Chinese Journal of Catalysis ›› 2026, Vol. 81: 9-36.DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(25)64894-7
• Review • Previous Articles Next Articles
Wenfeng Li, Guocheng Lv(
), Meng Liu, Fanyue Zhao, Zetian He, Guihong Li, Wenping Wang, Libing Liao, Daimei Chen()
Received:2025-07-02
Accepted:2025-09-15
Online:2026-02-18
Published:2025-12-26
Contact:
*E-mail: guochenglv@cugb.edu.cn (G. Lv),chendaimei@cugb.edu.cn (D. Chen).
About author:Guocheng Lv received his PhD degree from Beijing University of Chemical Technology and is now a professor and dean of the School of Materials Science and Engineering at China University of Geosciences (Beijing). His research interests mainly include mineral functional materials, environmental materials, new energy materials and comprehensive utilisation of mineral resources.Supported by:Wenfeng Li, Guocheng Lv, Meng Liu, Fanyue Zhao, Zetian He, Guihong Li, Wenping Wang, Libing Liao, Daimei Chen. Innovative strategies and perspectives for enhancing photoelectrochemical water splitting: Physical field engineering[J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2026, 81: 9-36.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.cjcatal.com/EN/10.1016/S1872-2067(25)64894-7
Fig. 1. Development process of external field-assisted PEC technology. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [52], Copyright 1972, Springer Nature. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [34]. Copyright 1985, AlP Publishing. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [35]. Copyright 1998, john Wiley and sons. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [38]. Copyright 2001, Elsevier. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [39]. Copyright 2003, Elsevier. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [40]. Copyright 2011, American Chemical society. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [41]. Copyright 2015, American Chemical society. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [42]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [43]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier.
Fig. 2. Scope schematic for this review.
Fig. 3. Fundamentals of PEC water splitting reaction.
Fig. 4. Semiconductor band edge alignment, spectral absorption ranges, along with the redox potentials associated with the production of H2 and O2 through water splitting.
Fig. 5. (a) Thermal field enhanced PEC water splitting mechanism. (b) Illustration of photothermal conversion. (c) The illustration of pyro-PEC process.
Fig. 6. (a) Schematic diagram of Co3O4 photothermal layer in PEC system. (b) Infrared images of Co3O4/BiVO4 in electrolyte solution. UV-vis diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (c) and Tauc plots (d) of samples. (e) Mott-Schottky plots. (f) TEM images of ZnFe2O4/Fe2O3. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [121]. Copyright 2021, john Wiley and Sons. (g) Infrared images of samples under NIR irradiation for 10 min. (h) EIS spectra of photoanodes. (i) LSV curves. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [124]. Copyright 2023, Wiley. (j) TEM images of the ZnIn2S4/WO3-C-wood. (k) The infrared image of ZnIn2S4/WO3-C-wood. (l,m) Calculated Gibbs free energies for the HER on ZnIn2S4 and the OER on WO3, evaluated in 298 and 373 K. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [127]. Copyright 2021, Wiley. (n) Temperature dependent LSV curves of GS/NiFe alloy/NiFe LDH catalyzed OER in 1.0 mol L?1 KOH. Inset: Arrhenius plots. (o) Plots of the overpotential-dependent activation energy (W) against the reaction overpotential. (p) Thermal image. (q) Corresponding temperature profile photoanode in the electrolyte. (r) Temperature-dependent LSV curves. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [128]. Copyright 2023, Springer Nature.
Fig. 7. (a) Thermal imaging of samples. (b) Synergistic mechanism of PEC and photothermal effects. (c) Hydrogen production rate of samples. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [103]. Copyright 2022, Royal Society of Chemistry. (d) Schematic illustration of 45-Cu2S/MoS2/Pt-100s. (e) Infrared thermal images of samples under NIR illumination for 300 s. (f) EIS curves. (g) The schematic PEC hydrogen production mechanism. (h) Overpotentials (at 10 mA cm?2). (i) LSV plots. (j) ABPE curves. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [104]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier.
Fig. 8. (a) SEM image of NaNbO3. (b) Illustration of pyroelectric catalysis mechanism. (c) I-T curve under hot-cold cycle conditions. (d) The principle of pyro-photo-electric catalysis system. (e) Mott-Schottky plots. (f) EIS curve of NaNbO3 under various conditions. (g) Schematic diagram of pyroelectric-PEC. (h) I-V curves. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [36]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. (i) Schematic representation of the crystalline lattice arrangements in samples exhibiting varying K:Na ratios. (j) Schematic illustration of the synergistic process for water splitting through the combined action of pyroelectric and PEC process. (k) J-V curves of sample under light + ΔT. (l) Illustration of oxygen vacancies. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [135]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier. (m) EPR diagram of BaTiO3 and BaTiO3−x-5% samples. (n) Illustration of pyroelectric catalysis. (o) LSV curves of samples under light illumination and thermal cycle. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [136]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier.
