光催化水分解中地球储量丰富助催化剂的光沉积方法、功能与机理

doi:10.1016/S1872-2067(22)64105-6

催化学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 1774-1804.DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(22)64105-6

光催化水分解中地球储量丰富助催化剂的光沉积方法、功能与机理

赵辉^a^,^b, 茅沁怡^a^,^b, 蹇亮^a^,^b, 董玉明^a^,^b^,^*(), 朱永法^c^,^#()

^a江南大学化学与材料工程学院, 合成与生物胶体教育部重点实验室, 江苏无锡214122
^b江南大学光响应功能分子材料国际联合研究中心, 江苏无锡214122
^c清华大学化学系, 北京100084

收稿日期:2021-11-06 接受日期:2021-12-15 出版日期:2022-07-18 发布日期:2022-05-20
通讯作者: 董玉明,朱永法
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(22136002);国家自然科学基金(22172064);国家自然科学基金(21806059);国家自然科学基金(21676123)

Photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting: Methods, functions, and mechanisms

Hui Zhao^a^,^b, Qinyi Mao^a^,^b, Liang Jian^a^,^b, Yuming Dong^a^,^b^,^*(), Yongfa Zhu^c^,^#()

^aKey Laboratory of Synthetic and Biological Colloids, Ministry of Education, School of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, Jiangsu, China
^bInternational Joint Research Center for Photo-responsive Molecules and Materials, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, Jiangsu, China
^cDepartment of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Received:2021-11-06 Accepted:2021-12-15 Online:2022-07-18 Published:2022-05-20
Contact: Yuming Dong, Yongfa Zhu
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundations of China(22136002);National Natural Science Foundations of China(22172064);National Natural Science Foundations of China(21806059);National Natural Science Foundations of China(21676123)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

氢能是实现碳中和目标的关键能源之一. 光催化分解水制氢是一项绿色制氢技术, 自从20世纪80年代日本科学家Honda和Fujishima首次发现了TiO₂电极上的光电解水产氢以来, 该技术已成为了全世界关注的研究方向. 负载助催化剂能够提高电荷分离、降低过电势/活化能和加快表面反应, 作为一种有效的改性策略被广泛地用于提高光催化分解水制氢效率. 助催化剂的性能在很大程度上依赖其沉积方式, 光沉积有助于加快光生电子-空穴对从光催化剂向助催化剂的转移, 大幅改善了电荷的分离和传输效率, 显著提升了催化剂的光催化性能. 同时, 该策略操作简单、条件温和以及无需额外添加氧化还原试剂来实现助催化剂的生成. 从目前报道的助催化剂光沉积研究中可以发现, 贵金属基助催化剂的光沉积在光催化分解水反应中已被广泛研究, 然而贵金属价格昂贵、储量稀少, 极大限制了其在大规模能源生产中的应用. 为此, 光沉积地球储量丰富的非贵金属助催化剂受到了研究者高度重视, 近年来也取得了一些重要的进展, 但尚未有综述进行报道.

本文综述了近年来光沉积非贵金属光催化分解水助催化剂的研究进展. 总结了非贵金属水分解助催化剂光沉积的基础, 包括光沉积的原理、光沉积的优势、助催化剂的种类、助催化剂的作用、影响光沉积的因素、光沉积改性策略以及设计助催化剂光沉积的考虑因素. 从制备方法、催化性能和作用机制等方面, 详细讨论了不同非贵金属助催化剂光沉积在光催化分解水中的应用, 包括制氢半反应(过渡金属、过渡金属硫化物、过渡金属磷化物、过渡金属氧化物和过渡金属氢氧化物)、制氧半反应(钴基氧化物、磷酸盐和羟基氧化物以及其他过渡金属氧化物)和全分解水反应(沉积产氢助催化剂、沉积产氧助催化剂和产氢-产氧双助催化剂共沉积). 提出了非贵金属助催化剂光沉积在光催化水分解应用中面临的挑战和可能的未来研究方向. 本综述不仅展现出光沉积策略在高效、稳定、低成本的非贵金属基水分解助催化剂开发中的巨大潜力, 而且对深入理解非贵金属助催化剂诱导加快光催化分解水反应的机制具有重要意义.

关键词: 光沉积, 非贵金属助催化剂, 光催化, 水分解

Abstract:

Photocatalytic water splitting based on semiconductor photocatalysts is a promising approach for producing carbon-neutral, sustainable, and clean H₂ fuel. Cocatalyst loading, which is an appealing strategy, has been extensively employed to improve the photocatalytic efficiency semiconductors. In view of the high cost and rare preservation of noble metal cocatalysts that significantly hinder their utilization for large-scale energy production, various cocatalysts comprising earth-abundant elements have been developed as noble-metal-free candidates using different methods to boost photocatalytic water splitting. Among these preparation strategies, photodeposition has attracted tremendous attention in the deposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts owing to its simplicity and moderate availability, improved interfacial charge separation and transfer, and abundant active sites on the surface. In this review, we first summarize the deposition principles, deposition advantages, categories of cocatalysts, roles of cocatalysts, influencing factors, modification strategies, and design considerations in the photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts. The photodeposited earth-abundant cocatalysts for the photocatalytic H₂ evolution half reaction, photocatalytic O₂ evolution half reaction, and overall photocatalytic water splitting are discussed. Finally, some perspectives on the challenges and possible future directions for the photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting are presented.

Key words: Photodeposition, Noble-metal-free cocatalyst, Photocatalysis, Water splitting

赵辉, 茅沁怡, 蹇亮, 董玉明, 朱永法. 光催化水分解中地球储量丰富助催化剂的光沉积方法、功能与机理[J]. 催化学报, 2022, 43(7): 1774-1804.

Hui Zhao, Qinyi Mao, Liang Jian, Yuming Dong, Yongfa Zhu. Photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting: Methods, functions, and mechanisms[J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2022, 43(7): 1774-1804.

×
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(22)64105-6

https://www.cjcatal.com/CN/Y2022/V43/I7/1774

图/表 27

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of photocatalytic water splitting over a semiconductor photocatalyst loaded with reduction and oxidation cocatalysts.

Fig. 2. Brief schematic diagram of the entire content of this review.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of reductive photodeposition (a) and oxidative photodeposition (b).

Fig. 4. Categories of the photodeposited earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting.

Fig. 5. Roles of the photodeposited earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting.

Fig. 6. Influencing factors in the photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts.

Fig. 7. Modification strategies toward photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts for photocatalytic water splitting.

Fig. 8. Design considerations on photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts for photocatalytic water splitting.

Table 1 The photodeposited earth-abundant cocatalysts for photocatalytic H2 evolution half reaction.

