4.6 Article

Simple synthesis and efficient photocatalytic hydrogen production of WO3-WS2 and WO3-WS2-MoS2

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mssp.2023.107788

关键词

WS2-Based composites; Tetrathioate; Acidification; Thermal decomposition; Photocatalytic hydrogen production

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Binary composite WO3-WS2 and ternary composite WO3-WS2-MoS2 were prepared easily using a simple one-step acidification-thermal decomposition method. Both composites showed better photocatalytic hydrogen production performance compared to pure MoS2 and WS2.
Facile preparation of efficient photocatalysts is one of the challenges to realizing the practical application of photocatalysis technology. In this paper, binary composite WO3-WS2 and ternary composite WO3-WS2-MoS2 were easily prepared through simple one-step acidification-thermal decomposition (abbreviated as AT) of ammonium tetrathiotungstate (ATT) and ammonium tetrathiomolybdate (ATM) just using the inevitable for-mation of WO3 during the acidification of ATT. Especially, their photocatalytic hydrogen production perfor-mances were determined and the reasons for their activity differences were investigated systematically based on XRD, SEM, TEM, and XPS characterizations. The results showed that on the whole, these two composites possess better performance than both pure MoS2 and WS2, as well as our previously reported WO3-WS2 (1637.8 & mu;mol h-1 g-1). Besides, the average hydrogen evolution rate of WO3-WS2 (5998.6 & mu;mol h-1 g-1) is higher than that of WO3-WS2-MoS2 (4907.2 & mu;mol h-1 g-1). Moreover, for the ternary composites, when the content of W and Mo is close, the change in W to Mo ratio has no obvious impact on the hydrogen production performance. Finally, a performance comparison of different preparation methods manifests that the one-step AT method is the simplest and most effective. This work can offer useful guidance for the preparation and photocatalytic application of both WS2 and MoS2-based composites.

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