| External field | Materials | Temp. profile | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photothermal | Cu2S/MoS2/Pt | 44.3 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | ‒2.31 @ 0 V | — | — | 20 h | ×1.9 | [ | |
| Photothermal | ZnO/MXene | 29.7 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (0.1 mol L‒1) | 1.01 @1.23 V | — | — | 1 h | ×1.17 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Bi2S3/WO3 | 32 °C (600s NIR) | AM 1.5 G +NIR+Na2SO3 and Na2S (0.5 mol L‒1) | 4.05 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.2 | [ | |
| Photothermal | CdIn2S4/Ni-PPy | ’38.0 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.07 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.6 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiCo2O4/TiO2 | 43.2 °C (250s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 2.34 @1.23 V | H2: 103.0 O2: 49.9 μmol cm‒2/2.5 h at 1.23 VRHE | 93.2% | 8 h | ×1.3 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/CQDs/ Fe2O3/TiO2 | 44.6 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 3.0 @ 1.23 V | H2:63 O2: 30 μmol cm‒2/3 h at 1.23 VRHE | 92.1% | 11000 s | ×1.8 | [ | |
| Photothermal | ZnFe2O4/Fe2O3 | 40.6 °C (600s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 3.17 @1.23 V | H2: 120.92 O2: 59.63 μmol cm‒2/3 h at 1.23 VRHE | 96.8% | 3 h | ×2.1 | [ | |
| Photothermal | (Ti,Zn)-Fe2O3@Ti-Fe2O3@C&Co-Pi | 42 °C (350s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.02 @1.23 V | H2: 103.0 O2: 49.9 μmol cm‒2/2.5 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 92.1% | — | ×1.3 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/PPy/BiVO4 | 44.6 °C (120s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR + KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 3.64 @1.23 V | H2: 9 O2: 4.5 μmol cm‒2/500 s‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 96.2% | 2400 s | ×1.13 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/PANI/BiVO4 | 36.8 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 4.05 @1.23 V | H2: 213 O2: 90 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 96% | 7500 s | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiCo2O4/BiVO4 | 55 °C (120s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.20 @1.23 V | H2: 180 O2: 90 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 0.6 VRHE | 97.3% | 4 h | ×1.23 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiOOH/FeOOH/ Co3O4/BiVO4 | 37.4 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.34 @1.23 V | H2: 190 O2: 95 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.0 VRHE | 93% | 4 h | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 3.93 @1.23 V | H2: 522 μmol g‒1/30 min | — | 10 h | ×16.8 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | KxNa1‒xNbO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.528 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BiOIO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.134 μA @1.23 V | — | — | 300 s | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BaTiO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.38 @1.23 V | H2: 13.44 O2: 6.8 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | NaNbO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.37 @1.23 V | — | — | 540 s | ×1.6 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS/Sb2S3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 M) | 4.51 @1.23 V | — | — | 12 h | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS/In2S3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 3.52 @1.23 V | — | — | 4 h | ×3.5 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BaTiO3−x | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.77 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.13 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | NaNbO(3−x)-S | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.574 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×2.1 | [ |
Table 1 Comparative assessment of thermal field-PEC water splitting application studies.
| External field | Materials | Temp. profile | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photothermal | Cu2S/MoS2/Pt | 44.3 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | ‒2.31 @ 0 V | — | — | 20 h | ×1.9 | [ | |
| Photothermal | ZnO/MXene | 29.7 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (0.1 mol L‒1) | 1.01 @1.23 V | — | — | 1 h | ×1.17 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Bi2S3/WO3 | 32 °C (600s NIR) | AM 1.5 G +NIR+Na2SO3 and Na2S (0.5 mol L‒1) | 4.05 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.2 | [ | |
| Photothermal | CdIn2S4/Ni-PPy | ’38.0 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.07 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.6 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiCo2O4/TiO2 | 43.2 °C (250s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 2.34 @1.23 V | H2: 103.0 O2: 49.9 μmol cm‒2/2.5 h at 1.23 VRHE | 93.2% | 8 h | ×1.3 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/CQDs/ Fe2O3/TiO2 | 44.6 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 3.0 @ 1.23 V | H2:63 O2: 30 μmol cm‒2/3 h at 1.23 VRHE | 92.1% | 11000 s | ×1.8 | [ | |
| Photothermal | ZnFe2O4/Fe2O3 | 40.6 °C (600s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 3.17 @1.23 V | H2: 120.92 O2: 59.63 μmol cm‒2/3 h at 1.23 VRHE | 96.8% | 3 h | ×2.1 | [ | |
