基于过渡金属氧化物半导体上光电催化生产过氧化氢

doi:10.1016/S1872-2067(21)64028-7

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

作为一种有价值的化学品, 过氧化氢广泛应用于工业领域. 不仅如此, 过氧化氢还具有比氢气更高的能量密度及优于传统化石燃料的环保优势, 因此, 其作为太阳能储能介质的应用也吸引了越来越多研究者的关注. 传统蒽醌法生产过氧化氢存在需要贵金属催化剂、能耗大、碳排放高、过程繁琐、产物不纯、产生大量固液气废物等问题, 因此, 开发简便、环保、节能和安全的方法生产过氧化氢具有十分重要的意义. 光电催化法结合了光催化和电催化方法的优势, 可以有效提高能量转换效率并降低电能消耗, 是具有潜力的生产过氧化氢新方法. 同时, 过渡金属氧化物半导体是光电催化法生产过氧化氢最有希望的催化剂材料.

本综述简要介绍了光电催化法合成过氧化氢的基本原理, 概述了光电催化反应合成过氧化氢的两种不同路径(水分子氧化和氧气还原)、相应的中间产物以及制备过氧化氢的三个主要过程(光吸收、光生电荷分离和表面反应), 并总结了文献中各种测定过氧化氢浓度的方法. 归纳了用于光电催化法生产过氧化氢的过渡金属氧化物半导体光电催化剂的最新进展, 主要包括基于钒酸铋、二氧化钛、三氧化钨、氧化镍以及其他过渡金属氧化物的催化剂材料和反应体系, 从理论计算和实验测定两个角度揭示了过渡金属氧化物催化剂材料在过氧化氢生产中的巨大潜力, 总结了过渡金属氧化物的改性策略以进一步提高其活性和效率. 本文还介绍了光电催化生产过氧化氢燃料电池的研究进展, 展示了过氧化氢作为储存太阳能的可再生燃料的巨大潜力. 最后, 着重从催化剂光生电荷分离、活性位点、反应选择性、过氧化氢稳定性、电解质溶液和反应标准化测试六个方面讨论了光电催化法生产过氧化氢所面临的挑战和未来前景. 综上, 本文旨在为光电催化法生产可再生太阳能燃料过氧化氢提供启发.

关键词: 过氧化氢, 太阳燃料, 光电催化, 过渡金属氧化物半导体, 燃料电池

Abstract:

As a kind of valuable chemicals, hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) has aroused growing attention in many fields. However, H₂O₂ production via traditional anthraquinone process suffers from challenges of large energy consumption and heavy carbon footprint. Alternatively, photoelectrocatalytic (PEC) production of H₂O₂ has shown great promises to make H₂O₂ a renewable fuel to store solar energy. Transition-metal-oxide (TMO) semiconductor based photoelectrocatalysts are among the most promising candidates for PEC H₂O₂ production. In this work, the fundamentals of H₂O₂ synthesis through PEC process are briefly introduced, followed by the state-of-the-art of TMO semiconductor based photoelectrocatalysts for PEC production H₂O₂. Then, the progress on H₂O₂ fuel cells from on-site PEC production is presented. Furthermore, the challenges and future perspectives of PEC H₂O₂ production are discussed. This review aims to provide inspiration for the PEC production of H₂O₂ as a renewable solar fuel.

Key words: Hydrogen peroxide, Solar fuel, Photoelectrocatalysis, Transition-metal-oxide semiconductor, Fuel cell

卢海娇, 李显龙, Sabiha Akter Monny, 王志亮, 王连洲. 基于过渡金属氧化物半导体上光电催化生产过氧化氢[J]. 催化学报, 2022, 43(5): 1204-1215.

Haijiao Lu, Xianlong Li, Sabiha Akter Monny, Zhiliang Wang, Lianzhou Wang. Photoelectrocatalytic hydrogen peroxide production based on transition-metal-oxide semiconductors[J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2022, 43(5): 1204-1215.

×
扫码分享

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.cjcatal.com/CN/10.1016/S1872-2067(21)64028-7

https://www.cjcatal.com/CN/Y2022/V43/I5/1204

图/表 17

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of WOR (a) and ORR (b) pathways.

