Photoelectrocatalytic hydrogen peroxide production based on transition-metal-oxide semiconductors

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

Abstract

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

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.

×
share this article

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.cjcatal.com/EN/10.1016/S1872-2067(21)64028-7

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

Figures/Tables 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.

References

[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.