| Photothermal | (Ti,Zn)-Fe2O3@Ti-Fe2O3@C&Co-Pi | 42 °C (350s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.02 @1.23 V | H2: 103.0 O2: 49.9 μmol cm‒2/2.5 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 92.1% | — | ×1.3 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/PPy/BiVO4 | 44.6 °C (120s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR + KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 3.64 @1.23 V | H2: 9 O2: 4.5 μmol cm‒2/500 s‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 96.2% | 2400 s | ×1.13 | [ | |
| Photothermal | Co-Pi/PANI/BiVO4 | 36.8 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 4.05 @1.23 V | H2: 213 O2: 90 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | 96% | 7500 s | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiCo2O4/BiVO4 | 55 °C (120s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.20 @1.23 V | H2: 180 O2: 90 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 0.6 VRHE | 97.3% | 4 h | ×1.23 | [ | |
| Photothermal | NiOOH/FeOOH/ Co3O4/BiVO4 | 37.4 °C (300s NIR) | AM 1.5 G + NIR+ KPi (0.5 mol L‒1) | 6.34 @1.23 V | H2: 190 O2: 95 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.0 VRHE | 93% | 4 h | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 3.93 @1.23 V | H2: 522 μmol g‒1/30 min | — | 10 h | ×16.8 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | KxNa1‒xNbO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.528 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BiOIO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.134 μA @1.23 V | — | — | 300 s | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BaTiO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.38 @1.23 V | H2: 13.44 O2: 6.8 μmol cm‒2/2 h‒1 at 1.23 VRHE | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | NaNbO3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.37 @1.23 V | — | — | 540 s | ×1.6 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS/Sb2S3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 M) | 4.51 @1.23 V | — | — | 12 h | ×1.4 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | CdS/In2S3 | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G + Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 3.52 @1.23 V | — | — | 4 h | ×3.5 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | BaTiO3−x | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.77 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×1.13 | [ | |
| Hot-cold water bath cycle | NaNbO(3−x)-S | 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5 G+ Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 0.574 @1.23 V | — | — | — | ×2.1 | [ |
Fig. 9. Comparative assessment of thermal field-PEC water splitting application studies. Data collected from Refs. [36,95,104,109,115,117,118,121,123,124,132,134-142].
Fig. 10. (a) Schematic diagram of multiple piezoelectric field-assisted PEC water splitting. (b) Piezoelectric semiconductors under strain-free, tensile and compressive stresses. (c) Schematic diagram of the ferroelectric materials without strain.
Fig. 11. (a) Illustration of piezoelectric effect-driven ZnO-based PEC water splitting. (b) LSV curves of ZnO without and with strain. (c) Energy band alignment in the PEC configuration. (d) Photocurrent density of the ZnO piezo-photoelectrochemical device under cyclic compressive strains of ?0.12%. (e) Photocurrent density generated under cyclic tensile strains, with a light intensity of 50 mW cm?2 and an applied potential of 1.5 V referenced to a saturated calomel electrode (SCE). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [40]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical society. (f) Illustration of of Pt/ZnO/Co-Pi photoanode under ultrasonic vibrations and illumination. (g) LSV curves. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [145]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier. (h) The amplitude butterfly loops of ZnO electrode. (i) PFM phase hysteresis loops of the ZnO electrode. (j) The amplitude butterfly loops of the MoS2 electrodes. (k) ZnO/MoS2 with and without ultrasonic vibrations. (l) LSV and (m) I-t curves of samples. (n) Mechanism of the PZ-PEC water splitting of ZnO/MoS2 sample. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [146]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier.
Fig. 12. (a) PFM images. (b) Amplitude butterfly loops. (c) Phase hysteresis loops of electrode. LSV curves of T-TB (d) and C-TB (e) electrodes with negative poling, no poling, and positive poling. (f) Schematic diagram of the T-TB@Ag electrode and mechanism of carrier separation and transfer. (g) LSV plots. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [152]. Copyright 2024, Elsevier. (h) Illustration of PEC performance under simulated solar illumination. (i) Mechanism for the improved PEC activity for the TiO2/BaTiO3/Ag2O poling. (j) LSV curve under AM 1.5G irradiation and in the dark of the different electrodes. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [154]. Copyright 2019, john Wiley and Sons. (k) Schematic diagram of the TiO2-SrTiO3 with negative poling, no poling, and positive poling conditions. (l) J-V curves of the TiO2-SrTiO3 under negative poling, no poling, and positive poling conditions. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [155]. Copyright 2017, john Wiley and Sons.