Photocatalyst		Cocatalyst		Light source		Sacrificial agent ^a		Activity (μmol h^-1 g^-1) ^b	Enhancement factor		AQE (%) ^c		Stability at least (h)		Ref. (year)
TiO₂		Ni		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		2547	135		8.1 (365 nm)		— ^d		[97] (2013)
CdS-titanate		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Ethanol		11038	77		21 (420 nm)		15		[68] (2013)
CdS/ZnS		Ni		λ ≥ 380 nm (Xe)		Na₂S		—	—		—		—		[98] (2013)
g-C₃N₄		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Triethanolamine (TEOA)		85 (during 128 h)	—		—		128		[99] (2016)
g-C₃N₄		Ni		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		4318	411		2.01 (400 nm)		48		[50] (2016)
Sulfur doped g-C₃N₄		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		2021.3	84		3.2 (405 nm)		24		[100] (2018)
Zn_xCd_1-_xS		Ni		White light (LED)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		11993	2.5		—		20		[101] (2019)
CdS		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		—	—		—		—		[54] (2019)
CdS		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		326700	35		—		16		[82] (2020)
CdS		Ni-Ni(OH)₂		Vis (Xe)		Isopropanol		428000	—		—		24 (Na₂S+Na₂SO₃)		[102] (2021)
g-C₃N₄		Co		AM 1.5 (Xe)		TEOA		2296	75		6.2% (400 nm)		48		[103] (2018)
CdS		Co		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		(NH₄)₂SO₃		25980	17		—		—		[51] (2018)
CdS		Co		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		C₆H₅CH₂OH		169600	—		63.2% (420 nm)		40		[104] (2018)
TiO₂		Co		780 nm > λ > 320 nm (Xe)		Methanol		8398	8.9		—		28		[70] (2019)
HNb₃O₈		Cu		Simulated sunlight		TEOA		591	23.6		—		16		[71] (2016)
CdS		Cu		UV-Vis (Hg)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		24880	4.8		—		—		[105] (2018)
TiO₂		Cu, Ni		370 nm > λ > 310nm (Hg)		Ethanol		Cu > Ni	—		—		—		[106] (2008)
TiO₂-ZrO₂		Cu, Ni		UV (Hg)		Methanol		Cu (571) > Ni	—		—		—		[107] (2011)
Zn_xCd_1-_xS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		420	210		—		24		[52] (2013)
rGO/CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		560	4.3		—		21		[85] (2014)
ZnIn₂S₄		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		8047	28		—				[108] (2014)
g-C₃N₄		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		252	—		—		18		[109] (2015)
Graphene-CdS		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		12825	30		26.8 (420 nm)		20		[23] (2015)
UiO-66/CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		32500	60		23.6 (420 nm)		16		[110] (2015)
CdS-TiO₂		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		14000	38.9		19.3 (420 nm)		16		[111] (2017)
g-C₃N₄/red phosphorus		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		257.9	4.4		—		—		[112] (2017)
CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		6100	17.6		—		12		[113] (2018)
g-C₃N₄		MoS₂		λ ≥ 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		660	—		5.67 (400 nm)		9		[24] (2018)
Cu_2-_xS/ Mn_0.5Cd_0.5S		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		13752.4	1.7		16.08 (420 nm)		< 12		[114] (2018)
CdS		MoS₂		Vis (Xe)		Lactic acid		24800	16.5		26 (420 nm)				[115] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂		MoS₂, NiS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		28000	—		36.8 (420 nm)		20		[53] (2020)
TiO₂-Eosin Y		MoS_x		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		1630	4.5						[116] (2016)
CdS		MoS_x		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		8080	3.2				21		[25] (2017)
CdS		MoS_x		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		15000	—		7.6 (450 nm)		10		[117] (2017)
Natural attapulgite/Co(OH)₂- Erythrosin B		Metal (M: Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, and Zn) doped MoS_x		λ ≥ 450 nm (LED)		TEOA		70500	1.6		47.7 (500 nm)		—		[92] (2018)
CdS		MoS_x		Vis (LED)		Lactic acid		6657	21.3		—		—		[118] (2018)
TiO₂		MoS_x		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		1835.7	177		13.6 (365 nm)		12		[83] (2018)
CdS		MoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		22500	70		29.16 (435 nm)		20		[54] (2019)
Co containing MOF-Erythrosin B		MoS_x		λ ≥ 450 nm (LED)		TEOA		5260	20		15.0 (500 nm)		—		[119] (2019)
TiO₂-Eosin Y		MoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (LED)		TEOA		6191	4.5		27.5 (500 nm)		—		[120] (2019)
TiO₂		Metal (M: Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, and Zn) doped MoS_x		400 > λ > 200 nm (Hg)		Ethanol/PBS		669	—		—		20		[93] (2019)
CdS		CoMoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (LED)		Lactic acid		3570	—		—		10		[91] (2018)
g-C₃N₄,		NiS, CoS		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		16400	2500		—		40		[73] (2018)
CdS		NiS,		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		34014	—		—		—		[73] (2018)
Photocatalyst	Cocatalyst		Light source		Sacrificial agent ^a		Activity (μmol h^-1 g^-1) ^b			Enhancement factor		AQE (%) ^c		Stability at least (h)	Ref. (year)
CdS-diethylenetriamine	NiS		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		230.6 (μmol h^-1)			8.42		—		16	[121] (2019)
TiO₂	NiS		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		6200			71		25.0 (340 nm)		—	[26] (2019)
TiO₂	NiS_x, CoS_x, CuS_x		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		5288.4			171.7		21.44 (356 nm)		24	[122] (2021)
g-C₃N₄	NiS, CoS_x, CuS_x		420 nm (LED)		TEOA		244			—		—		7.5	[74] (2021)
rGO/TiO₂	CoS_x		365 nm (LED)		TEOA		2569.7			12.7		—		—	[75] (2021)
g-C₃N₄/Co₃O₄	MoS₂, NiS, CoS		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5250			25.6		8.1 (420 nm)		20	[123] (2021)
Znln₂S₄	MoS₂, CuS		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		3056			37		—		12	[84] (2016)
CdS	MoO_xS_y		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Methanol		439			4		—		20	[124] (2020)
TiO₂	NiCuS_x		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		8558			—		34.67 (365 nm)		10	[125] (2021)
TiO₂	NiWS_x		365 nm (LED)		Ethanol		4580			—		13 (365 nm)		10	[126] (2021)
CdS	Co_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe), AM 1.5G (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		500000 (λ ≥ 420 nm), 270000 (AM 1.5G)			22.4		—		25 (λ ≥ 420 nm), 7 (AM 1.5G)	[56] (2017)
ZnIn₂S₄	Co-P alloy		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		7840			44		4.3 (420 nm)		15	[127] (2018)
MAPbI₃	CoP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		NaHPO₂		785.9			8		—		27	[128] (2020)
g-C₃N₄	Ni_xP		AM 1.5G (Xe)		Lactic acid		8585			572.3		—		75	[55] (2017)
N-TiO₂/g-C₃N₄	Ni_xP		780 > λ > 350 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5438			7.5		—		10	[129] (2018)
CdS	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		69200			27		4.2 (475 nm)		15	[130] (2019)
CdS	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		22500			70		—		—	[54] (2019)
CdS@CuS	Ni_xP		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		18160			5.6		13.06 (420 nm)		24	[131] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		28600			—		—		—	[53] 51(2020)
Defect-rich ZnS	Ni-P alloy		1000 > λ > 420 (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		3496			29		2.4 (420 nm)		24	[132] (2020)
Mn_0.5Cd_0.5S	Ni₂P		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		31830			2.8		32 (420 nm)		15	[133] (2021)
g-C₃N₄, TiO₂, CdS	Ni-P alloy		420 nm (LED)		TEOA		118.2 (g-C₃N₄)			35.8		0.66 (420 nm)		10 (g-C₃N₄)	[87] (2020)
TiO₂	Cu_xP		λ = 365 nm (LED)		Methanol		1870			30		7.7 (365 nm)		10	[76] (2020)
CdS	Ni₂O₃		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		NaNO₂		4456			41		—		—	[134] (2013)
CdS	NiO, Ni₂O₃		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		NaNO₂		5908			117		8.6 (400 nm)		—	[59] (2014)
TiO₂	NiO_x		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		High than Ni, Ni(OH)₂, and NiO using other methods			—		—		—	[135] (2019)
Zn_1-_xCd_xS	NiO		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		—		227.3			2		1.5 (430 nm)		12	[136] (2019)
Cd_1-_xZn_xS@ O-MoS₂	NiO_x		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		223170			1.2		64.1 (420 nm)		—	[60] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂	NiO_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		14100			—		—		—	[53] (2020)
Graphene assembly-Eos-in Y	CuO		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5850			2.3		—		12	[80] (2017)
TiO₂	CuO_x		AM 1.5G (Xe)		Methanol		407			—		—		—	[137] (2018)
g-C₃N₄	Ni(OH)₂, Co(OH)₂		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		19000			—		0.88 (400 nm)		16	[58] (2019)
g-C₃N₄	Ni(OH)₂		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		13707.86			718		0.78 (400 nm)		20	[57] (2020)
CdS	Ni(OH)₂		UV-Vis (Xe)		Ethanol		3933			3.8		—		—	[138] (2020)
g-C₃N₄/WO₃	Ni(OH)_x		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		TEOA		576			10.8		—		12	[139] (2017)
CdS	Co-Pi		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		13300			2.6		24.3 (420 nm)		12	[140] (2016)
TiO₂	Co₃O₄		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		560			9.4		—		—	[141] (2016)
CaIn₂S₄	MnO_x		750 nm ≥ λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		5520			9.4		—		—	[142] (2019)
NH₂-UiO-66	MnO_x		λ ≥ 400 nm (Xe)		TEOA		577.9			—		—		—	[143] (2020)
CdS	MoS₂ + Co-Pi		UV-cut (Xe)		Lactic acid		40500			27		36 (420 nm)		20	[115] (2019)
ZnS@CdS	Ni + CoO_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		20325			1.8		—		18	[94] (2018)

Table 1 The photodeposited earth-abundant cocatalysts for photocatalytic H2 evolution half reaction.

