| Literature DB >> 35424711 |
Muneeb Irshad1, Quar Tul Ain1, Muhammad Zaman1, Muhammad Zeeshan Aslam1, Naila Kousar1, Muhammad Asim1, Muhammad Rafique2, Khurram Siraj1, Asif Nadeem Tabish3, Muhammad Usman4, Masood Ul Hassan Farooq5, Mohammed Ali Assiri6, Muhammad Imran6.
Abstract
The massive use of non-renewable energy resources by humankind to fulfill their energy demands is causing severe environmental issues. Photocatalysis is considered one of the potential solutions for a clean and sustainable future because of its cleanliness, inexhaustibility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Significant efforts have been made to design highly proficient photocatalyst materials for various applications such as water pollutant degradation, water splitting, CO2 reduction, and nitrogen fixation. Perovskite photocatalyst materials are gained special attention due to their exceptional properties because of their flexibility in chemical composition, structure, bandgap, oxidation states, and valence states. The current review is focused on perovskite materials and their applications in photocatalysis. Special attention has been given to the structural, stoichiometric, and compositional flexibility of perovskite photocatalyst materials. The photocatalytic activity of perovskite materials in different photocatalysis applications is also discussed. Various mechanisms involved in photocatalysis application from wastewater treatment to hydrogen production are also provided. The key objective of this review is to encapsulate the role of perovskite materials in photocatalysis along with their fundamental properties to provide valuable insight for addressing future environmental challenges. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35424711 PMCID: PMC8982362 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra08185c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Perovskite structure.
Fig. 2Double perovskite structures.
Fig. 3Applications of perovskite materials.
Fig. 4Redox potential required for the various photocatalytic applications.[10]
Bandgap of some perovskite materials
| Material | Bandgap (eV) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| SrTiO3 | 3.20 |
|
| NaTaO3 | 4.0 |
|
| CaTiO3 | 3.62 |
|
| BiFeO3 | 2.40 |
|
| LaFeO3 | 2.00 |
|
| NaNbO3 | 3.48 |
|
| LaCoO3 | 2.1 |
|
| Bi2WO6 | 2.70 |
|
| La2Ti2O7 | 3.28 |
|
Fig. 5Effect of doping on the bandgap.
Fig. 6Charge transfer mechanisms (a–f) in two coupled semiconductors.
Fig. 7Schematic energy band structure and electron–hole pair separation in the p–n heterojunction.[126]
Fig. 8Schematic of the Schottky barrier.[126]
Fig. 9Strategies for tuning bandgap.
Fig. 10Energy levels of the semiconductor/electrolyte interface before (a and b) and after contact (c and d).[150]
Fig. 11Photocatalytic pollutant degradation.
Reported perovskite materials for photocatalytic pollutant degradation
| Material | Morphology | Bandgap (eV) | Pollutants/dyes | Light source | Degradation rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaTiO3 (ref. | Bare | ∼3 | MO | UV light | 54% after 60 minutes |
| CaTiO3–graphene[ | Composites | ∼3 | MO | UV light | 98% after 60 minutes |
| C doped SrTiO3 (ref. | Cubic particle, nanorod, nanotube | Less than 3.2 | MB, MO, RhB, phenol, and BPA | Visible light | 95% of MB, MO, RhB, and 70% of phenol and BPA after 3 hours irradiation |
| S–SrTiO3 (ref. | Powder | <3.2 | 2-Propanol | 500 W-Xenon lamp | After 60 min of irradiation, 80% of propanol is converted into acetone |
| Cu doped SrTiO3 (ref. | Nanoparticle | 2.96 | Methyl blue | Visible light | 66% within 120 minutes |
