4.6 Review

Similar Looks, Different Photoelectrochemical Behavior: Unique Aspects of Metal-Nanocluster-Sensitized Electrodes

期刊

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 2713-2725

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01095

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2019R1A2C1003429]
  2. Ministry of Education [NRF-2018R1A6A1A03024231]
  3. GRRC program of Gyeonggi province (Hydrogen Energy Full Cycle Core Material Research Center) [GRRCHanyang2020-A01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal nanoclusters (NCs) have been used in energy conversion devices as alternatives to traditional photosensitizers, but recent studies have shown that they exhibit distinct PEC attributes. It is essential to redefine the evaluation criteria for NCs and future research should focus on better understanding their unique PEC behavior to establish new design principles.
Metal nanoclusters (NCs) were initially used in light-harvesting applications as mere alternatives to traditional photosensitizers; therefore, NCs are often evaluated using a similar set of parameters as those developed for their traditional counterparts. Despite the resemblance in the design architectures and working principles of NC-based and traditional-sensitized photoelectrodes, recent studies have revealed that the photoelectrochemical (PEC) attributes of NC-sensitized photoelectrodes are distinctly different. Therefore, it is important to redefine the criteria used for assessing NCs in energy conversion devices. In this Focus Review, we present a comprehensive overview of some unique PEC behavior of NC-sensitized photoelectrodes. We also provide a mechanistic description of the photodegradation route and how it can be manipulated to compensate for photosensitization loss in NCs under practical operating conditions. Finally, we discuss future research directions to achieve a better understanding of the unique PEC behavior that will help to establish new design principles.

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

4.6
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