Photocatalyst		Cocatalyst		Light source		Sacrificial agent ^a		Activity (μmol h^-1 g^-1) ^b	Enhancement factor		AQE (%) ^c		Stability at least (h)		Ref. (year)
TiO₂		Ni		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		2547	135		8.1 (365 nm)		— ^d		[97] (2013)
CdS-titanate		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Ethanol		11038	77		21 (420 nm)		15		[68] (2013)
CdS/ZnS		Ni		λ ≥ 380 nm (Xe)		Na₂S		—	—		—		—		[98] (2013)
g-C₃N₄		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Triethanolamine (TEOA)		85 (during 128 h)	—		—		128		[99] (2016)
g-C₃N₄		Ni		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		4318	411		2.01 (400 nm)		48		[50] (2016)
Sulfur doped g-C₃N₄		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		2021.3	84		3.2 (405 nm)		24		[100] (2018)
Zn_xCd_1-_xS		Ni		White light (LED)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		11993	2.5		—		20		[101] (2019)
CdS		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		—	—		—		—		[54] (2019)
CdS		Ni		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		326700	35		—		16		[82] (2020)
CdS		Ni-Ni(OH)₂		Vis (Xe)		Isopropanol		428000	—		—		24 (Na₂S+Na₂SO₃)		[102] (2021)
g-C₃N₄		Co		AM 1.5 (Xe)		TEOA		2296	75		6.2% (400 nm)		48		[103] (2018)
CdS		Co		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		(NH₄)₂SO₃		25980	17		—		—		[51] (2018)
CdS		Co		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		C₆H₅CH₂OH		169600	—		63.2% (420 nm)		40		[104] (2018)
TiO₂		Co		780 nm > λ > 320 nm (Xe)		Methanol		8398	8.9		—		28		[70] (2019)
HNb₃O₈		Cu		Simulated sunlight		TEOA		591	23.6		—		16		[71] (2016)
CdS		Cu		UV-Vis (Hg)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		24880	4.8		—		—		[105] (2018)
TiO₂		Cu, Ni		370 nm > λ > 310nm (Hg)		Ethanol		Cu > Ni	—		—		—		[106] (2008)
TiO₂-ZrO₂		Cu, Ni		UV (Hg)		Methanol		Cu (571) > Ni	—		—		—		[107] (2011)
Zn_xCd_1-_xS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		420	210		—		24		[52] (2013)
rGO/CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		560	4.3		—		21		[85] (2014)
ZnIn₂S₄		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		8047	28		—				[108] (2014)
g-C₃N₄		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		252	—		—		18		[109] (2015)
Graphene-CdS		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		12825	30		26.8 (420 nm)		20		[23] (2015)
UiO-66/CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		32500	60		23.6 (420 nm)		16		[110] (2015)
CdS-TiO₂		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		14000	38.9		19.3 (420 nm)		16		[111] (2017)
g-C₃N₄/red phosphorus		MoS₂		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		257.9	4.4		—		—		[112] (2017)
CdS		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		6100	17.6		—		12		[113] (2018)
g-C₃N₄		MoS₂		λ ≥ 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		660	—		5.67 (400 nm)		9		[24] (2018)
Cu_2-_xS/ Mn_0.5Cd_0.5S		MoS₂		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		13752.4	1.7		16.08 (420 nm)		< 12		[114] (2018)
CdS		MoS₂		Vis (Xe)		Lactic acid		24800	16.5		26 (420 nm)				[115] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂		MoS₂, NiS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S + Na₂SO₃		28000	—		36.8 (420 nm)		20		[53] (2020)
TiO₂-Eosin Y		MoS_x		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		1630	4.5						[116] (2016)
CdS		MoS_x		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		8080	3.2				21		[25] (2017)
CdS		MoS_x		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		15000	—		7.6 (450 nm)		10		[117] (2017)
Natural attapulgite/Co(OH)₂- Erythrosin B		Metal (M: Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, and Zn) doped MoS_x		λ ≥ 450 nm (LED)		TEOA		70500	1.6		47.7 (500 nm)		—		[92] (2018)
CdS		MoS_x		Vis (LED)		Lactic acid		6657	21.3		—		—		[118] (2018)
TiO₂		MoS_x		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		1835.7	177		13.6 (365 nm)		12		[83] (2018)
CdS		MoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		22500	70		29.16 (435 nm)		20		[54] (2019)
Co containing MOF-Erythrosin B		MoS_x		λ ≥ 450 nm (LED)		TEOA		5260	20		15.0 (500 nm)		—		[119] (2019)
TiO₂-Eosin Y		MoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (LED)		TEOA		6191	4.5		27.5 (500 nm)		—		[120] (2019)
TiO₂		Metal (M: Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, and Zn) doped MoS_x		400 > λ > 200 nm (Hg)		Ethanol/PBS		669	—		—		20		[93] (2019)
CdS		CoMoS_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (LED)		Lactic acid		3570	—		—		10		[91] (2018)
g-C₃N₄,		NiS, CoS		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		16400	2500		—		40		[73] (2018)
CdS		NiS,		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		34014	—		—		—		[73] (2018)
Photocatalyst	Cocatalyst		Light source		Sacrificial agent ^a		Activity (μmol h^-1 g^-1) ^b			Enhancement factor		AQE (%) ^c		Stability at least (h)	Ref. (year)
CdS-diethylenetriamine	NiS		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		230.6 (μmol h^-1)			8.42		—		16	[121] (2019)
TiO₂	NiS		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		6200			71		25.0 (340 nm)		—	[26] (2019)
TiO₂	NiS_x, CoS_x, CuS_x		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		5288.4			171.7		21.44 (356 nm)		24	[122] (2021)
g-C₃N₄	NiS, CoS_x, CuS_x		420 nm (LED)		TEOA		244			—		—		7.5	[74] (2021)
rGO/TiO₂	CoS_x		365 nm (LED)		TEOA		2569.7			12.7		—		—	[75] (2021)
g-C₃N₄/Co₃O₄	MoS₂, NiS, CoS		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5250			25.6		8.1 (420 nm)		20	[123] (2021)
Znln₂S₄	MoS₂, CuS		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		3056			37		—		12	[84] (2016)
CdS	MoO_xS_y		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Methanol		439			4		—		20	[124] (2020)
TiO₂	NiCuS_x		365 nm (LED)		Methanol		8558			—		34.67 (365 nm)		10	[125] (2021)
TiO₂	NiWS_x		365 nm (LED)		Ethanol		4580			—		13 (365 nm)		10	[126] (2021)
CdS	Co_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe), AM 1.5G (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		500000 (λ ≥ 420 nm), 270000 (AM 1.5G)			22.4		—		25 (λ ≥ 420 nm), 7 (AM 1.5G)	[56] (2017)
ZnIn₂S₄	Co-P alloy		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		7840			44		4.3 (420 nm)		15	[127] (2018)
MAPbI₃	CoP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		NaHPO₂		785.9			8		—		27	[128] (2020)
g-C₃N₄	Ni_xP		AM 1.5G (Xe)		Lactic acid		8585			572.3		—		75	[55] (2017)
N-TiO₂/g-C₃N₄	Ni_xP		780 > λ > 350 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5438			7.5		—		10	[129] (2018)
CdS	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		69200			27		4.2 (475 nm)		15	[130] (2019)
CdS	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		22500			70		—		—	[54] (2019)
CdS@CuS	Ni_xP		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		18160			5.6		13.06 (420 nm)		24	[131] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂	Ni_xP		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		28600			—		—		—	[53] 51(2020)
Defect-rich ZnS	Ni-P alloy		1000 > λ > 420 (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		3496			29		2.4 (420 nm)		24	[132] (2020)
Mn_0.5Cd_0.5S	Ni₂P		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		31830			2.8		32 (420 nm)		15	[133] (2021)
g-C₃N₄, TiO₂, CdS	Ni-P alloy		420 nm (LED)		TEOA		118.2 (g-C₃N₄)			35.8		0.66 (420 nm)		10 (g-C₃N₄)	[87] (2020)
TiO₂	Cu_xP		λ = 365 nm (LED)		Methanol		1870			30		7.7 (365 nm)		10	[76] (2020)
CdS	Ni₂O₃		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		NaNO₂		4456			41		—		—	[134] (2013)
CdS	NiO, Ni₂O₃		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		NaNO₂		5908			117		8.6 (400 nm)		—	[59] (2014)
TiO₂	NiO_x		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		High than Ni, Ni(OH)₂, and NiO using other methods			—		—		—	[135] (2019)
Zn_1-_xCd_xS	NiO		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		—		227.3			2		1.5 (430 nm)		12	[136] (2019)
Cd_1-_xZn_xS@ O-MoS₂	NiO_x		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		223170			1.2		64.1 (420 nm)		—	[60] (2019)
CdS/TiO₂	NiO_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		14100			—		—		—	[53] (2020)
Graphene assembly-Eos-in Y	CuO		λ > 420 nm (Xe)		TEOA		5850			2.3		—		12	[80] (2017)
TiO₂	CuO_x		AM 1.5G (Xe)		Methanol		407			—		—		—	[137] (2018)
g-C₃N₄	Ni(OH)₂, Co(OH)₂		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		19000			—		0.88 (400 nm)		16	[58] (2019)
g-C₃N₄	Ni(OH)₂		AM 1.5G (Xe)		TEOA		13707.86			718		0.78 (400 nm)		20	[57] (2020)
CdS	Ni(OH)₂		UV-Vis (Xe)		Ethanol		3933			3.8		—		—	[138] (2020)
g-C₃N₄/WO₃	Ni(OH)_x		λ > 400 nm (Xe)		TEOA		576			10.8		—		12	[139] (2017)
CdS	Co-Pi		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Lactic acid		13300			2.6		24.3 (420 nm)		12	[140] (2016)
TiO₂	Co₃O₄		UV-Vis (Xe)		Methanol		560			9.4		—		—	[141] (2016)
CaIn₂S₄	MnO_x		750 nm ≥ λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		5520			9.4		—		—	[142] (2019)
NH₂-UiO-66	MnO_x		λ ≥ 400 nm (Xe)		TEOA		577.9			—		—		—	[143] (2020)
CdS	MoS₂ + Co-Pi		UV-cut (Xe)		Lactic acid		40500			27		36 (420 nm)		20	[115] (2019)
ZnS@CdS	Ni + CoO_x		λ ≥ 420 nm (Xe)		Na₂S+Na₂SO₃		20325			1.8		—		18	[94] (2018)