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of PEC systems for H2O2 production through water oxidation and oxygen reduction.

Fig. 4. Activity volcano plots. It is based on calculated limiting potentials (UL) as a function of calculated adsorption energies of OH* (ΔGOH*) for the 2-electron oxidation of water to hydrogen peroxide evolution (black) and the 4-electron oxidation to oxygen evolution (blue). The corresponding equilibrium potentials for each reaction have been shown in dashed lines. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [43]. Copyright 2017 The Authors, licensed under Creative Commons CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of different BiVO4 based PEC systems for H2O2 generation: (a) WO3/BiVO4/MeOx photoanode (b) Oxidative H2O2 generation on photoanodes (WO3/BiVO4/MeOx) at an electric charge of 0.9 C. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [52]. Copyright 2017, Royal Society of Chemistry, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Fig. 7. (a) Schematic illustration of modified BiVO4 photoanodes with phosphate on surface and Mo doping. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [37]. Copyright 2020, Royal Society of Chemistry. (b) Schematic illustration FeO(OH)/BiVO4 photocathode. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [20]. Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 8. Schematic illustration of the TiO2-based unbiased solar PEC system which integrated indirect photoreduction of O2 to H2O2 and photooxidation of H2S to S. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [61]. Copyright 2014, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 9. (a) Schematic illustration of the water oxidation reaction pathway for PEC H2O2 production on Co3O4/TiO2 photoanode; (b) Faradaic efficiency of O2 and H2 for pristine TiO2 NRs and 0.25% Co3O4/TiO2 samples. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [62]. Copyright 2018, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 11. (a) Schematic illustration of PEC synthesis of pure H2O2 aqueous solution using a PEC system with SPE in the absence of applied electrical bias. (b) H2O2 concentration and FE obtained by various electrode configurations at Ecell = 0.0 V for 1 h. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [64]. Copyright 2021, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 12. (a) Schematic illustration of fabrication process of biphase (1T-2H)-MoSe2/TiO2 NRAs. (b) Mechanism of the core-shell (1T-2H)-MoSe2/TiO2 NRAs S-scheme heterojunction system. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [66]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier.

Fig. 13. (a) Schematic illustration of Photocatalytic production of H2O2 from water and O2 using m-WO3/FTO photoanode and CoII(Ch)/CP cathode in water or seawater. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [14]. Copyright 2016, Springer Nature, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). (b) The highly oriented WO3 NNs epitaxially grown on the top of WO3 NHs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [69]. Copyright 2018, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 14. Illustration of the working principle of dye sensitized NiO PEC systems for H2O2 production by direct O2 reduction (a) and by using AQ redox mediators (b, top), and the corresponding schematic representation (b, bottom). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [75]. Copyright 2020, Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

Table 1 Recent studies on TMO semiconductor based PEC H2O2 production systems.

