CuInS2 | −17.5 to −7.0 | 0 V versus RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 (aq), 300 W Xe lamp | 74 |
| Pt–CdS/CuGaSe2 | −3.2 | 0 V versus RHE, 0.05 M Na2HPO4(aq) + 0.05 M NaH2PO4(aq), 150 W Xe lamp | 18 |
| p–n Cu2O homojuction | −0.2 | 0 V versus NHE, 0.5 M Na2SO4 (aq), 500 W Xe lamp | 79 |
| Pt/ZnO, Al2O3, TiO2/Cu2O | −7.6 | 0 V versus RHE, 1 M Na2SO4 (aq), 500 W Xe lamp (100 mW cm−2), visible light | 80 |
| Photoanode: TiO2 | 0.2 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 1 M NaOH(aq), 500 W Xe lamp | 83 |
| Photocathode: CaFe2O4 | |||
| Photoanode: WO3 | 0.02 | 3 M H2SO4(aq), 250 W Oriel tungsten–halogen quartz lamp (200 mW cm−2) | 84 |
| Photocathode: GaInP2 | |||
| Photoanode: Bi2S3/TNA | 1.6 | 0 V versus Ag/AgCl, 0.25 M Na2S + 0.125 M Na2SO3, Xe lamp (100 mW cm−2), >400 nm | 19 |
| Photocathode: Pt/SiPVC |
Fig. 2Semiconductors coated on substrate as photoanode for PEC water splitting [15]
Fig. 3SEM images of titanium dioxide arrays [29, 34]
Fig. 4The overlapping in band gaps between two different photocatalysts and the electron-trap mechanism
Fig. 5Schematic interfacial electron transfer between TiO2 and Bi2WO6 [47]
Fig. 6The diagram of BiVO4/WO3 heterojunction and electron transport process [58]
Fig. 7FeOOH as photoanode for photoelectrochemical water splitting [60]
Fig. 8The scheme of the nanostructure of the CdS/TiO2 nanoarrays and charge-transfer mechanism [68]
Fig. 9Semiconductors coated on substrates as photocathode for PEC water splitting [15]
Fig. 10SEM image of a p–n Cu2O homojunction [78]
Fig. 11Schematic representation of the electrode structure of the surface-protected Cu2O electrode [80]
Fig. 12EDX mapping of CdS/CuGaSe2 sample with chemical bath deposition for 1 min [18]
Fig. 13n-type and p-type semiconductors coated on substrates as photoanode and photocathode, respectively, for PEC water splitting (Z-scheme) [15]
Fig. 14Reaction and band model in photovoltaic cell using p-type CaFe2O4 and n-type TiO2 semiconductor electrodes [83]
Fig. 15The energy-level diagram of the self-biasing PEC cell assembled with Bi2S3/TNA photoanode and Pt/SiPVC photocathode under short-circuit situation [19]