4.6 Article

Improving charge transfer in phosphate ion-modified hematite photoanode via decoration with gold nanostructures

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 650, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2022.118979

关键词

Phosphate ions (Pi) layer; IMPS; Surface plasmonic resonance (SPR); Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting; Hematite photoanode

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we report a unique synergy between phosphate ions (Pi) layer and plasmonic gold nanostructures to enhance the photoelectrochemical (PEC) performance of hematite photoanode. The lifetime of the photogenerated holes is improved by 3-fold compared to pristine hematite. The Au/Pi-hematite photoanode exhibits a stable photocurrent of 1.32 mA cm-2 at 1.23 VRHE, which is 3.1, 2.1, and 1.7 times higher than pristine hematite, Au/hematite, and Pi-modified hematite photoanodes, respectively. Au nanostructures not only enhance light absorption ability but also improve charge transfer efficiency.
Herein, we report a unique synergistic behavior between the phosphate ions (Pi) layer and the plasmonic gold nanostructures to enhance the PEC performance of the hematite photoanode. Under such a combined effect, the lifetime of the photogenerated holes is enhanced by a factor of 3-fold relative to that of pristine hematite. The Au/Pi-hematite photoanode illustrates a stable photocurrent of 1.32 mA cm-2 at 1.23 VRHE under standard illumination conditions, which is 3.1, 2.1, and 1.7 times higher than those of pristine hematite, Au/hematite, and Pi-modified hematite photoanodes, respectively. The enhanced photocurrent of Au/Pi-hematite is attributed to the improved hole lifetime and charge transfer kinetics as confirmed by transient photocurrent (TPC), photoelectrochemical impedance spectroscopy (PEIS), and intensity-modulated photocurrent spectroscopy (IMPS) measurements. Au nanostructures have a dual function. They enhance the light absorption ability and more importantly improve the charge transfer efficiency.

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