| Fe doped SrTiO3 (ref. | — | 2.6 | Tetracyclin TC | Visible light | 71.6% in 80 minutes |
| Mn-doped SrTiO3 (ref. | Nanocubes | 2.76 | Tetracyclin TC | Visible light | 66.7% in 60 minutes |
| N doped NaTaO3 (ref. | Cubic | 2.48 | MB, MO | UV-visible light | 95.1% in 60 minutes |
| Ag/AgGaO2 (ref. | Composite | MB | Visible light | 95% in 180 minutes | |
| LaFeO3 (ref. | Nanoparticle | 2.36 | MB | Visible light | 100% after 60 minutes |
| Z-scheme MoS2/CaTiO3 (ref. | Nanospheres | 3.23 | TC | Simulated solar light | 70% in 60 minutes |
| p–n type (30–60% Ag3PO4)/NaTaO3 (ref. | Crystalline | 2.32–3.78 | RhB | Visible light | 87% in 25 minutes |
| BiOI/KTaO3 p–n heterostructure[ | Composite | 1.76–2.23 | RhB and phenol | Visible light | 91% after three cycles |
| BiFeO3/BiVO4 (ref. | Nanocomposites | 2.23 | RhB | Visible light | 69% within 120 minutes |
| In2S3/NaTaO3 (ref. | Composite | 2.1–4.0 | TC | Stimulated solar irradiation | 53.2% for 20 wt% In2S3/NaTaO3 within 180 minutes |
| (10 wt%) LaFeO3/SnS2 (ref. | Composite Z-scheme heterojunction | 2.11 | TC | Visible light | 28.8% in 120 minutes |
| (1.7 wt%) Ag–KNbO3 (ref. | Nanowires | 2.2–3.35 | RhB | UV-visible | 95% with UV in 90 minutes and 65% with VIS in 120 minutes |
| 7% Ni-doped BiFeO3 (ref. | Nanoparticle | ∼2.28 | MB | Visible light | 92% within 60 minutes |
| LaNiO3 (ref. | — | 2.26 | MO | Visible light | 74.5% after 5 hours |
| (5 wt%)NiS/LaFeO3 (ref. | LFO nanoparticle NiS nanosheets (heterostructure) | 1.2–2.0 | MO | Simulated sunlight | 90.9% higher than pure LFO |
| NaTaO3/rGO (1.5%)[ | Composite | 3.87 | MB | 8 W UV lamp | 95% after 90 minutes |
| N-doped NaTaO3 (ref. | Cubic | Less than 3.94 | MO | Visible light | 95.21% after 14 hours |
| (50% wt) BiFeO3/V2O5 (ref. | Nanoplates | 2.05–2.19 | MB | Visible light | 96% after 120 minutes |
| BiFeO3/25% wt ZnFe2O4 (ref. | Nanocomposites | 2.2–1.96 | MB | Visible light | 96% after 30 minutes |
| Sm and Mn doped BiFeO3 | Nanoparticles | 1.45–2.08 | MB, MV | Visible light | 65%,64% after 2 hours |
| Carbon dots/BaZrO3 (ref. | Hybrid nano nanomaterial | 4.8 | MB | UV light | 90% after 60 minutes |
| Z-scheme LaCoO3/g-C3N4-60 wt% (ref. | Composites | 2.46 | Phenol | Visible light | 85% in 5 hours |
| CuS/Bi2WO6 (ref. | Composites | 1.76–2.69 | RhB | Visible light | 90.0% in 50 min |
| Bi2WO6 (ref. | — | 2.7–2.85 | EBT | Visible light | 74% in 180 min |
| Sm-doped Bi2WO6 (ref. | — | 2.4–2.5 | RhB | Visible light | 98.4% in 30 min |
| (0.3 : 1) Bi2WO6/ZnO[ | Flower-like composite | 2.6–3.2 | MB, TC | Visible light | 98.4% for MB in 120 min, 90% for TC in 120 min |
| Bi2MoO6 (ref. | Nano sheets | 2.6–2.9 | MB | Visible light | 90% of MB in 120 min |
| BiFeO3/Bi2Fe4O9 (ref. | Nanofibers | 1.96–2.15 | RhB | Visible light | 65% in 1.5 h |
| 2% Ag/Bi2WO6 (ref. | 3D hierarchical hybrid material | — | RhB, TC | Visible light | 100% in 50 min/90% in 70 min |
| CQD/Bi2WO6 (ref. | Composite | 2.6 | MO, BPA | Visible/IR light | (94.1%/18.3%) in 120/90 min, (99.5%/25.5%) in 60/90 |
| g-C3N4/Bi2WO6 (ref. | Nanosheets | 2.69 | Ibuprofen | Visible light | 96.1% in 60 min |
| Bi2WO6/RGO[ | Microsphere | 2.3–2.69 | Phenol, MO, RhB, SMM, SN | Sunlight | 65.5% in 480 min, 78.5% in 480 min, 99.5% in 480 min, 70.9% in 480 min, 57.6% in 480 min |
| La2NiO4/ZnO[ | Heterosystem | 1.87–3.1 | MO | Sunlight | 99.9% in 60 min |
| SnSe/LaNdZr2O7 (ref. | Composites | 1.69–3.34 | Foron blue | Visible light | 86.3% in 60 min |
| m-Bi2O4/Bi2O2CO3 (ref. | Composite | 1.53–2.0 | RhB | Visible light | 95.3% in 50 min |
Fig. 12Photocatalytic water splitting.