| External field | Materials | Stimulus | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| piezoelectric field | Pt/ZnO/ Co-Pi | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibrations | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.1 mol L‒1) | 0.8 @1.23 VRHE | H2: 110 μmol O2:55 μmol at 1.23 VRHE after 10 h | — | 12000 s | ×1.34 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | BaTiO3: Ce | built-in electric field | 100 W tungsten-halogen lamp (120 mW cm−2) NaOH (1 mmol L‒1) | 1.45 @1.2 VRHE | H2 amounts are 22.50 μmol h‒1cm‒2 at 1.23 VRHE | — | 2 h | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | S-vacancies in CdS | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 3.09 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×1.96 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi-Vacancies in BiVO4 | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.162 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 300 s | ×1.8 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | BiFeO3/ PVDF | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.51 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 5000 s | ×3.35 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi2WO6/ BiOBr | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.088 @1.23 V RHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | WO3/a-CdS | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.13 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 2 h | ×1.61 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | CdS/PANI | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.62 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 5400 s | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | n-CdTeCd/ p-ZnOSb,NR/ITO | stirred at 1500 rpm | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 M) | ‒3.86 @0 VRHE | H2:58.5 O2: 28.6 μmolcm−2 h−1 at 0 VRHE | 84.7% | 24 h | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | PVDF/Cu/ PVDF-NaNbO3 | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | Tungsten-halogen lamp (100 mW cm‒2) NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 1.37 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.21 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | N doped 4H-SiC | 120 W ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 6.50 @1.4 VAg/AgCl | — | — | — | ×1.50 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | CdS | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.12 @1.23VRHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×3.62 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Microplate BiFeO3 | 40 kHz ultrasonic vibration | Xenon lamp (950 W m−2) with a UV light cutoff filter Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | ‒0.83 @0.6VRHE | — | — | 80 mins | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | ZnO/MoS2 | 40 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.1 mol L‒1) | 0.68 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 2 h | ×3.4 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | TiO2/BaTiO3/ CuInS2 | 40 kHz ultrasound actuation (100 W) | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 1.51 @1.23 VRHE | H2: 117 mmol h‒1 cm‒2 at 0.5 VRHE | 100% | 8 h | ×2 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | P-BiFeO3 | 90 kHz ultrasonic actuation | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.58 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | ZnO/ITO/PET | motor with wedged shaft drove the dynamic and static bending | AM 1.5G K2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.54 @1.5 VSCE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Ag-NaNbO3 | 40 kHz ultrasound actuation (100 W) | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 9.65 @1VAg/AgCl | — | — | 3 h | ×2.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi2WO6/CoB | 90 kHz ultrasonic actuation | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.382 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 4800 s | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/SrTiO3 | poling voltage was -10 V for 10 mins | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.43 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3/ Ag | poling voltage was + 1 V for 500s | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.1 mol L‒1) | 7.3 @1.23 VRHE | H2:137.3 O2: 72.1 μmol at 1.23 VRHE in 3 h | 95.1% | 6000 s | — | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3/ Ag2O | poling voltage was + 2 V for 600s | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.8 @0.8 VAg/Cl | — | — | 2 h | ×1.2 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3 | poling voltage was +3 V for 300s | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.4 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | NiFeOx/ BiVO4-OV | poling voltage was -150 V for 30 mins | AM 1.5G borate buffer(1 mol L‒1) | 6.3 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 30 h | ×1.4 | [ |
Table 2 Comparative assessment of piezoelectric field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies.
| External field | Materials | Stimulus | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| piezoelectric field | Pt/ZnO/ Co-Pi | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibrations | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.1 mol L‒1) | 0.8 @1.23 VRHE | H2: 110 μmol O2:55 μmol at 1.23 VRHE after 10 h | — | 12000 s | ×1.34 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | BaTiO3: Ce | built-in electric field | 100 W tungsten-halogen lamp (120 mW cm−2) NaOH (1 mmol L‒1) | 1.45 @1.2 VRHE | H2 amounts are 22.50 μmol h‒1cm‒2 at 1.23 VRHE | — | 2 h | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | S-vacancies in CdS | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 3.09 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×1.96 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi-Vacancies in BiVO4 | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.162 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 300 s | ×1.8 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | BiFeO3/ PVDF | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.51 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 5000 s | ×3.35 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi2WO6/ BiOBr | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.088 @1.23 V RHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | WO3/a-CdS | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.13 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 2 h | ×1.61 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | CdS/PANI | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.62 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 5400 s | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | n-CdTeCd/ p-ZnOSb,NR/ITO | stirred at 1500 rpm | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 M) | ‒3.86 @0 VRHE | H2:58.5 O2: 28.6 μmolcm−2 h−1 at 0 VRHE | 84.7% | 24 h | — | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | PVDF/Cu/ PVDF-NaNbO3 | 70 kHz ultrasonic vibration | Tungsten-halogen lamp (100 mW cm‒2) NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 1.37 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.21 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | N doped 4H-SiC | 120 W ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (1 mol L‒1) | 6.50 @1.4 VAg/AgCl | — | — | — | ×1.50 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | CdS | 90 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.12 @1.23VRHE | — | — | 6000 s | ×3.62 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Microplate BiFeO3 | 40 kHz ultrasonic vibration | Xenon lamp (950 W m−2) with a UV light cutoff filter Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | ‒0.83 @0.6VRHE | — | — | 80 mins | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | ZnO/MoS2 | 40 kHz ultrasonic vibration | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.1 mol L‒1) | 0.68 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 2 h | ×3.4 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | TiO2/BaTiO3/ CuInS2 | 40 kHz ultrasound actuation (100 W) | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 1.51 @1.23 VRHE | H2: 117 mmol h‒1 cm‒2 at 0.5 VRHE | 100% | 8 h | ×2 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | P-BiFeO3 | 90 kHz ultrasonic actuation | AM 1.5G Na2SO4 (0.2 mol L‒1) | 2.58 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×2.2 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | ZnO/ITO/PET | motor with wedged shaft drove the dynamic and static bending | AM 1.5G K2SO4 (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.54 @1.5 VSCE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Ag-NaNbO3 | 40 kHz ultrasound actuation (100 W) | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 9.65 @1VAg/AgCl | — | — | 3 h | ×2.3 | [ | ||
| piezoelectric field | Bi2WO6/CoB | 90 kHz ultrasonic actuation | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.5 mol L‒1) | 0.382 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 4800 s | ×1.3 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/SrTiO3 | poling voltage was -10 V for 10 mins | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.43 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3/ Ag | poling voltage was + 1 V for 500s | AM 1.5G NaOH (0.1 mol L‒1) | 7.3 @1.23 VRHE | H2:137.3 O2: 72.1 μmol at 1.23 VRHE in 3 h | 95.1% | 6000 s | — | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3/ Ag2O | poling voltage was + 2 V for 600s | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.8 @0.8 VAg/Cl | — | — | 2 h | ×1.2 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | TiO2/BaTiO3 | poling voltage was +3 V for 300s | AM 1.5G NaOH (1 mol L‒1) | 1.4 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | — | ×1.1 | [ | ||
| ferroelectric polarization | NiFeOx/ BiVO4-OV | poling voltage was -150 V for 30 mins | AM 1.5G borate buffer(1 mol L‒1) | 6.3 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 30 h | ×1.4 | [ |
Fig. 13. Comparative assessment of piezoelectric field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies. Data collected from Refs. [41,145,146,148,152-155,157-162,164,166,167,169].
Fig. 14. (a) PEC water splitting with magnetic field modulation. (b) Schematic diagram of PEC enhanced by negative MR effect. (c) Schematic diagram of PEC enhanced by Lorentz force. (d) Schematic diagram of spin-polarization-enhanced PEC.
Fig. 15. (a) SEM and HR-TEM images of Co3O4/CoFe2O4@NF. (b) Depiction of the alteration in magnetic moment for ferromagnetic substances. (c) Hysteresis curves. (d) Magneto-transport properties of CoFe2O4 at room temperature. (e) EIS plots. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [170]. Copyright 2023, john Wiley and Sons. (f) Schematic of magnet placement for PEC measurements, magnet size 10 cm × 5 cm × 2 cm, magnetic strength ~140.0 mT. (g) Image of the electrode parallel with a magnet for PEC measurements. (h) LSV values of photoelectrodes with and without a 140.0 mT parallel magnet under AM 1.5G irradiation and dark conditions. (i) Under AM 1.5G irradiation as well as in the presence of different pieces of magnets (~40.0 mT/piece), the LSV curves of BiVO4 film, α-Fe2O3 film, and p-Si (111) wafer sheet photoelectrodes. (j) Diagram of the placed position of magnet relative to the photoelectrode, and the direction of magnetic field relative to the moving charge carrier of photoelectrode. (k) Schematic diagram of magnetic field driven PEC system. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [172]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.
Fig. 16. (a) Magnetic-field enhanced PEC experimental configuration. (b) I-t curves of samples under 1.57 VRHE with light and magnet. (c) Hysteresis curves of different samples. (d) magneto-transport properties of after phosphide. (e) Schematic diagram of spin-polarization-enhanced ferromagnetic ZnFe2O4 photogenerated carrier separation transfer mechanism. The three-dimensional and planar distribution maps of spin polarization for ZnFe2O4 (f) and ZnFe2O4 (g) after phosphide. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [173]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society. (h) LSV curves. (i) IPCE curves. (j) Magnetisation state diagrams of Fe2TiO5 thin films in an unmagnetised state and perpendicular to a plane magnetic field. (k) The ηtrans and ηsep values of BiVO4/Fe2TiO5 with or without magnetic field. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [174]. Copyright 2024, American Chemical Society.