(Photo)anode	(Photo)cathode	Electrolyte	H₂O₂ source reaction	Light source	H₂O₂ production performance ^a	Ref.
Al₂O₃/BiVO₄/WO₃(6 cm²)	Pt	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~100% in 5 min	[53]
Gd-doped BiVO₄(3 cm²)	C	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	J = 5.2 mA cm^-2 FE 99.5% at 2.6 V vs. RHE	[54]
Phosphate treated Mo-doped BiVO₄	AQ-CNT/C	1.0 mol/L NaHCO₃	WOR, ORR	AM 1.5G	0.66 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 at 1.0 V vs. RHE 0.16 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 under no bias	[37]
SnO_2-_x overlayer coated BiVO₄(0.01 cm²)	Pt	1.0 mol/L NaHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	0.825 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 at 1.23 V vs. RHE solar-to-H₂O₂ efficiency ~5.6%	[55]
FeO(OH)/BiVO₄ (2.5 cm²)	CoII(Ch)\|carbon paper (3.0 cm²)	HClO₄ (pH 1.3) solution containing 0.1 mol/L NaClO₄	ORR	AM 1.5G	solar-to-H₂O₂ efficiency 6.6% under 0.05 sun	[20]
TiO₂/Ti/n⁺p-Si (0.5 cm²)	carbon	saturated AQ in 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄ (anolyte) 0.1 mol/L KI in 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄ (catholyte)	ORR	AM 1.5G	solar-to-chemical conversion efficiency 1.1%	[61]
Co₃O₄/TiO₂(1 cm²)	Pt	0.5 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~26.76 ± 1.49% at 1.23 V vs. RHE	[62]
Ge-oxyl complex/TiO₂ (0.8 cm²)	Pt	0.1 mol/L Et₄N⁺BF₄^- aqueous solution	WOR	λ = 550 nm	FE 92%, TON 9.0	[63]
RuO_x/TiO₂ NRs (1 cm²)	AQ/graphite	1 mol/L H₂SO₄ (anolyte) 1mol/L KOH (catholyte)	ORR	AM 1.5G	∼80 mmol/L H₂O₂ (electrolyte-free) and FE ∼90% under no external bias	[64]
(1T-2H)MoSe₂/TiO₂ NAs (1.5 cm²)	Pt	ethanol solution (5%)	ORR	λ = 254 nm	57 μmol L^-1 h^-1	[66]
Pt	CuTPP-COOH/ TiO₂ NTs (1.54 cm²)	0.1 mol/L Na₂SO₄	ORR	λ = 395 nm	2.2 μg mg^-1 h^-1 at -0.05 V vs. RHE 13.4 μg mg^-1 h^-1 at -0.30 V vs. RHE	[65]
mesoporous WO₃ (2.5 cm²)	cobalt chlorin complex supported on a glassy carbon substrate (3.0 cm²)	pH 1.3 seawater	WOR	AM 1.5G	concentration 48 mmol/L in 24 h	[14]
WO₃ NNs/WO₃ NHs/ Mo-doped BiVO₄ (2 cm²)	Pt	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	J = 5.6 mA cm^-2 at 0.8 V vs. RHE	[69]
Co₃O₄/WO₃ (1 cm²)	Pt	0.5 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~12% J = ~0.83 mA cm^-2 at 1.2 V vs. RHE	[62]
Pt	Por sensitized NiO (0.6 cm²)	pH 6 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer	ORR	AM 1.5G; 405 nm LED	J = 80 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE J = 300 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[73]
Pt	Coumarin 343 sensitized NiO (0.6 cm²)	pH 6 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer	ORR	AM 1.5G; 405 nm LED	J = 130 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE J = 400 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[73]
Pt	BH₄ sensitized NiO (0.36 cm²)	20 mmol/L MOPS pH 6 buffer, 0.2 mol/L KCl aqueous solution	ORR	AM 1.5G	J = 600 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[74]
Pt	BH₄ sensitized NiO	AQ-2-sulfonic acid sodium salt saturated 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄	ORR	AM 1.5G	J = 130 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[75]
Pt	CoTiO₃ (1 cm²)	pH 3.9	ORR	λ = 400 nm	J = 1 μA cm^-2 at 0.7-1.4 V vs. RHE	[77]
Pt	NiTiO₃ (1 cm²)	pH 3.9	ORR, WOR	λ = 400 nm or 565 nm	J = 80 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE (λ = 400 nm) J = 10 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE (λ = 565 nm)	[77]
Pt	Gd-doped CuBi₂O₄/CuO (1 cm²)	0.1 mol/L KOH	ORR	AM 1.5G	1.3 mmol/L H₂O₂ in 30 min at 0.65 V vs. RHE	[80]

Table 1 Recent studies on TMO semiconductor based PEC H2O2 production systems.