Perovskite materials for photocatalytic water splitting
| Material | Co-catalyst | Morphology | Amount of H2 and O2 evolved/AQE value | Bandgap (eV) | Reaction conditions | Light source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaTiO3–MoS2-RGO[ | None | Nanocomposite | 808.0 μmol g−1 h−1 5.4% at 365 nm | 3.42–3.60 | 25 vol% lactic acid | Sunlight |
| Defected CaTiO3 (ref. | None | Nanosheets | 2.29 mmol g−1 h−1 | 2.85 | For the synthesis of the defected sheet, the hydrogenation treatment for 5 hours and 50% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| Cu-doped CaTiO3 (ref. | None | Powder | 295.0 μmol g−1 h−1 | 3.40–3.9 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| Er-doped CaTiO3 (ref. | Pt | Nanocrystal | 461.25 μmol h−1 | 3.30 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp (320–390 nm) |
| CaTiO3/Pr3+–Y2SiO5/RGO[ | Pt | Composite | 0.19 μmol g−1 h−1/0.003% at 400 nm | — | None | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| CdSe/CaTiO[ | Pt | Nanocomposite | 3.01 mmol g−1 h−1 | 1.6–3.27 | Na2S and Na2SO3 | 300 W Xe lamp |
| CaTiO3 (ref. | Pt | — | 0.39 μmol min−1 | 3.4 | None | 300 W Xe lamp |
| AgCl/Ag/CaTiO3 (ref. | None | Nano sheets | 226.53 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | 10 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| SrTiO3 (ref. | Pt cluster | Powder | 23.0 μmol h−1/8.0% at 350 nm | 3.2 | None | 300 W Xe lamp |
| SrTiO3 : C, N[ | Pt | Nanocuboid | 68.0 μmol h−1 | 2.97 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| Cr, Ta codoped SrTiO3 (ref. | Pt | — | 122.6 μmol h−1/2.6% at 420 nm | 2.3 | 10 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| Pt@CdS/3DOM-SrTiO[ | Pt | Composite | 57.9 mmol g−1 h−1 | 2.4–3.2 | 10 vol% lactic acid | 300 W Xe lamp |
| CdS/Au/3DOM-SrTiO3 (ref. | None | Composite | 5.46 mmol g−1 h−1/42.2% at 420 nm | 2.4–3.2 | 0.1 M Na2SO3 and Na2S | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| CdSe/BaTiO3 (ref. | None | Nanocube composite | 53.4 μmol g−1 h−1 | 1.8–3.2 | 0.05 M Na2SO3 and Na2S | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| CdS/NiTiO3/CoS[ | None | Nanocomposite | 476.20 μmol h−1 | 2.1–2.4 | Lactic acid | Vis-NIR |
| TiO2/MgTiO3/C[ | Pt | Nanocomposite | 33.30 mmol g−1 h−1/1.46 mmol g−1 h−1 | — | 30 vol% methanol | Solar light/visible light |
| NaTaO3 (ref. | RuO2 | Powder | 430.0 μmol g−1 h−1 | 3.92–4.00 | None | 400 W Hg lamp |
| NaTaO3 microspheres microcubes[ | NiO | Microsphere | 0.26 μmol h−1/0.05 μmol h−1 | — | None | 8 W UV lamp, 254 nm |
| NaTaO3/RGO[ | None | Composite | 267.50 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | 0.05 M Na2SO3 and Na2S | 250 W Hg lamp |
| Ag–NaTaO3 (ref. | None | Nanocubes | 3.54 μmol g−1 h−1 | 3.0–4.7 | 25 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| C-doped KTaO3 (ref. | Pt | Nanocubes | 592.0 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| Ag–KTaO3 (ref. | None | — | 185.60 μmol g−1 h−1 | 2.9 | 25 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| Porphyrin-KTa(Zr)O3 (ref. | None | 53.7 μmol h−1/29.4 μmol h−1 | None | 300 W Xe lamp | ||
| LiTaO3 (ref. | None | Nanoparticles | 712.0 μmol h−1 | 4.6–4.7 | None | 250 W high-pressure Hg lamp |
| Nb-substituted AgTaO3 (ref. | Pt and Co–Pt | — | 1.68 μmol h−1 | — | None | Xe lamp |
| N-rGO/N–NaNbO3 (ref. | Pt | Nanocrystal | 2.34 mmol g−1 h−1/5.1% at 320 nm | 3.4–3.7 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| NaNbO3 wires[ | Pt | — | 26.6 μmol h−1 | — | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe arc lamp |