| External field | Material | Field condition | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| magnetic | BiVO4 and α-Fe2O3 (photoanodes) Cu2O/CuO and p-Si (111) (photocathodes) | 140 mT | AM 1.5G 0.1 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 1.43 and 1.4@1.23 VRHE ‒3.5 and ‒0.165 @0.1 VRHE, respectively | — | — | 60 min | 1.146, 1.15.69, 1.17 and 1.1393 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | ZnFe2O4+P | 100 mT | AM 1.5G 0.1 mol L‒1 KOH | 1.05 @1.57 VRHE | O2: 17.7 μmol at 1.57 VRHE after 2 h | 92% | — | 1.5 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | FeCoSe2 | 4 mT | AM 1.5G 1 mol L‒1 KOH | 3.98 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 7000 s | 1.057 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | Mo2CTx/MoSSe/SiNW | 400 mT | AM 1.5G 0.5 mol L‒1 H2SO4 | ‒0.561 @0 VRHE | H2: 54.4 mmol cm‒2 h‒1 at 0 VRHE | — | 2.5 h | 1.52 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | BiVO4/Fe2TiO5 | 200 mT | AM 1.5G 0.2 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 3.33 @1.23 VRHE | O2: ~17 μmol cm‒2 in 50 min at 1.23 VRHE | ~90% | 6 h | 1.08 times | [ |
Table 3 Comparative assessment of magnetic field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies.
| External field | Material | Field condition | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| magnetic | BiVO4 and α-Fe2O3 (photoanodes) Cu2O/CuO and p-Si (111) (photocathodes) | 140 mT | AM 1.5G 0.1 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 1.43 and 1.4@1.23 VRHE ‒3.5 and ‒0.165 @0.1 VRHE, respectively | — | — | 60 min | 1.146, 1.15.69, 1.17 and 1.1393 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | ZnFe2O4+P | 100 mT | AM 1.5G 0.1 mol L‒1 KOH | 1.05 @1.57 VRHE | O2: 17.7 μmol at 1.57 VRHE after 2 h | 92% | — | 1.5 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | FeCoSe2 | 4 mT | AM 1.5G 1 mol L‒1 KOH | 3.98 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 7000 s | 1.057 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | Mo2CTx/MoSSe/SiNW | 400 mT | AM 1.5G 0.5 mol L‒1 H2SO4 | ‒0.561 @0 VRHE | H2: 54.4 mmol cm‒2 h‒1 at 0 VRHE | — | 2.5 h | 1.52 times | [ | ||
| magnetic | BiVO4/Fe2TiO5 | 200 mT | AM 1.5G 0.2 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 3.33 @1.23 VRHE | O2: ~17 μmol cm‒2 in 50 min at 1.23 VRHE | ~90% | 6 h | 1.08 times | [ |
Fig. 17. Comparative assessment of magnetic field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies. Data collected from Refs. [171-175].
Fig. 18. Schematic diagram of multiple external physical field-driven PEC water splitting.
Fig. 19. (a) SEM image of NaNbO3; Coupling of magnetic-thermal field of NaNbO3 simulated by COMSOL. (b) Internal temperature distribution. (c) Cross-sectional thermal mapping. (d) Magnetic flux density distribution. (e) Charge density characteristics (20 °C/50 °C) with octahedral structures. (f) LSV curves of NaNbO3under different conditions. (g) Schematic diagram of the coupling of pyroelectric and thermomagnetic effects in the PEC process. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [42]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier. (h) TEM image of Ba0.7Sr0.3TiO3 nano-blocks. (i) The schematic crystal structures of front and side of Ba0.7Sr0.3TiO3. (j) The bulk charge separation efficiency. (k) The current density-voltage curves. (l) Schematic diagram of Ba0.7Sr0.3TiO3 water decomposition enhanced by the synergistic effect of mechanical stress and temperature field. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [43]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier.
| External field | Material | Field condition | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability (s) | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic + pyroelectric | NaNbO3 | 100 mT+ 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5G 1 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 0.45@1.23 VRHE | — | — | 420 | 3, 1.23 and 2.72 times higher than no field, pyroelectric and magnetic fields alone, | [ | ||
| piezoelectric + pyroelectric | Ba0.7Sr0.3 TiO3 | 50‒90kHz+ 20-50 °C | AM 1.5G 0.2 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 1.01 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 250 | 1.42, 1.22 and 1.31 times higher than no field, piezoelectric and pyroelectric fields alone | [ |
Table 4 Comparative assessment of multiple field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies.
| External field | Material | Field condition | Condition | J (mA cm‒2) | Production rate | Faradic efficiency | Stability (s) | Enhancement in external field | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic + pyroelectric | NaNbO3 | 100 mT+ 20‒50 °C | AM 1.5G 1 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 0.45@1.23 VRHE | — | — | 420 | 3, 1.23 and 2.72 times higher than no field, pyroelectric and magnetic fields alone, | [ | ||
| piezoelectric + pyroelectric | Ba0.7Sr0.3 TiO3 | 50‒90kHz+ 20-50 °C | AM 1.5G 0.2 mol L‒1 Na2SO4 | 1.01 @1.23 VRHE | — | — | 250 | 1.42, 1.22 and 1.31 times higher than no field, piezoelectric and pyroelectric fields alone | [ |
Fig. 20. Comparative assessment of multiple field enhanced PEC water splitting application studies. Data collected from Refs. [42,43].
