4.8 Review

Efficiency Accreditation and Testing Protocols for Particulate Photocatalysts toward Solar Fuel Production

期刊

JOULE
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 344-359

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2021.01.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Artificial Photosynthesis Project of the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) of Japan
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51825204, 51629201, 22088102]
  4. Australian Research Council through Laureate Fellowship program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses testing protocols for reliable efficiency reporting of photocatalytic overall water splitting based on particulate photocatalysts. It emphasizes the importance of establishing accreditation research laboratories for efficiency certification and proposes the launch of a "best research photocatalyst efficiencies" chart.
Photocatalytic water splitting has attracted great interest as a means of cost-effective conversion of sustainable solar energy to valuable chemicals. However, the absence of authorized efficiency measurement methods results in the accumulation of unverifiable and often misleading data, wasting the investment and resources of the research community and impeding the progress in the research field. Herein, testing protocols for reliable efficiency reporting of photocatalytic overall water splitting are discussed based on particulate photocatalysts. The sources of error and standard reporting protocols for hydrogen evolution rate, light source calibration, and solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiency have been revisited and recommended. The establishment of accreditation research laboratories is proposed for efficiency certification toward the launch of the figure of merit, a best research photocatalyst efficiencies'' chart. This initiative will provide an important platform for establishing standard testing protocols in photocatalytic water splitting and accelerating the STH conversion efficiency improvement toward practical application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据