4.8 Article

How Hot Electron Generation at the Solid-Liquid Interface Is Different from the Solid-Gas Interface

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 23, 期 11, 页码 5373-5380

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00173

关键词

hot electron; catalytic nanodiode; chemicurrent; chemical energy conversion; hydrogen peroxide decomposition; solid-liquid interface

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hot electrons are excited by energy dissipation during chemical reactions on metal catalyst surfaces, occurring at both solid-gas and solid-liquid interfaces. In this study, comparing electronic excitation at the two interfaces, it was found that the efficiency of reaction-induced excitation of hot electrons was approximately 100 times higher at the solid-liquid interface compared to the solid-gas interface. The boost in hot electron excitation in the liquid phase is attributed to the presence of an ionic layer lowering the potential barrier for electron transfer.
Excitation of hot electrons by energy dissipation under exothermic chemical reactions on metal catalyst surfaces occurs at both solid-gas and solid-liquid interfaces. Despite extensive studies, a comparative operando study directly comparing electronic excitation by electronically nonadiabatic interactions at solid-gas and solid-liquid interfaces has not been reported. Herein, on the basis of our in situ techniques for monitoring energy dissipation as a chemicurrent using a Pt/n-Si nanodiode sensor, we observed the generation of hot electrons in both gas and liquid phases during H2O2 decomposition. As a result of comparing the current signal and oxygen evolution rate in the two phases, surprisingly, the efficiency of reaction-induced excitation of hot electrons increased by similar to 100 times at the solid-liquid interface compared to the solid-gas interface. The boost of hot electron excitation in the liquid phase is due to the presence of an ionic layer lowering the potential barrier at the junction for transferring hot electrons.

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