4.6 Review

Key Strategies to Advance the Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting Performance of α-Fe2O3 Photoanode

Journal

CHEMCATCHEM
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 157-179

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cctc.201801187

Keywords

solar hydrogen; photoelectrochemical water splitting; hematite (alpha-Fe2O3); modification strategies; charge separation

Funding

  1. Climate Change Response project [2015 M1 A2 A2074663, 2015 M1 A2 A2056824]
  2. Basic Science Grant [NRF-2018R1 A2 A1 A05077909, NRF-2017R1D1 A1B03035450]
  3. Korea Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (KCAP) [2009-0093880]
  4. Next Generation Carbon Upcycling Project - MSIT [2017 M1 A2 A2042517]
  5. MOTIE of Republic of Korea [10050509, KIAT N0001754]
  6. UNIST [1.170053, 1.180006.01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The last few decades' extensive research on the photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting has projected it as a promising approach to meet the steadily growing demand for cleaner and renewable energy in a sustainable and economically viable fashion. Among many potential photocatalysts, hematite (alpha-Fe2O3) emerges as a highly promising photoanode material with favorable characteristics including visible light absorption (a suitable band gap energy), earth abundance, chemical stability, and low cost. A pronounced disadvantage of alpha-Fe2O3 is its low photovoltage together with an extremely short hole diffusion length and a low electrical conductivity, which limit its PEC water oxidation performance. To make alpha-Fe2O3 as a viable photocatalyst for PEC water splitting, one needs to rectify these unfavorable characteristics of alpha-Fe2O3 by elaborated multiple modifications. In this review article, we introduce various modification strategies of hematite with emphasis on surface modifications to achieve low onset potential as well as high photocurrent approaching the theoretical value for solar water splitting.

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