| C-doped KNbO3 (ref. | Pt | — | 211.0 μmol g−1 h−1 | 3.06 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| CdS/Ni/KNbO3 (ref. | None | Nanocomposite | 23.5 μmol h−1 | — | 50 vol% methanol | 500 W lamp |
| MoS2/C-doped KNbO3 (ref. | Pt | — | 1.30 mmol g−1 h−1 | — | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp |
| g-C3N4/SrTiO3 (ref. | Pt | Nanocomposite | 966.80 μmol g−1 h−1 | 2.68–3.16 | 10 vol% TEOA | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| KNbO3/g-C3N4 (ref. | Pt | Composite | 180.0 μmol g−1 h−1 | 2.7–3.06 | 20 vol% methanol | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| LaFeO3/g-C3N4 (ref. | NiS | Composite | 121.0 μmol g−1 h−1/2.01% at 420 nm | 2.0–2.6 | 10 vol% TEOA | 300 W Xe lamp ( |
| BiFeO3/Bi2Fe4O9 (12.3% Bi2Fe4O9)[ | None | Heterostructure nanofiber | 800 μmol g−1 H2 | 1.96–2.15 | A sacrificial layer of triethanolamine | — |
| Sr2CuWO[ | 1 wt% Pt for H2 production (water reduction) and 1 wt% CoO for O2 production (water oxidation) | Nanopowder | No H2 was produced, and the quantum efficiency of O2 produced was 0.034 | 2.07 | A sacrificial agent such as sodium sulfite for H2 production | Visible light ( |
| g-C3N4/Ba5Ta4O15 (33.47 wt% g-C3N4)[ | 1 wt% Pt | Nanosheets wrapped by g-C3N4 foil/nanosheets heterostructure | 60–70 μmol of H2 evolved in 5 hours | 2.8–4.3 | A sacrificial layer of oxalic acid | Visible light |
| Cs2AgBiBr6 (ref. | 2.5% RGO | Composite | 489 μmol g−1 H2 in 10 h | 2.77 | H2 evolution in saturated HBr aqueous solution | Visible light |
| Ba5Ta4O15 (ref. | Cr2O3/0.0125 wt% Rh | Nanoparticle | 465 μmol h−1 H2 and 228 μmol h−1 O2/100 μmol h−1 H2 | 4.5 | Ba5Ta4O15 prepared by the citrate method | Visible light |
| Zn2Ti3O8 (ref. | 5 wt% RuO2 | Nanorods | 4 μmol h−1 (0.1 gram) of H2 and 2 mmol h−1 (0.1 g) of O2 | 3.56 | Before the photocatalytic activity, the solution is deaerated by evacuation | 300 W Xe lamp |
| Ca2NiWO6 (ref. | None | Nanoparticle | 1.38 mmol g−1 h−1 O2 | 2.8 | Ca2NiWO6 is prepared by a solid-state reaction | Visible light |
| W-doped Sr2FeNbO6(Sr2FeNb1− | 0.2 wt% Pt | Nano particles | 1.1–33 μmol h−1 of H2 depending upon | 2.17 | The reaction is carried out in an aqueous methanol solution | Visible light |
| Cr–PbBi2Nb2O9 (ref. | 1 wt% of Pt | Layered perovskite system | 9.4 μmol h−1 of H2 and 671 μmol h−1 of O2 | 2.63–2.88 | — | Visible light |
| Bi2WO6 (ref. | None | Nanoparticle | 188.25 μmol g−1 h−1 of H2 | 3.1 | 1 : 1 of glycerol–water is used | Visible light |
| Cr | 1.0 wt% Pt | Nanopowder | 50–90 μmol h−1 of H2 produced | 2.2 | Methanol as hole scavenger | UV irradiation ( |
| Fe | 1.0 wt% Pt | Nanopowder | 32–45 μmol h−1 of H2 produced | 2.6 | Methanol as hole scavenger | UV-visible |
| Sr2NiWO6 (ref. | 1.0 wt% Pt | Nanoparticles | 420 μmol g−1 h−1 of O2/8.6 at 420 nm | 2.88 | AgNO3 and FeNO3 as sacrificial layer | Visible light |
| La2Ti2O7 (ref. | 1.0 wt% NiO | Nanoparticles | 400 μmol h−1 of H2 produced | < 3.0 | Photoreduction reaction was performed in an aqueous CH3OH solution | UV-visible |
| MA2CuCl2Br2 (ref. | 1.0% loading of CuO | Powder | 141 μmol of H2/gcal in 24 hours/144.11 μmol of O2 produced | — | Argon was introduced into the reactor to avoid the presence of oxygen and 1 mL of water was used as a reagent | Solar simulator |
| CsCa2Nb3O10 (ref. | None/0.05 wt% Rh | Nanosheets | 450–500 μmole of H2 in 2 hours/1700 μmole in 3 hours | 3.6 | Photoreduction reaction was performed in an aqueous CH3OH solution | UV light |
| KCa2Nb3O10 (ref. | None | Nanosheets | 550 μmol of H2 in 2 hours | 3.6 | CH3OH is used | UV light |
Fig. 13Photocatalytic CO2 reduction.
