| Literature DB >> 32796612 |
Luyi Xu1, Yang Xiu1, Fangyuan Liu1, Yuwei Liang1, Shengjie Wang1.
Abstract
Rapid growth in the world's economy depends on a significant increase in energy consumption. As is known, most of the present energy supply comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. The overreliance on fossil energy brings serious environmental problems in addition to the scarcity of energy. One of the most concerning environmental problems is the large contribution to global warming because of the massive discharge of CO2 in the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, many efforts have been made to resolve such issues. Among them, the preparation of valuable fuels or chemicals from greenhouse gas (CO2) has attracted great attention because it has made a promising step toward simultaneously resolving the environment and energy problems. This article reviews the current progress in CO2 conversion via different strategies, including thermal catalysis, electrocatalysis, photocatalysis, and photoelectrocatalysis. Inspired by natural photosynthesis, light-capturing agents including macrocycles with conjugated structures similar to chlorophyll have attracted increasing attention. Using such macrocycles as photosensitizers, photocatalysis, photoelectrocatalysis, or coupling with enzymatic reactions were conducted to fulfill the conversion of CO2 with high efficiency and specificity. Recent progress in enzyme coupled to photocatalysis and enzyme coupled to photoelectrocatalysis were specially reviewed in this review. Additionally, the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of different conversion methods were also presented. We wish to provide certain constructive ideas for new investigators and deep insights into the research of CO2 conversion.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 conversion; biocatalysis; electrocatalysis; macrocycles; photocatalysis; photoelectrocatalysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32796612 PMCID: PMC7465062 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25163653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Scheme 1Schematic showing the strategies that are usually used in CO2 conversion.
Figure 1(a) Crystal structure of UiO-66; (b) TEM images of Cu⊂UiO-66 (single Cu NC inside UiO-66); (c) Cu NC⊂UiO-66 catalyst. Atom labeling scheme: Cu, brown; C, black; O, red; Zr, blue polyhedra. H atoms are omitted for clarity; (d) turnover frequencies (TOFs) of product formation over Cu⊂UiO-66 catalyst and Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst at various reaction temperatures [33].
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the indium–porphyrin framework for CO2 conversion with high CO selectivity [49].
Figure 3Immobilization of the catalyst–carbon composite on GC (M = Co or Fe-Cl). Inset: Chemical structure of CoTPP [75].
Figure 4Schematic illustration of the structures of M-PMOFs (M = Co, Fe, Ni, Zn). M-TCPP: tetrakis [4-carboxyphenyl]-porphyrin-M (M-TCPP) linkers [76].
Performance comparison of different photoelectrochemical CO2 reduction systems from recent literature.
| Photocathode a | Condition b | Efficiency c | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| p+-n-n+-Si/TiO2 + Cu/Ag | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M CsHCO3 | C2H4, 10–25%, −8 mA cm−2 at −0.4 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) for 20 days | [ |
| p-Si NWs + Sn | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M KHCO3 | HCOOH, 88%, 18.9 μmol h−1 cm−2, −0.875 V vs. RHE for 3 h | [ |
| CuO + Cu2O | 70 mW cm−2, 0.1 M NaHCO3 | CH3OH, 95%, 85 mM at −0.2 V vs. standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) after 1.5 h | [ |
| Si/GaN-NPhN4-Ru(CP | 100 mW cm−2, 0.05 M NaHCO3 | HCOOH, 35–64%, −1.1 mA cm−2 at −0.25 V vs. RHE for 20 h | [ |
| p-n+-Si + SnO2 NW | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M KHCO3 | HCOOH, 59.2%, −18 mA cm−2 at −0.4 V vs. RHE for 3 h | [ |
| Co3O4/CA + Ru(bpy)2dppz | 9 mW cm−2, 0.1 M NaHCO3 | HCOOH, 86%, 110 μmol h−1 cm−2 at −0.60 V vs. normal hydrogen electrode (NHE) for 8 h | [ |
| FTO/TiO2/Cu2O + Ru-BNAH | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M KCl | HCOOH, NA, 409.5 umol at −0.9 V vs. NHE after 8 h | [ |
| p-Si + Bi | 50 mW cm−2, 0.5 M KHCO3 | HCOOH, 70–95%, ~−4 mA cm−2 at −0.32 V vs. RHE for 7 h | [ |
| Fe2O3 NTs + Cu2O | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M KHCO3 | CH3OH, 93%, 6 h, 4.94 mmol L−1 cm−2 at −1.3Vvs. SCE for 6 h | [ |
| FTO/CuFeO2 + CuO | 100 mW cm−2, 0.1 M NaHCO3 | CH3COOH, 80%, 142 μM at −0.4 V vs. Ag/AgCl after 2 h | [ |
a The configuration is described as “semiconductor + cocatalyst”. b The reaction conditions for photoelectrochemical (PEC) measurements include the light intensity of solar simulator and the electrolyte. c The PEC efficiency parameters include the product, faradaic efficiency/photocurrent density/production rate or yield/stability at a certain working potential.