Fig. 21. Overview of PEC water splitting driven by thermal field, piezoelectric field, and magnetic field.
| Strategy | External condition | Working principle | Advantage | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermal field- photothermal effect | light irradiation | localized heating reduces recombination | NIR utilization enhanced carrier kinetics | material instability >60°C thermal management complexity |
| Thermal field- pyroelectric effect | dynamic temperature fluctuations | thermal gradients → transient polarization | waste heat recovery boosted built-in field | ineffective at steady-state limited material choices |
| Piezoelectric field- strain piezoelectricity | mechanical stress (ultrasound/vibration) | crystal deformation → polarized charges | self-powered operation flexible integration | fatigue failure risk requires sustained stimulation |
| Piezoelectric field- ferroelectric polarization | DC poling treatment | remnant polarization → permanent built-in field | recombination suppression persistent effect | electrolytic depolarization |
| Magnetic field | static/oscillating field (>100 mT optimal) | lorentz force deflection & spin polarization | extended carrier lifetime enhanced OER kinetics | high energy consumption non-magnetic material incompatibility |
| Coupled fields | multi-field simultaneity | synergistic carrier/reaction dynamics | efficiency breakthrough multi-bottleneck addressing | interfacial delamination risk no standardized design rules |
Table 5 Comparison of the principles and advantages and disadvantages of various physical field strategies.
| Strategy | External condition | Working principle | Advantage | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermal field- photothermal effect | light irradiation | localized heating reduces recombination | NIR utilization enhanced carrier kinetics | material instability >60°C thermal management complexity |
| Thermal field- pyroelectric effect | dynamic temperature fluctuations | thermal gradients → transient polarization | waste heat recovery boosted built-in field | ineffective at steady-state limited material choices |
| Piezoelectric field- strain piezoelectricity | mechanical stress (ultrasound/vibration) | crystal deformation → polarized charges | self-powered operation flexible integration | fatigue failure risk requires sustained stimulation |
| Piezoelectric field- ferroelectric polarization | DC poling treatment | remnant polarization → permanent built-in field | recombination suppression persistent effect | electrolytic depolarization |
| Magnetic field | static/oscillating field (>100 mT optimal) | lorentz force deflection & spin polarization | extended carrier lifetime enhanced OER kinetics | high energy consumption non-magnetic material incompatibility |
| Coupled fields | multi-field simultaneity | synergistic carrier/reaction dynamics | efficiency breakthrough multi-bottleneck addressing | interfacial delamination risk no standardized design rules |
| Technology | Estimated LCOH (USD kg‒1 H2) | Key assumptions & Cost drivers | Impact of field energy input |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steam methane reforming (SMR) | 1.2‒2.5 | capital cost, natural gas feedstock price, no cost for carbon emissions. | — |
| PV-electrolyzer (PV-EC) | 4.0‒6.0 (future projection) | capital cost of PV modules & electrolyzer (PEM/AEM), balance of plant. assumes STH > 20%. | — |
| Standard PEC (no external field) | 10.0+ (highly uncertain) | high capital cost: expensive photoelectrode materials, reactor fabrication. high operating cost: short lifetime leads to frequent replacement. | — |
| Field-assisted PEC (e.g., Ultrasound) | >> standard PEC cost | capital Cost: field generator (e.g., ultrasonic, RF heater), power supply, cooling system. operating cost: electrical energy input for the field is a major and continuous cost driver. | the input cost of field energy accounts for a high proportion. assuming that the additional electrical energy input accounts for 30% of the total hydrogen production energy, LCOH will significantly increase. the direct correlation between field energy input cost and hydrogen production is one of its main economic disadvantages. |
| Immersed PV-EC (High-efficiency) | ~1.8‒4.0 (projected) | high cost of III-V multi-junction cells offset by very high STH efficiency (> 20%) and use of earth-abundant catalysts. | — |
Table 6 Estimated levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) for various hydrogen production technologies.