Fig. 14Photocatalytic reaction in presence of co-catalyst.
Perovskite materials for photocatalytic CO2 reduction
| Perovskite | Co-catalyst | Morphology | Band gap (eV) | Synthesis method/reaction condition | Product | Product concentration or conversion efficiency | Light source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NaTaO3 (ref. | 2 wt% CuO | Nanocubes | 4.1 | The hydrothermal method is used for catalyst synthesis. And co-catalyst is loaded | Methanol and acetone | 137.48 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | UV-visible |
| 335.93 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | |||||||
| KTaO3 (ref. | None | Nanoflakes | 3.6 | Perovskite material is prepared by solid-state reaction | CH4 | 19.35 ppm gcat−1 h−1 | UV-visible |
| NaNbO3 (ref. | 1.5 wt% Pt | Nanoparticles (cubic) | 3.29 | Photocatalytic activity is carried out in a gas-phase reactor | CH4 and H2 | 0.486 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | UV-visible |
| 127 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | |||||||
| BiFeO3–ZnO (ref. | None | Composites | 2.1–3.2 | Photocatalytic activity is carried out in a gas-phase | CH4 | The conversion efficiency of CO2 into CH4 is 21% | UV-visible |
| Au–SrTiO3 (ref. | 0.5 wt% Rh | Nanoparticles | — | Ru is loaded by the impregnation method, and at optimized conditions, 0.5 wt% of Au is used | CO, H2, and CH4 | 66.8 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | Visible light |
| 50.5 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | |||||||
| 2.8 μmol gcat−1 h−1 | |||||||
| Basalt fiber@perovskite PbTiO3 (ref. | None | Core–shell composites | 1.92 | The hydrothermal method is used for catalyst synthesis | CH4 | 290 μmol g−1 L−1 in 6 hours | UV light |
| BiFeO3/ZnS (ref. | None | Nanocomposites | 2.5 | The reaction is carried out in a gas phase reactor | CO, CH3OH | The conversion efficiency of CO2 into CO and CH3OH is 24 | UV-visible |
| g-C3N4/KNbO3 (ref. | None | Composites | 2.7–3.2 | KNbO3 is synthesized by hydrothermal, and g-C3N4 powder is deposited by using the sonication method | CH4 | 1.94 μmol g−1 h−1 | Visible light |
| N-doped LaFeO3 (ref. | None | Nanocomposites | 1.82 | — | CH4, CO, O2 | ∼110 μmol g−1 h−1 | Visible light |
| 150 μmol g−1 h−1 | |||||||
| 230 μmol g−1 h−1 | |||||||
| RuO2 on SrTiO3 (ref. | Ru 0.1–0.4 wt% | Nanoparticles | 2.7 | The reaction is carried out in a gas phase | Ethanol | 80 μmol g−1 h−1 | Simulated sunlight |
| BaCeO3 (ref. | Ag cocatalyst (0.3 wt%) | Nanoparticles | 3.2 | Pechini method is used to deposit the co-catalyst | CH4 | 0.55 μmol g−1 h−1 | UV light |
| BaZrO3 (ref. | 0.5 wt% Cu | Nanoparticles | 3.2 | The photocatalytic reaction is carried out in a cylindrical quartz cell | CH4 | 0.98 μmol g−1 h−1 | UV light |
| C-doped LaCoO3 (ref. | None | — | 2.16 | Pechini method is used to deposit the co-catalyst | HCOOH | A minimal amount of HCOH | UV-visible |
| LaNi | None | Nano particles | 1.42 | Sol–gel combustion method is used to prepare the catalyst | CH4–CH3OH | 678.57 μmol g−1, 20.83 μmol g−1 in 6 h | Visible light |