Fig. 9. (a) High-magnification TEM image of the Ni-TiO2 composite. (b) Comparison of the photocatalytic H2 evolution activity over Ni-TiO2 with different addition amounts of Ni(NO3)2. (c) Schematic illustration of Ni photodegradation and photocatalytic H2 production over Ni-TiO2. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [97]. Copyright 2013, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 10. TEM image (a), HRTEM image (b), and SEM-EDX elemental mapping images (c) of C, N, and Ni of the Ni/g-C3N4 composite. (d) Comparison of the photocatalytic H2 evolution activity of Ni/g-C3N4 with different Ni loading amounts. (e) Photocatalytic H2 evolution of Ni/g-C3N4 irradiated by natural and stimulated sunlight. (f) Photocatalytic H2 evolution of Ni/g-C3N4 in the recycle experiment. (g) UV-Vis diffuse reflectance spectra of g-C3N4 and Ni/g-C3N4 and the H2 evolution rate of Ni/g-C3N4 along with different excitation light wavelengths. (h) Schematic diagram of photocatalytic H2 evolution over Ni/g-C3N4. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [50]. Copyright 2016, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 11. (a) Schematic illustration of the photochemical synthesis of Ni1/CdS. XANES spectra (b) and the corresponding Fourier transform curves (c) of NiS, Ni1/CdS, and Ni(OH)2 reference at Ni K-edge. (d) Photocatalytic H2 evolution activity of Ni1/CdS, Ni(OH)2 NPs/CdS, and CdS. (e) Long-term photocatalytic H2 evolution activity of Ni1/CdS. (f) Gibbs free energy for H* adsorption on Ni1/CdS, Ni(OH)2 NPs/CdS and CdS. (g) Charge density distributions of conduction band edges of Ni1/CdS, Ni(OH)2 NPs/CdS and CdS. (h) Differential charge density maps of Ni1/CdS and Ni(OH)2 NPs/CdS. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [82]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

Fig. 12. HRTEM image (a) and selected area electron diffraction patterns (b) of ZnxCd1-xS/MoS2 junction. (c) Comparison of photocatalytic H2 evolution of ZnxCd1-xS/MoS2 with different atom ratios of Zn/Cd. (d) The loading contents of MoS2. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [52]. Copyright 2013, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 13. (a) Schematic illustration of synthesizing MoS2 deposited g-C3N4 using photodeposition and physical mixing treatment. (b) Photocatalytic H2 evolution activities over MoS2 with different contents of deposited g-C3N4 composites using photodeposition. Single-particle photoluminescence images of pure g-C3N4 (c) and MoS2 deposited g-C3N4 composites using photodeposition (d) and physical mixing (e) treatment. Time-resolved diffuse reflectance spectra of pure g-C3N4 (f) and MoS2 deposited g-C3N4 composites (g) using photodeposition and heat mixing (h) treatment. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [24]. Copyright 2018, John Wiley and Sons.

Fig. 14. (a) Schematic diagram of photochemical preparation of NiS loaded g-C3N4 hybrid. TEM (b) and HRTEM (c) images of NiS loaded g-C3N4. (d) Comparison of the photocatalytic H2 evolution activity in the control experiment. (e) Photocatalytic H2 evolution in the recycle experiment. (f) UV-Vis diffuse reflectance spectra of g-C3N4 and NiS loaded g-C3N4 and the H2 evolution rate of NiS loaded g-C3N4 along with different excitation light wavelengths. (g) Schematic diagram of photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism over NiS loaded g-C3N4. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [73]. Copyright 2018, Elsevier.

Fig. 15. (a) Schematic illustration for the photodeposition route of CoxP loaded CdS. (b) SEM elemental mapping of Cd, S, Co, and P of CoxP loaded CdS. (c) Photocatalytic H2 evolution activity over CoxP loaded CdS. (d) UV-Vis diffuse reflectance spectra of CdS and CoxP loaded CdS and the H2 evolution rate of CoxP loaded CdS along with different excitation light wavelengths. (e) Schematic illustration for photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism of CoxP loaded CdS. (a-e) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [56]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (f) TEM elemental mapping of C, N, Ni, and P of NixP/g-C3N4 composite. (g) Schematic illustration for photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism of NixP/g-C3N4 composite. (f,g) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [55]. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 16. (a) Schematic diagram of the TEOA-mediated photodeposition formation of Ni-P loaded g-C3N4. TEM images (b,c) and HRTEM image (d) of Ni-P loaded g-C3N4. (e) Photocatalytic H2 evolution in the control experiment. (f) Schematic illustration of photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism over Ni-P loaded g-C3N4. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [87]. Copyright 2020, Springer.

Fig. 17. (a) HRTEM image of Co-Pi loaded CdS. (b) Comparison of the photocatalytic hydrogen production rates of CdS loaded with different amounts of Co-Pi and 1 wt% Pt in lactic acid aqueous solution under visible light irradiation. (c) Schematic illustration for photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism of Co-Pi loaded CdS. (a-c) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [140]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (d) Comparison of the photocatalytic H2-production activities for TiO2 and Co3O4 composite samples. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [141]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier.

Fig. 18. (a) Schematic diagram for the preparation of CdS@MoS2@Co-Pi. TEM images of pure CdS (b) and CdS@MoS2@Co-Pi (c). (d) EDX elemental mapping of Cd, Mo, S, Co, and P in CdS@MoS2@Co-Pi. (e) Photocatalytic H2 evolution activity over different cocatalysts. (f) Schematic diagram for the photocatalytic H2 evolution mechanism of CdS@MoS2@Co-Pi. (g) Recycling test of photocatalytic H2 evolution over CdS@MoS2@Co-Pi. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [94]. Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 19. Optimized slab structures for {100} (a), {010} (b), and {001} (c) slabs of Bi2MoO6. Calculated densities of states for {100} (d), {010} (e), and {001} (f) slabs of Bi2MoO6. (g) Schematic diagram of charge-separation process within Bi2MoO6. (h) SEM image of CoOx-Bi2MoO6 using photodeposition. (i) Photocatalytic oxygen evolution activity over pure Bi2MoO6 and CoOx-Bi2MoO6 using photodeposition and impregnation. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [15]. Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 20. (a) High-resolution Co 2p XPS spectra of TaON/LVCoOx and TaON/HVCoOx. (b) Schematic illustration of the crystal structure of TaON/LVCoOx; (c) Normalized Co K-edge XANES spectra of TaON/LVCoOx and control samples, indicating the dominant Co2+ species in the bulk. TEM images of LVCoOx (d) and HVCoOx (e) (the inset is the particle size distribution of CoOx). (f) Photocatalytic O2 evolution activity over different photocatalysts. (g) Absorption spectrum and wavelength-dependent AQE of photocatalytic O2 production for TaON/LVCoOx. (h) Schematic diagram for the photocatalytic O2 evolution mechanism over CoOx loaded TaON. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [86]. Copyright 2021, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 21. (a,b) SEM images of Co-Pi loaded BiVO4. (c) Photocatalytic O2 evolution over CoPi loaded BiVO4 with different loadings of Co-Pi. (d) Photocatalytic O2 evolution over BiVO4 modified with different cocatalysts. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [61]. Copyright 2012, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 22. SEM images of BiVO4 (a) and CoOx(OH)y/BiVO4 (b). (c) Photocatalytic O2 evolution over bare BiVO4 (a, blue), NiOx(OH)y/BiVO4 (b, magenta), and CoOx(OH)y/BiVO4 (c, red). SEM images of BiVO4 loaded by NiOx(OH)y with contents of 10 wt% (d), 1 wt% (e), and 0.1 wt% (f). (g) Schematic diagram for the energy band alignment for CoOx(OH)y/BiVO4 and NiOx(OH)y/BiVO4 along the (010) and (110) directions. (h) Schematic diagrams for oxygen evolution over CoOx(OH)y/BiVO4 and NiOx(OH)y/BiVO4 using NaIO3 as sacrificial agent. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [63]. Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society.

