4.6 Article

Direct Observation of Two Electron Holes in a Hematite Photoanode during Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
Volume 116, Issue 32, Pages 16870-16875

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp304254k

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Community's Sixth Framework Marie Curie International Reintegration Program [042095]
  2. Seventh Framework Program Novel Materials for Energy Applications [227179]
  3. Swiss NSF [206021-121306, IZK0Z2-133944, 200021-132126]
  4. European Research Council [ERC-2010-MG 267816 Li-Lo]
  5. Swiss Federal Office of Energy [152316-101883, 153613-102809]
  6. Office of Science/BES, of the U.S. DoE [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  7. Natural Science Foundation of China [20873128]
  8. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB923302]
  9. Hundred Talents Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  10. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [IZK0Z2_133944] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Visible light active photoelectrodes for hydrogen generation by solar photoelectrochemical water splitting have been under scrutiny for many decades. In particular, the role of electron holes and charge transfer remains controversial. We have investigated the oxygen evolution of hematite in alkaline aqueous electrolyte under a bias potential during visible light illumination in a photoelectrochemical cell operando with soft X-ray (O 1s) spectroscopy. Only under these conditions, two new spectral signatures evolve in the valence band, which we identify as an O 2p hole transition into the charge transfer band and an Fe 3d type hole into the upper Hubbard band. Quantitative analysis of their spectral weight and comparison with the photocurrent reveals that both types of holes, contrary to earlier speculations and common perception, contribute to the photocurrent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available