(Photo)anode	(Photo)cathode	Electrolyte	H₂O₂ source reaction	Light source	H₂O₂ production performance ^a	Ref.
Al₂O₃/BiVO₄/WO₃(6 cm²)	Pt	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~100% in 5 min	[53]
Gd-doped BiVO₄(3 cm²)	C	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	J = 5.2 mA cm^-2 FE 99.5% at 2.6 V vs. RHE	[54]
Phosphate treated Mo-doped BiVO₄	AQ-CNT/C	1.0 mol/L NaHCO₃	WOR, ORR	AM 1.5G	0.66 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 at 1.0 V vs. RHE 0.16 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 under no bias	[37]
SnO_2-_x overlayer coated BiVO₄(0.01 cm²)	Pt	1.0 mol/L NaHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	0.825 μmol min^-1 cm^-2 at 1.23 V vs. RHE solar-to-H₂O₂ efficiency ~5.6%	[55]
FeO(OH)/BiVO₄ (2.5 cm²)	CoII(Ch)\|carbon paper (3.0 cm²)	HClO₄ (pH 1.3) solution containing 0.1 mol/L NaClO₄	ORR	AM 1.5G	solar-to-H₂O₂ efficiency 6.6% under 0.05 sun	[20]
TiO₂/Ti/n⁺p-Si (0.5 cm²)	carbon	saturated AQ in 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄ (anolyte) 0.1 mol/L KI in 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄ (catholyte)	ORR	AM 1.5G	solar-to-chemical conversion efficiency 1.1%	[61]
Co₃O₄/TiO₂(1 cm²)	Pt	0.5 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~26.76 ± 1.49% at 1.23 V vs. RHE	[62]
Ge-oxyl complex/TiO₂ (0.8 cm²)	Pt	0.1 mol/L Et₄N⁺BF₄^- aqueous solution	WOR	λ = 550 nm	FE 92%, TON 9.0	[63]
RuO_x/TiO₂ NRs (1 cm²)	AQ/graphite	1 mol/L H₂SO₄ (anolyte) 1mol/L KOH (catholyte)	ORR	AM 1.5G	∼80 mmol/L H₂O₂ (electrolyte-free) and FE ∼90% under no external bias	[64]
(1T-2H)MoSe₂/TiO₂ NAs (1.5 cm²)	Pt	ethanol solution (5%)	ORR	λ = 254 nm	57 μmol L^-1 h^-1	[66]
Pt	CuTPP-COOH/ TiO₂ NTs (1.54 cm²)	0.1 mol/L Na₂SO₄	ORR	λ = 395 nm	2.2 μg mg^-1 h^-1 at -0.05 V vs. RHE 13.4 μg mg^-1 h^-1 at -0.30 V vs. RHE	[65]
mesoporous WO₃ (2.5 cm²)	cobalt chlorin complex supported on a glassy carbon substrate (3.0 cm²)	pH 1.3 seawater	WOR	AM 1.5G	concentration 48 mmol/L in 24 h	[14]
WO₃ NNs/WO₃ NHs/ Mo-doped BiVO₄ (2 cm²)	Pt	2.0 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	J = 5.6 mA cm^-2 at 0.8 V vs. RHE	[69]
Co₃O₄/WO₃ (1 cm²)	Pt	0.5 mol/L KHCO₃	WOR	AM 1.5G	FE ~12% J = ~0.83 mA cm^-2 at 1.2 V vs. RHE	[62]
Pt	Por sensitized NiO (0.6 cm²)	pH 6 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer	ORR	AM 1.5G; 405 nm LED	J = 80 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE J = 300 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[73]
Pt	Coumarin 343 sensitized NiO (0.6 cm²)	pH 6 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer	ORR	AM 1.5G; 405 nm LED	J = 130 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE J = 400 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[73]
Pt	BH₄ sensitized NiO (0.36 cm²)	20 mmol/L MOPS pH 6 buffer, 0.2 mol/L KCl aqueous solution	ORR	AM 1.5G	J = 600 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[74]
Pt	BH₄ sensitized NiO	AQ-2-sulfonic acid sodium salt saturated 0.5 mol/L H₂SO₄	ORR	AM 1.5G	J = 130 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE	[75]
Pt	CoTiO₃ (1 cm²)	pH 3.9	ORR	λ = 400 nm	J = 1 μA cm^-2 at 0.7-1.4 V vs. RHE	[77]
Pt	NiTiO₃ (1 cm²)	pH 3.9	ORR, WOR	λ = 400 nm or 565 nm	J = 80 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE (λ = 400 nm) J = 10 μA cm^-2 at 0.55 V vs. RHE (λ = 565 nm)	[77]
Pt	Gd-doped CuBi₂O₄/CuO (1 cm²)	0.1 mol/L KOH	ORR	AM 1.5G	1.3 mmol/L H₂O₂ in 30 min at 0.65 V vs. RHE	[80]