Fig. 23. (a) Dark field STEM image and histograms of metal particle size distribution of CoOx loaded MIL-125(Ti)-NH2. (b) Photocatalytic H2 and O2 evolution over CoOx loaded MIL-125(Ti)-NH2. (a,b) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [64]. Copyright 2019, Elsevier. (c) Photocatalytic H2 and O2 evolution over different SrTiO3(Al) based photocatalysts. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [160]. Copyright 2020, The Royal Society of Chemistry. (d) Photocatalytic H2 and O2 evolution over mpg-CNx-CoPi. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [151]. Copyright 2013, The Royal Society of Chemistry. (e) Photocatalytic overall water splitting over MnOx/CdS/Ti3+-SrTiO3 in the repeated experiment. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [65]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (f) Photocatalytic H2 and O2 evolution over Ba5Ta4O15 loaded by Cr2O3 with different deposition amounts. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [66]. Copyright 2016, John Wiley and Sons. (g) Schematic illustration for the deposition mechanisms of reductively photodeposited CrO42- and oxidatively photodeposited Cr2+. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [159]. Copyright 2017, John Wiley and Sons.

Fig. 24. TEM images of NiOx loaded GaN:ZnO (a) and CrOx-NiOx loaded GaN:ZnO (b). (c) Time courses of visible-light-driven overall water splitting on CrOx-NiOx loaded GaN:ZnO (circles) NiOx loaded GaN:ZnO (diamonds). Solid and open symbols indicate H2 and O2, respectively. (a-c) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [162]. Copyright 2010, John Wiley and Sons. (d) H2 and O2 evolution over CrOx-CuO loaded GaN:ZnO under ultraviolet-visible light irradiation. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [163]. Copyright 2011, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 25. Selected-area electron diffraction pattern obtained from Rh/Cr2O3/CoOOH-loaded SrTiO3:Al (a) and corresponding transmission electron microscopy image of a particle (b). (c) Particle morphology and crystal orientation. Simulations of photocarrier distributions in SrTiO3:Al particles: Mapping of conduction-band energy, Ec (d); density of electrons (e-), n (e); density of holes (h+), p (f); energy band diagram (g); and electron and hole densities (h) as functions of position (x′, y′) with work function difference ΔWel = 0.2 eV. (i) Effect of ΔWel on electron-to-hole-density ratio at the {100} and {110} facets. (j) Ultraviolet-visible diffuse reflectance spectrum of bare SrTiO3:Al (black solid line) and wavelength dependence of external quantum efficiency (EQE) during water splitting on Rh/Cr2O3/CoOOH-loaded SrTiO3:Al (red symbols). (k) Recycle performance of Rh/Cr2O3/CoOOH-loaded SrTiO3:Al in photocatalytic water splitting. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [167]. Copyright 2020, Nature.

Fig. 26. (a) Schematic diagram for photodeposition of Pt and MnOx on CdS/g-C3N4 heterojunction. (b) Photocatalytic overall water splitting over CdS/g-C3N4 co-loaded by Pt and MnOx. (a,b) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [63]. Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society. (c) Schematic diagram for photocatalytic overall water splitting mechanism of Pt-ZnIn2S4/rGO/Co3O4-BiVO4 composite. (d) Photocatalytic overall water splitting over Pt-Znln2S4/GO/Co3O4-BiVO4. (c,d) Reproduced with permission from Ref. [89]. Copyright 2021, Springer.