Figure 5Statistical graph of papers using enzymes as catalyst in CO2 conversion published during the past two decades.
Figure 6Biocatalytic transformation pathway of CO2 to CH3OH via stepwise reverse enzymatic catalysis by FDH, FaldDH, and ADH [106].
Figure 7Graphene-based photocatalyst catalyzed artificial photosynthesis of formic acid from CO2 under visible light [116].
Performance comparison of different coupled photocatalytic/enzymatic CO2 reduction systems.
| Photocatalyst | Enzyme | Cofactors | Efficiency a | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCG-IP | FateDH, FaldDH, ADH | NADH + [Cp*Rh(bpy)H2O]2+Rh + TEOA | CH3OH, 11.21 μM after 1 h | [ |
| CNA | FateDH, FaldDH, YADH | NADH + [Cp*Rh(bpy)H2O]2+Rh + TEOA | CH3OH, 0.21 mM min−1 | [ |
| H2TPPS | FDH, AldDH, ADH | MV2+ | CH3OH, 6.8 μM after 100 min | [ |
| C60 polymer film | FDH | NADH + TEOA | HCOOH, 239.46 μM after 2 h | [ |
| TiO2 | FDH | NADH | HCOOH, 1.634 mM after 4.5 h | [ |
| C3N4(TPE-C3N4) | MAF-7@FDH | NADH + Rh + TEOA | HCOOH, 16.75 mM after 9 h | [ |
| CCGCMAQSP | FateDH, FaldDH, ADH | NADH + [Cp*Rh(bpy)H2O]2+ Rh + TEOA | CH3OH, 110.55 μM after 2 h | [ |
| CdS QDs+PTi | ClFDH | NADH + Rh | HCOOH, 1500 μM h−1 | [ |
a The efficiency includes the products and rates.
Figure 8Schematic illustration of the biocatalytic PEC platform [131].
Figure 9Schematic representation of the semi-artificial photosynthetic tandem PEC cell coupling CO2 reduction to water oxidation. A blend of POs and PSII adsorbed on a dpp-sensitized photoanode (IO-TiO2|dpp|POs-PSII) is wired to an IO-TiO2|FDH cathode [140].
Performance comparison of different coupled photoelectrocatalytic/enzymatic CO2 reduction systems.
| Photoanode | Photocathode | Efficiency a | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co-Pi/Fe2O3 | ITO/FDH | HCOOH, 6.4 μM h−1 | [ |
| CoPi/BiVO4 | EC-PDA | HCOOH, FE: 99.18% | [ |
| Co-Pi/αoFe2O3 | BiFeO3-CcFDH/PcFaldDH/YADH | CH3OH, 220 μM h−1 | [ |
| FTO/IO-TiO2/dPP/POs-PSII | FTO/IO-TiO2/FDH | HCOOH, 0.185 μM cm–2 | [ |
| FTO/FeOOH/BiVO4 | FTO/3D TiN-ClFDH | HCOOH, 0.78 μM h−1, FE: 77.3% | [ |
| TK/TiO2 | FDH-CH3V(CH2)9COOH | HCOOH, 30.0 nM after 3 h | [ |
| Plain graphite rod | Pt-FDH | HCOOH, 15.49 μM mg Enzyme−1 min−1 | [ |
a The efficiency includes the product and rates.