Fig. 16. Schematic illustration of the design of light-driven fuel cell with spontaneous H2O2 generation. The light bulb illustrates the simultaneous generated electricity that flows through the external circuit. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [32]. Copyright 2018, WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

参考文献

[1]	A. T. Murray, S. Voskian, M. Schreier, T. A. Hatton, Y. Surendranath, Joule, 2019, 3, 2942-2954.
[2]	H. L. Hou, X. K. Zeng, X. W. Zhang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 17356-17376.
[3]	K. Wenderich, W. Kwak, A. Grimm, G. J. Kramer, G. Mul, B. Mei, Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2020, 4, 3143-3156.
[4]	R. Hage, A. Lienke, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 206-222.
[5]	T. Topalovic, V. A. Nierstrasz, L. Bautista, D. Jocic, A. Navarro, M. M. C. G. Warmoeskerken, Cellulose, 2007, 14, 385-400.
[6]	J. M. Campos-Martin, G. Blanco-Brieva, J. L. G. Fierro, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 6962-6984.
[7]	H. Targhan, P. Evans, K. Bahrami, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 2021, 104, 295-332.
[8]	A. D. Bokare, W. Choi, J. Hazard. Mater., 2014, 275, 121-135.
[9]	H. P. Pan, Y. Gao, N. Li, Y. Zhou, Q. T. Lin, J. Jiang, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 408, 127332.
[10]	P. Drogui, S. Elmaleh, M. Rumeau, C. Bernard, A. Rambaud, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2001, 31, 877-882.
[11]	W. H. Chu, N. Y. Gao, D. Q. Yin, S. W. Krasner, W. A. Mitch, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48, 12190-12198.
[12]	J. Lis, A. Pasieczna, B. Karbowska, W. Zembrzuski, Z. Lukaszewski, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2003, 37, 4569-4572.
[13]	M. J. Nicol, Hydrometallurgy, 2020, 194, 105365.
[14]	K. Mase, M. Yoneda, Y. Yamada, S. Fukuzumi, Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 11470.
[15]	R. S. Disselkamp, Energy Fuel, 2008, 22, 2771-2774.
[16]	S. A. Mousavi Shaegh, N. T. Nguyen, S. M. Mousavi Ehteshami, S. H. Chan, Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 8225-8228.
[17]	S. Fukuzumi, Y. Yamada, ChemElectroChem, 2016, 3, 1978-1989.
[18]	F. F. Maia, L. G. F. Pereira, L. H. Gouvea, F. S. Costa, R. Vieira, J. Propul. Power, 2014, 30, 309-313.
[19]	Z. Y. Teng, Q. T. Zhang, H. B. Yang, K. Kato, W. J. Yang, Y. R. Lu, S. X. Liu, C. Y. Wang, A. Yamakata, C. L. Su, B. Liu, T. Ohno, Nat. Catal., 2021, 4, 533-533.
[20]	K. Mase, M. Yoneda, Y. Yamada, S. Fukuzumi, ACS Energy Lett., 2016, 1, 913-919.
[21]	S. Yang, A. Verdaguer-Casadevall, L. Arnarson, L. Silvio, V. Colic, R. Frydendal, J. Rossmeisl, I. Chorkendorff, I. E. L. Stephens, ACS Catal, 2018, 8, 4064-4081.
[22]	S. Fukuzumi, Joule, 2017, 1, 689-738.
[23]	D. W. Flaherty, ACS Catal., 2018, 8, 1520-1527.
[24]	A. U. Pawar, C. W. Kim, M. T. Nguyen-Le, Y. S. Kang, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2019, 7, 7431-7455.