参考文献

[1]	K. Honda, A. Fujishima, Nature, 1972, 238, 37-38.
[2]	K. Chang, Z. W. Mei, T. Wang, Q. Kang, S. X. Ouyang, J. H. Ye, ACS Nano, 2014, 8, 7078-7087.
[3]	S. J. A. Moniz, S. A. Shevlin, D. J. Martin, Z. X. Guo, J. Tang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 731-759.
[4]	A. Mishra, A. Mehta, S. Basu, N. P. Shetti, K. R. Reddy, T. M. Aminabhavi, Carbon, 2019, 149, 693-721.
[5]	X. Li, Y. Li, H. Wang, H. Miao, H. Zhu, X. Liu, H. Lin, G. Shi, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 2020, 4, 730-736.
[6]	S. Zhang, H. Zhao, X. Li, Y. Li, Y. Jin, X. Liu, G. Shi, P. K. Wong, Appl. Catal. B, 2022, 300, 120758.
[7]	T. Chen, L. Liu, C. Hu, H. Huang, Chin. J. Catal., 2021, 42, 1413-1438.
[8]	S. Wang, X. Han, Y. Zhang, N. Tian, T. Ma, H. Huang, Small Structures, 2020, 2, 2000061.
[9]	L. Liu, H. Huang, Z. Chen, H. Yu, K. Wang, J. Huang, H. Yu, Y. Zhang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2021, 60, 18303-18308.
[10]	F. Chen, Z. Ma, L. Ye, T. Ma, T. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H. Huang, Adv Mater, 2020, 32, 1908350.
[11]	A. Meng, L. Zhang, B. Cheng, J. Yu, Adv. Mater., 2019, 31, 1807660.
[12]	J. Schneider, M. Matsuoka, M. Takeuchi, J. Zhang, Y. Horiuchi, M. Anpo, D. W. Bahnemann, Chem. Rev., 2014, 114, 9919-9986.
[13]	J. Wen, X. Li, W. Liu, Y. Fang, J. Xie, Y. Xu, Chin. J. Catal., 2015, 36, 2049-2070.
[14]	P. Niu, L. Zhang, G. Liu, H. M. Cheng, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22, 4763-4770.
[15]	X. Wu, J. N. Hart, X. Wen, L. Wang, Y. Du, S. X. Dou, Y. H. Ng, R. Amal, J. Scott, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 9342-9352.
[16]	J. Ran, T. Y. Ma, G. Gao, X. W. Du, S. Z. Qiao, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 3708-3717.
[17]	J. Hong, X. Xia, Y. Wang, R. Xu, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 15006-15012.
[18]	G. Shi, X. Zhang, J. Li, H. Zhu, Y. Li, L. Zhang, C. Ni, L. Chi, Nano Res., 2017, 10, 2377-2385.
[19]	X. She, J. Wu, H. Xu, J. Zhong, Y. Wang, Y. Song, K. Nie, Y. Liu, Y. Yang, M. T. F. Rodrigues, R. Vajtai, J. Lou, D. Du, H. Li, P. M. Ajayan, Adv. Energy Mater., 2017, 7. 1700025.
[20]	H. Xu, X. She, T. Fei, Y. Song, D. Liu, H. Li, X. Yang, J. Yang, H. Li, L. Song, P. M. Ajayan, J. Wu, ACS Nano, 2019, 13, 11294-11302.
[21]	J. Ran, J. Zhang, J. Yu, M. Jaroniec, S. Z. Qiao, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2014, 43, 7787-7812.
[22]	Q. Zhu, Z. Xu, B. Qiu, M. Xing, J. Zhang, Small, 2021, 17, 2101070.
[23]	M. Q. Yang, C. Han, Y. J. Xu, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2015, 119, 27234-27246.
[24]	X. Shi, M. Fujitsuka, S. Kim, T. Majima, Small, 2018, 14, 1703277.
[25]	X. Fu, L. Zhang, L. Liu, H. Li, S. Meng, X. Ye, S. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 15287-15293.
[26]	X. Shi, S. Kim, M. Fujitsuka, T. Majima, Appl. Catal. B, 2019, 254, 594-600.
[27]	Y. Yang, C. Zhou, W. Wang, W. Xiong, G. Zeng, D. Huang, C. Zhang, B. Song, W. Xue, X. Li, Z. Wang, D. He, H. Luo, Z. Ouyang, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 405.
[28]	Y. Zhang, D. A,. J. M. Ligthart, X. Y. Quek, L. Gao, E. J. M. Hensen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39, 11537-11546.
[29]	D. H. K. Murthy, H. Matsuzaki, Q. Wang, Y. Suzuki, K. Seki, T. Hisatomi, T. Yamada, A. Kudo, K. Domen, A. Furube, Sustain. Energy Fuels, 2019, 3, 208-218.
[30]	F. Li, X. Yue, H. Zhou, J. Fan, Q. Xiang, Chin. J. Catal., 2021, 42, 1608-1616.
[31]	Y. Li, D. Zhang, J. Fan, Q. Xiang, Chin. J. Catal., 2021, 42, 627-636.
[32]	Y. Li, D. Zhang, X. Feng, Q. Xiang, Chin. J. Catal., 2020, 41, 21-30.
[33]	G. M. Haselmann, D. Eder, ACS Catal., 2017, 7, 4668-4675.
[34]	M. Liu, P. Xia, L. Zhang, B. Cheng, J. Yu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 10472-10480.
[35]	J. Kosco, I. McCulloch, ACS Energy Lett., 2018, 3, 2846-2850.
[36]	S. Y. Toledo Camacho, A. Rey, M. D. Hernandez-Alonso, J. Llorca, F. Medina, S. Contreras, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2018, 455, 570-580.
[37]	P. Wang, Y. Sheng, F. Wang, H. Yu, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 220, 561-569.
[38]	A. Iwase, H. Kato, A. Kudo, Appl. Catal. B, 2013, 136-137, 89-93.
[39]	R. M. Mohamed, A. A. Ismail, A. S. Basaleh, H. A. Bawazir, Mater. Res. Bull., 2020, 131, 110962.
[40]	Y. Cui, H. Sun, G. Shen, P. Jing, Y. Pu, Langmuir, 2020, 36, 498-509.
[41]	N. Xiao, S. Li, X. Li, L. Ge, Y. Gao, N. Li, Chin. J. Catal., 2020, 41, 642-671.
[42]	J. H. Shah, B. Huang, A. M. Idris, Y. Liu, A. S. Malik, W. Hu, Z. Zhang, H. Han, C. Li, Small, 2020, 16, 2003361.
[43]	T. Wang, Z. Jiang, K. H. Chu, D. Wu, B. Wang, H. Sun, H. Y. Yip, T. An, H. Zhao, P. K. Wong, ChemSusChem, 2018, 11, 1365-1373.
[44]	A. Iwase, H. Kato, A. Kudo, Chem. Lett., 2005, 34, 946-947.
[45]	K. Maeda, K. Teramura, D. Lu, T. Takata, N. Saito, Y. Inoue, K. Domen, Nature, 2006, 440, 295.
[46]	W. Yao, C. Huang, N. Muradov, A. T. Raissi, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36, 4710-4715.
[47]	J. Y. H. Liu, W. F. Shangguan, Y. Teraoka, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2008, 112, 8521-8523.
[48]	D. Wang, A. Pierre, M. G. Kibria, K. Cui, X. Han, K. H. Bevan, H. Guo, S. Paradis, A. R. Hakima, Z. Mi, Nano Lett., 2011, 11, 2353-2357.
[49]	Q. Ding, T. Chen, Z. Li, Z. Feng, X. Wang, Chin. J. Catal., 2021, 42, 808-816.
[50]	L. Kong, Y. Dong, P. Jiang, G. Wang, H. Zhang, N. Zhao, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 9998-10007.
[51]	D. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Sun, R. M. Irfan, P. Du, J. Catal., 2018, 357, 147-153.
[52]	M. Nguyen, P. D. Tran, S. S. Pramana, R. L. Lee, S. K. Batabyal, N. Mathews, L. H. Wong, M. Graetzel, Nanoscale, 2013, 5, 1479-1482.
[53]	M. Y. Qi, Y. H. Li, F. Zhang, Z. R. Tang, Y. Xiong, Y. J. Xu, ACS Catal., 2020, 10, 3194-3202.
[54]	X. L. Yin, L. L. Li, M. L. Liu, D. C. Li, L. Shang, J. M. Dou, Chem. Eng. J., 2019, 370, 305-313.
[55]	Y. Dong, L. Kong, P. Jiang, G. Wang, N. Zhao, H. Zhang, B. Tang, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2017, 5, 6845-6853.
[56]	Y. Dong, L. Kong, G. Wang, P. Jiang, N. Zhao, H. Zhang, Appl. Catal. B, 2017, 211, 245-251.
[57]	Y. M. Dong, D. D. Li, G. L. Wang, P. P. Jiang, F. Y. Zhang, H. Z. Zhang, J. Li, J. Z. Lyu, Y. Wang, Q. Y. Liu, Chin. J. Catal., 2020, 41, 889-897.
[58]	F. Zhang, Y. Dong, P. Jiang, G. Wang, N. Zhao, H. Zhang, D. Li, J. Lyu, Y. Wang, J. Li, Y. Zhu, Chem. Asian J., 2019, 14, 4193-4200.
[59]	X. Chen, W. Chen, H. Gao, Y. Yang, W. Shangguan, Appl. Catal. B, 2014, 152-153, 68-72.
[60]	H. Lin, B. Sun, H. Wang, Q. Ruan, Y. Geng, Y. Li, J. Wu, W. Wang, J. Liu, X. Wang, Small, 2019, 15, 1804115.
[61]	D. Wang, R. Li, J. Zhu, J. Shi, J. Han, X. Zong, C. Li, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2012, 116, 5082-5089.
[62]	R. S. Sprick, Z. Chen, A. J. Cowan, Y. Bai, C. M. Aitchison, Y. Fang, M. A. Zwijnenburg, A. I. Cooper, X. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 18695-18700.
[63]	Y. Hermans, C. Olivier, H. Junge, A. Klein, W. Jaegermann, T. Toupance, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 53910-53920.
[64]	S. Remiro-Buenamañana, M. Cabrero-Antonino, M. Martínez-Guanter, M. Álvaro, S. Navalón, H. García, Appl. Catal. B, 2019, 254, 677-684.
[65]	J. Pan, Z. Chen, P. Wang, P. Wang, Q. Yu, W. Zhao, J. Wang, M. Zhu, Y. Zheng, C. Li, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 424, 130357.
[66]	J. Soldat, G. W. Busser, M. Muhler, M. Wark, ChemCatChem, 2016, 8, 153-156.
[67]	K. Wenderich, G. Mul, Chem. Rev., 2016, 116, 14587-14619.
[68]	C. T. Dinh, M. H. Pham, F. Kleitz, T. O. Do, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 13308-13313.
[69]	C. Sun, H. Zhang, H. Liu, X. Zheng, W. Zou, L. Dong, L. Qi, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 235, 66-74.
[70]	W. Chen, M. Liu, Y. Wang, L. Gao, H. Dang, L. Mao, Mater. Res. Bull., 2019, 116, 16-21.
[71]	J. Xiong, Y. Liu, S. Liang, S. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Wu, J. Catal., 2016, 342, 98-104.
[72]	C. Peng, W. Xu, P. Wei, M. Liu, L. Guo, P. Wu, K. Zhang, Y. Cao, H. Wang, H. Yu, F. Peng, X. Yan, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44, 29975-29985.
[73]	H. Zhao, H. Zhang, G. Cui, Y. Dong, G. Wang, P. Jiang, X. Wu, N. Zhao, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 225, 284-290.
[74]	M. Wang, J. Cheng, X. Wang, X. Hong, J. Fan, H. Yu, Chin. J. Catal., 2021, 42, 37-45.
[75]	F. Chen, H. F. Feng, W. Luo, P. Wang, H. G. Yu, J. J. Fan, Rare Metals, 2021, 40, 3125-3134.
[76]	J. Xu, W. Zhong, H. Yu, X. Hong, J. Fan, J. Yu, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2020, 8, 15816-15822.
[77]	L. Ge, C. Han, X. Xiao, L. Guo, Appl. Catal. B, 2013, 142-143, 414-422.
[78]	Y. Xiao, Y. Qi, X. Wang, X. Wang, F. Zhang, C. Li, Adv. Mater., 2018, 30, 1803401.
[79]	R. Li, F. Zhang, D. Wang, J. Yang, M. Li, J. Zhu, X. Zhou, H. Han, C. Li, Nat. Commun., 2013, 4, 1432.
[80]	J. Huo, X. Liu, X. Li, L. Qin, S. Z. Kang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42, 15540-15550.
[81]	H. Lyu, T. Hisatomi, Y. Goto, M. Yoshida, T. Higashi, M. Katayama, T. Takata, T. Minegishi, H. Nishiyama, T. Yamada, Y. Sakata, K. Asakura, K. Domen, Chem. Sci., 2019, 10, 3196-3201.
[82]	H. Zhang, Y. Dong, S. Zhao, G. Wang, P. Jiang, J. Zhong, Y. Zhu, Appl. Catal. B, 2020, 261.
[83]	F. Du, H. Lu, S. Lu, J. Wang, Y. Xiao, W. Xue, S. Cao, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2018, 43, 3223-3234.
[84]	W. Y. Lim, M. Hong, G. W. Ho, Dalton Trans., 2016, 45, 552-560.
[85]	Y. Li, H. Wang, S. Peng, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2014, 118, 19842-19848.
[86]	S. Y. Xiao, Y. Liu, X. F. Wu, L. T. Gan, H. Y. Lin, L. R. Zheng, S. Dai, P. F. Liu, H. G. Yang, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2021, 9, 14786-14792.
[87]	H. Yu, J. Xu, D. Gao, J. Fan, J. Yu, Sci. China Mater., 2020, 63, 2215-2227.
