4.6 Article

Template-engineered epitaxial BiVO4 photoanodes for efficient solar water splitting

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 5, 期 35, 页码 18831-18838

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ta04695b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Climate Technology Development and Application research project through GIST [K07760]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bismuth vanadate (BiVO4) has attracted significant attention as a promising photoanode material for hydrogen production via photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting because of its narrow optical band gap and suitable band edge positions for water oxidation. However, the actual photoactivity of BiVO4 is considerably limited by its poor electron transport and slow water oxidation kinetics. Although several studies have been carried out to improve its photo-efficiency via the enhancement of electron transport and water oxidation kinetics, only a few studies have reported the growth of epitaxial BiVO4 to explore the fundamental properties of BiVO4 for PEC water splitting because extremely flat epitaxial films exhibit poor photo-efficiency because of their low surface-active area. However, studies of epitaxial BiVO4 still have the potential to provide new routes for improving its photo-efficiency. In this study, the growth of epitaxial BiVO4 is investigated using a thin gamma-WO3 template layer deposited on a SrTiO3(001) substrate covered by a SrRuO3 (SRO) bottom electrode using pulsed laser deposition. Consequently, at 1.23 V vs. the RHE (reversible hydrogen electrode), the photocurrent density of epitaxial BiVO4 on the gamma-WO3 template layer (2.20 mA cm(-2)) is approximately 10 times that of bare BiVO4, related to the effective charge transfer by the gamma-WO3 intermediate layers and the subsequent increase in the surface-active area of epitaxial BiVO4. These results strongly suggest that epitaxial BiVO4 grown using a template layer can be a cornerstone for the in-depth understanding of the fundamental properties of BiVO4 for PEC water splitting.

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