[25]	J. L. Liu, Y. S. Zou, B. J. Jin, Z. Kan, J. H. Park, ACS Energy Lett., 2019, 4, 3018-3027.
[26]	Y. Wang, J. Li, Z. D. Wei, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 8194-8209.
[27]	J. Sun, S. Zhang, L. Schkeryantz, Y. Y. Wu, in: L. Qin, L.-S. Fan ed., Clean Energy Materials, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2020, 93-109.
[28]	Y. Xue, Y. T. Wang, Z. H. Pan, K. Sayama, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2021, 60, 10469-10480.
[29]	Y. Zhou, G. Chen, J. J. Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020, 8, 20849-20869.
[30]	Y. L. Wang, G. I. N. Waterhouse, L. Shang, T. R. Zhang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2021, 11, 2003323.
[31]	Z. L. Wang, L. Z. Wang, Chin. J. Catal., 2018, 39, 369-378.
[32]	X. J. Shi, Y. R. Zhang, S. Siahrostami, X. L. Zheng, Adv. Energy Mater., 2018, 8, 1801158.
[33]	K. Fuku, K. Sayama, Chem. Commun., 2016, 52, 5406-5409.
[34]	H. I. Kim, Y. Choi, S. Hu, W. Choi, J. H. Kim, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 229, 121-129.
[35]	Z. Y. Lu, G. X. Chen, S. Siahrostami, Z. H. Chen, K. Liu, J. Xie, L. Liao, T. Wu, D. C. Lin, Y. Y. Liu, T. F. Jaramillo, J. K. Norskov, Y. Cui, Nat. Catal., 2018, 1, 156-162.
[36]	Z. He, C. Kim, L. H. Lin, T. H. Jeon, S. Lin, X. C. Wang, W. Choi, Nano Energy, 2017, 42, 58-68.
[37]	T. H. Jeon, H. Kim, H. I. Kim, W. Choi, Energy Environ. Sci., 2020, 13, 1730-1742.
[38]	X. K. Zeng, Y. Liu, Y. Kang, Q. Y. Li, Y. Xia, Y. L. Zhu, H. L. Hou, M. H. Uddin, T. R. Gengenbach, D. H. Xia, C. H. Sun, D. T. Mccarthy, A. Deletic, J. G. Yu, X. W. Zhang, ACS Catal., 2020, 10, 3697-3706.
[39]	G. H. Dong, L. P. Yang, F. Wang, L. Zang, C. Y. Wang, ACS Catal., 2016, 6, 6511-6519.
[40]	C. H. Chu, D. H. Huang, Q. H. Zhu, E. Stavitski, J. A. Spies, Z. H. Pan, J. Mao, H. L. L. Xin, C. A. Schmuttenmaer, S. Hu, J. H. Kim, ACS Catal., 2019, 9, 626-631.
[41]	A. Walsh, Y. Yan, M. N. Huda, M. M. Al-Jassim, S. H. Wei, Chem. Mater., 2009, 21, 547-551.
[42]	Y. Park, K. J. McDonald, K. S. Choi, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2013, 42, 2321-2337.
[43]	X. J. Shi, S. Siahrostami, G. L. Li, Y. R. Zhang, P. Chakthranont, F. Studt, T. F. Jaramillo, X. L. Zheng, J. K. Norskov, Nat. Commun., 2017, 8, 701.
[44]	F. F. Abdi, N. Firet, R. van de Krol, ChemCatChem, 2013, 5, 490-496.
[45]	H. J. Lu, V. Andrei, K. Jenkinson, A. Regoutz, N. Li, C. E. Creissen, A. E. H. Wheatley, H. X. Hao, E. Reisner, D. S. Wright, S. D. Pike, Adv. Mater., 2018, 30, 1804033.
[46]	Z. Y. Zhao, Z. S. Li, Z. G. Zou, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 4746-4753.
[47]	X. Shi, H. Jeong, S. J. Oh, M. Ma, K. Zhang, J. Kwon, I. T. Choi, I. Y. Choi, H. K. Kim, J. K. Kim, J. H. Park, Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 11943.
[48]	S. Byun, G. Jung, S. Y. Moon, B. Kim, J. Y. Park, S. Jeon, S. W. Nam, B. Shin, Nano Energy, 2018, 43, 244-252.