[88]	X. Zhou, Y. Fang, X. Cai, S. Zhang, S. Yang, H. Wang, X. Zhong, Y. Fang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 20579-20588.
[89]	M. Ou, J. Li, M. Geng, J. Wang, S. Wan, Q. Zhong, Catal. Lett., 2021, 151, 2570-2582.
[90]	X. Li, J. Yu, M. Jaroniec, X. Chen, Chem. Rev., 2019, 119, 3962-4179.
[91]	W. Liu, X. Wang, H. Yu, J. Yu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 12436-12445.
[92]	X. Liu, Y. Xue, Y. Lei, F. Wang, S. Min, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 2018, 1, 6493-6501.
[93]	Y. Xue, S. Min, J. Meng, X. Liu, Y. Lei, L. Tian, F. Wang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44, 8133-8143.
[94]	Y. Xin, Y. Huang, K. Lin, Y. Yu, B. Zhang, Sci. Bull., 2018, 63, 601-608.
[95]	P. Wang, T. Wu, Y. Ao, C. Wang, Renew. Energy, 2019, 131, 180-186.
[96]	P. Wang, S. Xu, F. Chen, H. Yu, Chin. J. Catal., 2019, 40, 343-351.
[97]	W. Wang, S. Liu, L. Nie, B. Cheng, J. Yu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2013, 15, 12033-12039.
[98]	L. Huang, X. Wang, J. Yang, G. Liu, J. Han, C. Li, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117, 11584-11591.
[99]	A. Indra, P. W. Menezes, K. Kailasam, D. Hollmann, M. Schroder, A. Thomas, A. Bruckner, M. Driess, Chem. Commun., 2016, 52, 104-107.
[100]	H. Yang, Z. Jin, D. Liu, K. Fan, G. Wang, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2018, 122, 10430-10441.
[101]	Y. Liu, G. Wang, Y. Ma, Z. Jin, Catal. Lett., 2019, 149, 1788-1799.
[102]	H. Zhang, Y. Dong, D. Li, G. Wang, Y. Leng, P. Zhang, H. Miao, X. Wu, P. Jiang, Y. Zhu, FlatChem, 2021, 26, 100232.
[103]	W. Chen, Y. Wang, M. Liu, L. Gao, L. Mao, Z. Fan, W. Shangguan, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2018, 444, 485-490.
[104]	N. Zhao, L. Kong, Y. Dong, G. Wang, X. Wu, P. Jiang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 9522-9531.
[105]	J. Li, J. J. Tian, L. G. Wang, C. T. Chang, Mater. Lett., 2018, 217, 243-246.
[106]	A. V. Korzhak, N. I. Ermokhina, A. L. Stroyuk, V. K. Bukhtiyarov, A. E. Raevskaya, V. I. Litvin, S. Y. Kuchmiy, V. G. Ilyin, P. A. Manorik, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A, 2008, 198, 126-134.
[107]	S. Onsuratoom, T. Puangpetch, S. Chavadej, Chem. Eng. J., 2011, 173, 667-675.
[108]	G. Chen, N. Ding, F. Li, Y. Fan, Y. Luo, D. Li, Q. Meng, Appl. Catal. B, 2014, 160-161, 614-620.
[109]	H. Zhao, Y. Dong, P. Jiang, H. Miao, G. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 7375-7381.
[110]	L. Shen, M. Luo, Y. Liu, R. Liang, F. Jing, L. Wu, Appl. Catal. B, 2015, 166-167, 445-453.
[111]	N. Qin, J. Xiong, R. Liang, Y. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Li, Z. Li, L. Wu, Appl. Catal. B, 2017, 202, 374-380.
[112]	H. Zhao, S. Sun, Y. Wu, P. Jiang, Y. Dong, Z. J. Xu, Carbon, 2017, 119, 56-61.
[113]	Y. Peng, J. Li, X. Qian, J. Zhang, J. Lin, J. Nanopart. Res., 2018, 20, 104.
[114]	X. Liu, Q. Liu, P. Wang, Y. Liu, B. Huang, E. A. Rozhkova, Q. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Dai, J. Lu, Chem. Eng. J., 2018, 337, 480-487.
[115]	K. Q. Lu, M. Y. Qi, Z. R. Tang, Y. J. Xu, Langmuir, 2019, 35, 11056-11065.
[116]	G. Malekshoar, A. K. Ray, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2016, 152, 35-44.
[117]	X. Li, C. Tang, Q. Zheng, Y. Shao, D. Li, J. Solid State Chem., 2017, 246, 230-236.
[118]	H. Yang, Z. Jin, G. Wang, D. Liu, K. Fan, Dalton Trans., 2018, 47, 6973-6985.
[119]	X. Liu, S. Min, Y. Xue, L. Tian, Y. Lei, F. Wang, New J. Chem., 2019, 43, 4152-4159.
[120]	X. Liu, S. Min, Y. Xue, Y. Lei, Y. Chen, F. Wang, Z. Zhang, Renew. Energy, 2019, 138, 562-572.
[121]	X. Ke, K. Dai, G. Zhu, J. Zhang, C. Liang, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2019, 481, 669-677.
[122]	W. Zhong, X. Wu, Y. Liu, X. Wang, J. Fan, H. Yu, Appl. Catal. B, 2021, 280, 119455.
[123]	H. Zhao, Z. Jiang, K. Xiao, H. Sun, H. S. Chan, T. H. Tsang, S. Yang, P. K. Wong, Appl. Catal. B, 2021, 280, 119456.
[124]	X. Lu, C. Y. Toe, F. Ji, W. Chen, X. Wen, R. J. Wong, J. Seidel, J. Scott, J. N. Hart, Y. H. Ng, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 8324-8332.
[125]	W. Zhong, D. Gao, H. Yu, J. Fan, J. Yu, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 419, 129652.
[126]	M. Zhang, W. Zhong, Y. Xu, F. Xue, J. Fan, H. Yu, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 2021, 149, 109796.
[127]	Q. Liu, M. Wang, Y. He, X. Wang, W. Su, Nanoscale, 2018, 10, 19100-19106.
[128]	C. Cai, Y. Teng, J. H. Wu, J. Y. Li, H. Y. Chen, J. H. Chen, D. B. Kuang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2020, 30, 2001478.
[129]	M. Wu, J. Zhang, C. Liu, Y. Gong, R. Wang, B. He, H. Wang, ChemCatChem, 2018, 10, 3069-3077.
[130]	S. Zhu, J. Wang, Y. He, Z. Yu, X. Wang, W. Su, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2019, 9, 5394-5400.
[131]	Y. H. Li, M. Y. Qi, J. Y. Li, Z. R. Tang, Y. J. Xu, Appl. Catal. B, 2019, 257, 117934.
[132]	S. Zhu, X. Qian, D. Lan, Z. Yu, X. Wang, W. Su, Appl. Catal. B. 2020, 269, 118806.
[133]	X. Jiang, Q. Liu, C. Cheng, F. Xing, C. Chen, C. Huang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46, 5197-5206.
[134]	X. Chen, W. Chen, P. Lin, Y. Yang, H. Gao, J. Yuan, W. Shangguan, Catal. Commun., 2013, 36, 104-108.
[135]	X. Chen, J. Xiong, J. Shi, S. Xia, S. Gui, W. Shangguan, Front. Energy Res., 2018, 13, 684-690.
[136]	X. Ning, W. Zhen, X. Zhang, G. Lu, ChemSusChem, 2019, 12, 1410-1420.
[137]	P. A. Bharad, A. V. Nikam, F. Thomas, C. S. Gopinath, ChemistrySelect, 2018, 3, 12022-12030.
[138]	S. Cebada, E. Soto, N. Mota, J. L. García Fierro, R. M. Navarro, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45, 20536-20548.
[139]	K. He, J. Xie, X. Luo, J. Wen, S. Ma, X. Li, Y. Fang, X. Zhang, Chin. J. Catal., 2017, 38, 240-252.
[140]	T. Di, B. Zhu, J. Zhang, B. Cheng, J. Yu, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2016, 389, 775-782.
[141]	A. Meng, J. Zhang, D. Xu, B. Cheng, J. Yu, Appl. Catal. B, 2016, 198, 286-294.
[142]	J. Ding, X. Li, L. Chen, X. Zhang, H. Yin, X. Tian, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2019, 11, 835-845.
[143]	J. Zhang, T. Bai, H. Huang, M. H. Yu, X. Fan, Z. Chang, X. H. Bu, Adv. Mater., 2020, 32, 2004747.
[144]	Y. Shi, B. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2016, 45, 1529-1541.
[145]	P. Xiao, W. Chen, X. Wang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2015, 5, 1500985.
[146]	G. W. Busser, B. Mei, A. Pougin, J. Strunk, R. Gutkowski, W. Schuhmann, M. G. Willinger, R. Schlogl, M. Muhler, ChemSusChem, 2014, 7, 1030-1034.
[147]	G. W. Busser, B. Mei, P. Weide, P. C. K. Vesborg, K. Stührenberg, M. Bauer, X. Huang, M. G. Willinger, I. Chorkendorff, R. Schlögl, M. Muhler, ACS Catal., 2015, 5, 5530-5539.
[148]	R. Li, H. Han, F. Zhang, D. Wang, C. Li, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1369-1376.
[149]	Y. Wang, Y. Wang, R. Jiang, R. Xu, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2012, 51, 9945-9951.
[150]	Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, G. Chen, T. Guo, L. Wang, X. Huang, W. Zeng, Mater. Lett., 2015, 148, 155-158.
[151]	R. L. Lee, P. D. Tran, S. S. Pramana, S. Y. Chiam, Y. Ren, S. Meng, L. H. Wong, J. Barber, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2013, 3, 1694-1698.
[152]	A. Li, T. Wang, X. Chang, W. Cai, P. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Gong, Chem. Sci., 2016, 7, 890-895.
[153]	A. Li, X. Chang, Z. Huang, C. Li, Y. Wei, L. Zhang, T. Wang, J. Gong, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2016, 55, 13734-13738.
[154]	B. Tian, W. Gao, X. Zhang, Y. Wu, G. Lu, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 221, 618-625.
[155]	M. W. Kanan, D. G. Nocera, Science, 2008, 321, 1072-1075.
[156]	E. M. P. Steinmiller, K. S. Choi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2009, 106, 20633-20636.
[157]	S. J. A. Moniz, J. Zhu, J. Tang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1301590.
[158]	R. S. Khnayzer, M. W. Mara, J. Huang, M. L. Shelby, L. X. Chen, F. N. Castellano, ACS Catal., 2012, 2, 2150-2160.
[159]	J. Menze, B. Mei, P. Weide, M. Muhler, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 17248-17252.
[160]	Y. Liu, X. Xu, S. Lv, H. Li, Z. Si, X. Wu, R. Ran, D. Weng, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2021, 11, 3039-3046.
[161]	K. Maeda, K. Teramura, D. Lu, N. Saito, Y. Inoue, K. Domen, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 7806-7809.
[162]	K. Maeda, N. Sakamoto, T. Ikeda, H. Ohtsuka, A. Xiong, D. Lu, M. Kanehara, T. Teranishi, K. Domen, Chem. Eur. J., 2010, 16, 7750-7759.
[163]	K. Maeda, T. Ohno, K. Domen, Chem. Sci., 2011, 2, 1362-1368.
[164]	T. Takashima, T. Sano, H. Irie, Electrochemistry, 2016, 84, 784-788.
[165]	T. Takashima, T. Sano, H. Irie, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44, 23600-23609.
[166]	L. Mu, Y. Zhao, A. Li, S. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Yang, Y. Wang, T. Liu, R. Chen, J. Zhu, F. Fan, R. Li, C. Li, Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 2463-2469.
[167]	T. Takata, J. Jiang, Y. Sakata, M. Nakabayashi, N. Shibata, V. Nandal, K. Seki, T. Hisatomi, K. Domen, Nature, 2020, 581, 411-414.
[168]	M. Tabata, K. Maeda, T. Ishihara, T. Minegishi, T. Takata, K. Domen, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2010, 114, 11215-11210.
[169]	H. Zhao, J. Wang, Y. Dong, P. Jiang, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2017, 5, 8053-8060.
[170]	Q. Yue, Y. Wan, Z. Sun, X. Wu, Y. Yuan, P. Du, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 16941-16947.
[171]	Z. Sun, H. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Lu, P. Du, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 13289-13295.
[172]	H. Chen, D. Jiang, Z. Sun, R. M. Irfan, L. Zhang, P. Du, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2017, 7, 1515-1522.
[173]	K. He, J. Xie, Z. Q. Liu, N. Li, X. Chen, J. Hu, X. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 13110-13122.

