4.8 Article

Robust photocatalytic hydrogen evolution over amorphous ruthenium phosphide quantum dots modified g-C3N4 nanosheet

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 578-585

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.08.048

关键词

Amorphous ruthenium phosphide; g-C3N4; Cocatalysts; Hydrogen evolution performance

资金

  1. National Science Funds for Creative Research Groups of China [51421006]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [51679063]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for The Central Universities [2018B14514]
  4. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [91647206]
  5. National Key Plan for Research and Development of China [2016YFC0502203]
  6. PAPD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of materials which meet the needs of both cost-efficiency and high performance for hydrogen evolution reaction is of great importance. However, developing photocatalysts with Pt-like activity still remains as a major challenge. Herein, we utilize ultrafine amorphous ruthenium phosphide (RP) nanoparticles as a high efficient and robust cocatalyst to enhance the H-2 production activity of g-C3N4 (g-CN). The RP/g-CN samples were prepared based on a facile in-situ growth phosphatization method. The optimum Hy evolution rate reached up to 2110 mu mol h(-1)g(-1) for 0.1%-RP/g-CN, which was 113.4 times as high as that of pristine g-C3N4 and 2.22 times of Pt-loaded g-C3N4. Furthermore, ruthenium is the cheapest platinum-group metal and its amount in the best RP/g-CN sample is only 0.1%, showing the superiority of competitive price and high activity. The introduction of ultrafine amorphous ruthenium phosphide accelerated the transfer rate of electrons and restrain the recombination of charge carriers. The amorphous ruthenium phosphide ultrafine nanoparticles could also serve as cocatalysts for hydrogen evolution. This work provides a promising alternative to expensive Pt-loaded photocatalyst for excellent hydrogen evolution performance under visible light irradiation.

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