[49]	B. Gao, T. Wang, X. L. Fan, H. Gong, P. Li, Y. Y. Feng, X. L. Huang, J. P. He, J. H. Ye, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019, 7, 278-288.
[50]	S. Y. Park, H. Abroshan, X. J. Shi, H. S. Jung, S. Siahrostami, X. L. Zheng, ACS Energy Lett., 2019, 4, 352-357.
[51]	K. Fuku, Y. Miyase, Y. Miseki, T. Funaki, T. Gunji, K. Sayama, Chem. Asian J., 2017, 12, 1111-1119.
[52]	K. Fuku, Y. Miyase, Y. Miseki, T. Gunji, K. Sayama, RSC Adv., 2017, 7, 47619-47623.
[53]	Y. Miyase, S. Takasugi, S. Iguchi, Y. Miseki, T. Gunji, K. Sasaki, E. Fujita, K. Sayama, Sustain. Energy Fuels, 2018, 2, 1621-1629.
[54]	J. H. Baek, T. M. Gill, H. Abroshan, S. Park, X. J. Shi, J. Norskoy, H. S. Jung, S. Siahrostami, X. L. Zheng, ACS Energy Lett., 2019, 4, 720-728.
[55]	K. Zhang, J. L. Liu, L. Y. Wang, B. J. Jin, X. F. Yang, S. L. Zhang, J. H. Park, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2020, 142, 8641-8648.
[56]	Q. Guo, C. Y. Zhou, Z. B. Ma, X. M. Yang, Adv. Mater., 2019, 31, 1901997.
[57]	A. Fujishima, K. Honda, Nature, 1972, 238, 37-38.
[58]	T. Inoue, A. Fujishima, S. Konishi, K. Honda, Nature, 1979, 277, 637-638.
[59]	H. J. Lu, J. Tournet, K. Dastafkan, Y. Liu, Y. H. Ng, S. K. Karuturi, C. Zhao, Z. Y. Yin, Chem. Rev., 2021, 121, 10271-10366.
[60]	C. Dette, M. A. Perez-Osorio, C. S. Kley, P. Punke, C. E. Patrick, P. Jacobson, F. Giustino, S. J. Jung, K. Kern, Nano Lett., 2014, 14, 6533-6538.
[61]	X. Zong, H. J. Chen, B. Seger, T. Pedersen, M. S. Dargusch, E. W. McFarland, C. Li, L. Z. Wang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 3347-3351.
[62]	J. J. Zhang, X. X. Chang, Z. B. Luo, T. Wang, J. L. Gong, Chem. Commun., 2018, 54, 7026-7029.
[63]	T. Shiragami, H. Nakamura, J. Matsumoto, M. Yasuda, Y. Suzuri, H. Tachibana, H. Inoue, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A, 2015, 313, 131-136.
[64]	T. H. Jeon, B. Kim, C. Kim, C. Xia, H. T. Wang, P. J. J. Alvarez, W. Choi, Energy Environ. Sci., 2021, 14, 3110-3119.
[65]	D. H. Apaydin, H. Seelajaroen, O. Pengsakul, P. Thamyongkit, N. S. Sariciftci, J. Kunze-Liebhauser, E. Portenkirchner, ChemCatChem, 2018, 10, 1793-1797.
[66]	X. D. Zhang, Y. M. Zeng, W. Y. Shi, Z. Tao, J. J. Liao, C. Z. Ai, H. W. Si, Z. P. Wang, A. C. Fisher, S. W. Lin, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 429, 131312.
[67]	H. D. Zheng, J. Z. Ou, M. S. Strano, R. B. Kaner, A. Mitchell, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2011, 21, 2175-2196.
[68]	G. W. Zheng, J. S. Wang, H. Liu, V. Murugadoss, G. N. Zu, H. B. Che, C. Lai, H. Y. Li, T. Ding, Q. Gao, Z. H. Guo, Nanoscale, 2019, 11, 18968-18994.
[69]	X. J. Shi, L. L. Cai, I. Y. Choi, M. Ma, K. Zhang, J. H. Zhao, J. K. Kim, J. K. Kim, X. L. Zheng, J. H. Park, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 19542-19546.
[70]	H. M. Yang, Q. F. Tao, X. C. Zhang, A. D. Tang, J. Ouyang, J. Alloys Compd., 2008, 459, 98-102.
[71]	X. Y. Lai, G. X. Shen, P. Xue, B. Q. Yan, H. Wang, P. Li, W. T. Xia, J. Z. Fang, Nanoscale, 2015, 7, 4005-4012.