| H2SrTa2O7 (ref. | 0.5 wt% Ag | Layered perovskite structure | 3.75 | H2SrTa2O7 photocatalyst was prepared by PC and ion-exchange methods, and a photo deposition method was used to load Ag co-catalyst on HST | CO and H2 | 0.39 μmol g−1 h−1 of CO and 0.25 of H2 μmol g−1 h−1 | UV light ( |
|
| None | Nano-composites | 2.2–2.9 | CO2 is reduced to give CH4 experiment is conducted into gas phase reactor | CH4/CO | 18.32 μmol g−1 of CH4 and 320.19 μmol g−1 in 8 hours | Visible light |
| Bi2WO6 (ref. | None | Nano sheets | 2.7 | CO is reduced to give CH4 experiment is conducted into gas phase reactor | CH4 | 19 ppm g−1 h−1 of CH4 | Visible light |
| ALa4Ti4O15, A = Sr, Ca[ | Ag | Layered perovskite structure | 3.79–3.85 | Catalyst is loaded | CO/O2/H2 | 10 μmol h−1 of H2 and 16 μmol h−1 of O2, 22 μmol h−1 of CO | A 400 W high-pressure mercury lamp, an inner irradiation quartz cell |
| BaLa4Ti4O15 (ref. | 0.5–2% Ag | Layered perovskite structure | 3.9 | Catalyst is loaded | H2, O2, CO | 20–3.2 μmol h−1 of H2, 5.7–16 μmol h−1 of H2 and 5.00–22 μmol h−1 CO | A 400 W high-pressure mercury lamp, an inner irradiation quartz cell |
| Bi2WO6 (ref. | 0.5% wt PtO | Ultra-thin nanosheets | — | The PtO | CH4 | 108.8 ppm g−1 h−1 | 500 W Xe lamp as a light source |
| Bi4O5Br2 (ref. | None | Ultra-thin nanosheets/bulk | 2.64–3.05 | Ultra-thin sheets are prepared by precursor method | CO | 63.13 μmol g−1 of CO in 2 hours/27.56 μmol g−1 of CO in 2 hours | UV-visible light |
| A3Bi2I9 (Cs3Bi2I9)[ | None | Nanocrystals | 2.2 | Gas-phase reaction the photoreduction to carbon take place at the gas–solid interface, the reaction medium was CO2 and H2O vapors | CH4/CO | 14.9 μmol g−1 of methane and 77.6 μmol g−1 of CO | 32 W UV lamp ( |
| Cs2AgBiBr6 (ref. | None | Nanocrystals | 1.72 | Medium in which reaction is carried is ethyl acetate solvent | CH4/CO | 14.1 μmol g−1 of methane and 9.6 μmol g−1 of CO | 100 W Xe lamp |
Perovskite materials in photocatalytic nitrogen fixation
| Material | Band gap (eV) | NH3 concentration/generation rate | Light source | Reaction conditions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BaTiO3 (ref. | 3.2 | 0.09 mg h−1 L−1 | UV-visible | Water as the proton source in the process of photocatalysis |
| Defective La2TiO5 (R-LTO)[ | 4.07 | 158.13 μmol g−1 h−1 | Simulated sunlight | Defects at the surface of the LTO are introduced by NaBH4 reduction |
| CeO2–BiFeO3 (ref. | — | 117.77 μmol g−1 h−1 | UV-visible | Deionized water + nitrogen |
| LaCoO3 : Er3+/ATP[ | 2.88–3.45 | 71.51 μmol g−1 h−1 | Visible | Water + nitrogen and ethanol as a sacrificial layer |
| Ag/KNbO3 (0.5% Ag)[ | 3.13 | 385.0 μmol g−1 h−1 L−1 | Simulated sunlight | Ethanol as a sacrificial layer |
| NiS/KNbO3 (5% NiS)[ | 3.11 | 155.6 μmol g−1 h−1 L−1 | Simulated sunlight | Ethanol is used as a hole scavenger |
| TiO2/SrTiO3/g-C3N4 (ref. | 2.75–3.1 | 2192 μmol g−1 h−1 L−1 | Simulated sunlight | Methanol + nitrogen and ethanol as a sacrificial layer |
| CaTiO3 (ref. | 3.49 | 236.12 μmol g−1 h−1 | Natural sunlight irradiation | 3D leaf-templated defective CaTiO3 is prepared by using NaBH4 + nitrogen environment |
Fig. 15Schematic representation of a double perovskite structure (B), derived starting from a perovskite structure (A).[49]