| Technology | Estimated LCOH (USD kg‒1 H2) | Key assumptions & Cost drivers | Impact of field energy input |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steam methane reforming (SMR) | 1.2‒2.5 | capital cost, natural gas feedstock price, no cost for carbon emissions. | — |
| PV-electrolyzer (PV-EC) | 4.0‒6.0 (future projection) | capital cost of PV modules & electrolyzer (PEM/AEM), balance of plant. assumes STH > 20%. | — |
| Standard PEC (no external field) | 10.0+ (highly uncertain) | high capital cost: expensive photoelectrode materials, reactor fabrication. high operating cost: short lifetime leads to frequent replacement. | — |
| Field-assisted PEC (e.g., Ultrasound) | >> standard PEC cost | capital Cost: field generator (e.g., ultrasonic, RF heater), power supply, cooling system. operating cost: electrical energy input for the field is a major and continuous cost driver. | the input cost of field energy accounts for a high proportion. assuming that the additional electrical energy input accounts for 30% of the total hydrogen production energy, LCOH will significantly increase. the direct correlation between field energy input cost and hydrogen production is one of its main economic disadvantages. |
| Immersed PV-EC (High-efficiency) | ~1.8‒4.0 (projected) | high cost of III-V multi-junction cells offset by very high STH efficiency (> 20%) and use of earth-abundant catalysts. | — |
|
| [1] | Hua Yang, Dingyanyan Zhou, Kaige Tian, Lingjiang Kong, Pengfei An, Jing Zhang, Yujin Ji, Youyong Li, Junqing Yan. Dual-hole extraction strategy promotes photoelectrochemical water splitting of bismuth vanadate photoanode [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2025, 77(10): 236-249. |
| [2] | Wenjie Yu, Chao Feng, Ronghua Li, Beibei Zhang, Yanbo Li. Recent advances in tantalum nitride for photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2025, 68(1): 51-82. |
| [3] | Wei Xu, Chao Zhen, Huaze Zhu, Tingting Yao, Jianhang Qiu, Yan Liang, Shuo Bai, Chunlin Chen, Hui-Ming Cheng, Gang Liu. A Ta3N5 photoanode with few deep-level defects derived from topologic transition of ammonium tantalum oxyfluoride for ultralow-bias photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2024, 61(6): 144-153. |
| [4] | Chao Feng, Yanbo Li. Self-healing mechanisms toward stable photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2024, 60(5): 158-170. |
| [5] | Xiaoning Li, Chongyan Hao, Yumeng Du, Yun Lu, Yameng Fan, Mingyue Wang, Nana Wang, Ruijin Meng, Xiaolin Wang, Zhichuan J. Xu, Zhenxiang Cheng. Harnessing magnetic fields to accelerate oxygen evolution reaction [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2023, 55(12): 191-199. |
| [6] | Zhiming Zhou, Jinjin Chen, Qinlong Wang, Xingxing Jiang, Yan Shen. Enhanced photoelectrochemical water splitting using a cobalt-sulfide-decorated BiVO4 photoanode [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2022, 43(2): 433-441. |
| [7] | Chao Wei, Zhichuan J. Xu. The possible implications of magnetic field effect on understanding the reactant of water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2022, 43(1): 148-157. |
| [8] | Jiayue Rong, Zhenzhen Wang, Jiaqi Lv, Ming Fan, Ruifeng Chong, Zhixian Chang. Ni(OH)2 quantum dots as a stable cocatalyst modified α-Fe2O3 for enhanced photoelectrochemical water-splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2021, 42(11): 1999-2009. |
| [9] | Yang Li, Ningsi Zhang, Changhao Liu, Yuanming Zhang, Xiaoming Xu, Wenjing Wang, Jianyong Feng, Zhaosheng Li, Zhigang Zou. Metastable-phase β-Fe2O3 photoanodes for solar water splitting with durability exceeding 100 h [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2021, 42(11): 1992-1998. |
| [10] | Shaoce Zhang, Zhifeng Liu, Weiguo Yan, Zhengang Guo, Mengnan Ruan. Decorating non-noble metal plasmonic Al on a TiO2/Cu2O photoanode to boost performance in photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2020, 41(12): 1884-1893. |
| [11] | Zhifeng Liu, Xue Lu. Multifarious function layers photoanode based on g-C3N4 for photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2018, 39(9): 1527-1533. |
| [12] | Qizhao Wang, Tengjiao Niu, Lei Wang, Jingwei Huang, Houde She. NiFe layered double-hydroxide nanoparticles for efficiently enhancing performance of BiVO4 photoanode in photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2018, 39(4): 613-618. |
| [13] | Yuanxing Fang, Yiwen Ma, Xinchen Wang. Efficient development of Type-II TiO2 heterojunction using electrochemical approach for an enhanced photoelectrochemical water splitting performance [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2018, 39(3): 438-445. |
| [14] | Shengsen Zhang, Jie Yan, Siyuan Yang, Yuehua Xu, Xin Cai, Xin Li, Xiangchao Zhang, Feng Peng, Yueping Fang. Electrodeposition of Cu2O/g-C3N4 heterojunction film on an FTO substrate for enhancing visible light photoelectrochemical water splitting [J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2017, 38(2): 365-371. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