光催化水分解中地球储量丰富助催化剂的光沉积方法、功能与机理

Photodeposition of earth-abundant cocatalysts in photocatalytic water splitting: Methods, functions, and mechanisms

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

扫码分享

图/表 27

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	赵彬彬, 钟威, 陈峰, 王苹, 别传彪, 余火根. 高晶化g-C₃N₄光催化剂: 合成、结构调控和光催化产氢[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 52(9): 127-143.
[2]	唐小龙, 李锋, 李方, 江燕斌, 余长林. 单原子催化剂在光催化和电催化合成过氧化氢中的研究进展[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 52(9): 79-98.
[3]	蔡铭洁, 刘艳萍, 董珂欣, 陈晓波, 李世杰. 漂浮型Bi₂WO₆/C₃N₄/碳布S型异质结光催化材料用于高效净化水体环境[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 52(9): 239-251.
[4]	王思恺, 闵祥婷, 乔波涛, 颜宁, 张涛. 单原子催化: 追寻催化领域的“圣杯”[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 52(9): 1-13.
[5]	江梓聪, 程蓓, 张留洋, 张振翼, 别传彪. 氧化锌基梯型异质结光催化剂[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 52(9): 32-49.
[6]	刘博文, 蔡家杰, 张建军, 谭海燕, 程蓓, 许景三. MOF/CdS梯型光催化剂同时进行苯甲醇氧化和析氢反应及其机理研究[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 204-215.
[7]	乔蔚, 于立策, 常进法, 杨甫林, 冯立纲. MoSe₂纳米片耦合Pt纳米颗粒用于高效双功能催化甲醇辅助水电解制氢[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 113-123.
[8]	宋明明, 宋相海, 刘鑫, 周伟强, 霍鹏伟. ZnIn₂S₄/MOF-808微球结构S型异质结光催化剂的制备及其光还原CO₂性能研究[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 180-192.
[9]	邵秀丽, 李可, 李静萍, 程强, 王国宏, 王楷. 揭示NiS@Ta₂O₅纳米纤维中梯型电荷转移路径及光催化CO₂转化性能[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 193-203.
[10]	李嘉明, 李源, 王小田, 杨直雄, 张高科. TiO₂上原子分散的Fe位点促进光催化CO₂还原: 增强的催化活性、 DFT计算和机制洞察[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 145-156.
[11]	阎菲, 张由子, 刘思碧, 邹睿卿, Jahan B Ghasemi, 李炫华. 供体-受体型卟啉基金属有机框架实现有效电荷分离高效光催化析氢[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 124-134.
[12]	孙利娟, 王伟康, 路平, 刘芹芹, 王乐乐, 唐华. 纳米高熵合金实现光催化剂肖特基势垒的调控用于光催化制氢与苯甲醇氧化耦合反应[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 90-100.
[13]	刘海峰, 黄祥, 陈加藏. 电子态调控促进氢气无损耗纯化中CO的光致富集和氧化[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 51(8): 49-54.
[14]	袁鑫, 范海滨, 刘杰, 覃龙州, 王剑, 段秀, 邱江凯, 郭凯. 连续流技术在光氧化还原催化转化的最新进展[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 50(7): 175-194.
[15]	余治晗, 关晨, 岳晓阳, 向全军. 碳环渗入的结晶氮化碳S型同质结及其光催化析氢[J]. 催化学报, 2023, 50(7): 361-371.