[72]	E. Benazzi, J. Mallows, G. H. Summers, F. A. Black, E. A. Gibson, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2019, 7, 10409-10445.
[73]	O. Y. Jung, M. L. Pegis, Z. X. Wang, G. Banerjee, C. T. Nemes, W. L. Hoffeditz, J. T. Hupp, C. A. Schmuttenmaer, G. W. Brudvig, J. M. Mayer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2018, 140, 4079-4084.
[74]	J. N. Sun, Y. Z. Yu, A. E. Curtze, X. C. Liang, Y. Y. Wu, Chem. Sci., 2019, 10, 5519-5527.
[75]	J. N. Sun, Y. Y. Wu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 10904-10908.
[76]	Y. Xu, M. A. A. Schoonen, Am. Mineral., 2000, 85, 543-556.
[77]	T. Baran, S. Wojtyla, A. Vertova, A. Minguzzi, S. Rondinini, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2018, 808, 395-402.
[78]	N. T. Hahn, V. C. Holmberg, B. A. Korgel, C. B. Mullins, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2012, 116, 6459-6466.
[79]	C. L. Li, J. F. He, Y. Q. Xiao, Y. B. Li, J. J. Delaunay, Energy Environ. Sci., 2020, 13, 3269-3306.
[80]	Z. X. Li, Q. L. Xu, F. L. Gou, B. He, W. Chen, W. W. Zheng, X. Jiang, K. Chen, C. Z. Qi, D. K. Ma, Nano Res., 2021, 14, 3439-3445.
[81]	C. J. McDonnell-Worth, D. R. MacFarlane, Aust. J. Chem., 2018, 71, 781-788.
[82]	A. E. Sanli, A. Aytac, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36, 869-875.
[83]	M. Kaneko, J. Nemoto, H. Ueno, N. Gokan, K. Ohnuki, M. Horikawa, R. Saito, T. Shibata, Electrochem. Commun., 2006, 8, 336-340.
[84]	Z. Y. Wu, G. H. Zhao, Y. J. Zhang, J. Liu, Y. N. Zhang, H. J. Shi, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 3416-3424.
[85]	T. Onishi, M. Fujishima, H. Tada, ACS Omega, 2018, 3, 12099-12105.
[86]	M. A. Green, S. P. Bremner, Nat. Mater., 2017, 16, 23-34.
[87]	L. A. Weinstein, K. McEnaney, E. Strobach, S. Yang, B. Bhatia, L. Zhao, Y. Huang, J. Loomis, F. Cao, S. V. Boriskina, Z. F. Ren, E. N. Wang, G. Chen, Joule, 2018, 2, 962-975.
[88]	W. J. Yin, B. C. Weng, J. Ge, Q. D. Sun, Z. Z. Li, Y. F. Yan, Energy Environ. Sci., 2019, 12, 442-462.
[89]	B. C. Weng, Z. L. Song, R. L. Zhu, Q. Y. Yan, Q. D. Sun, C. G. Grice, Y. F. Yan, W. J. Yin, Nat. Commun., 2020, 11, 3513.
[90]	A. Vojvodic, J. K. Norskov, Science, 2011, 334, 1355-1356.
[91]	W. Wang, M. G. Xu, X. M. Xu, W. Zhou, Z. P. Shao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 136-152.
[92]	S. Kato, J. U. Jung, T. Suenobu, S. Fukuzumi, Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 3756-3764.
[93]	Y. Yamada, M. Yoneda, S. Fukuzumi, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 1698-1701.
[94]	L. J. Li, Z. F. Hu, J. C. Yu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 20538-20544.
[95]	S. Kala Thirumalaikumaran, R. Suwathy, M. Venkatesan, J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., 2018, 10, e2818.
[96]	Z. L. Wang, T. Hisatomi, R. G. Li, K. Sayama, G. Liu, K. Domen, C. Li, L. Z. Wang, Joule, 2021, 5, 344-359.
[97]	H. J. Lu, Z. L. Wang, L. Z. Wang, ACS EST Eng., 2021, doi: 10.1021/acsestengg.1c00336.