Next Article in Journal
Oxidation of Sulfamethoxazole by Rice Husk Biochar-Activated Persulfate
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review of Electrical Assisted Photocatalytic Technologies for the Treatment of Multi-Phase Pollutants
Previous Article in Journal
Catalytic Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Penicillin Residue for the Production of Bio-Oil over Different Homogeneous/Heterogeneous Catalysts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Photocatalytic Degradation of Sulfolane Using a LED-Based Photocatalytic Treatment System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Catalysts
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/catal11070848
catalysts-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development of Visible-Light-Driven Rh–TiO2–CeO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts for Hydrogen Production

by
Jong-Wook Hong
Department of Chemistry and Energy Harvest-Storage Research Center (EHSRC), University of Ulsan, Ulsan 44776, Korea
Catalysts 2021, 11(7), 848; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11070848
Submission received: 16 June 2021 / Revised: 12 July 2021 / Accepted: 14 July 2021 / Published: 15 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Photo(electro)catalytic Reactions Combined with Ozone Oxidation Technique)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Visible-light-driven hydrogen production through photocatalysis has attracted enormous interest owing to its great potential to address energy and environmental issues. However, photocatalysis possesses several limitations to overcome for practical applications, such as low light absorption efficiency, rapid charge recombination, and poor stability of photocatalysts. Here, the preparation of efficient noble metal–semiconductor hybrid photocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen production is presented. The prepared ternary Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts exhibited excellent photocatalytic performance toward the hydrogen production reaction compared with their counterparts, ascribed to the synergistic combination of Rh, TiO2, and CeO2.

1. Introduction

The increasing energy demand of modern society promotes enormous research endeavors on exploiting renewable and carbon-free energy sources, among which solar energy is recognized to be a promising candidate [1,2,3,4]. The massive utilization of fossil and nuclear fuels represents serious environmental threats such as, pollutant emissions, and waste formation [1], whereas, as an attractive strategy to utilize solar energy, the production of hydrogen by solar energy has emerged as a promising strategy and can generate clean hydrogen fuel, which can be used for many applications such as industrial hydrogen reactions and fuel cells [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Among various materials, semiconductors, such as TiO2 [11], ZnO [12], InP [7], Cu2O [5], CdS [13], and CeO2 [14], have been considered as representative photocatalysts for hydrogen production by water splitting owing to their appropriate band structures for water reduction/oxidation, low cost, and high tolerance for photostability. However, single-component semiconductor photocatalysts exhibit significant limitations for practical application owing to their low photocatalytic efficiency arising from a limited light absorption window and fast electron–hole recombination [15,16,17,18].
Semiconductor hybrids including noble metal nanocrystals (NCs) with broad size-distributions have attracted considerable attention owing to their unique properties compared with bulk catalysts [19,20]. Among a myriad of nanostructures, nano-sized semiconductor photocatalysts, incorporating noble metal NCs with small sizes and high distributions, exhibit great potential for various photocatalytic reactions arising from their maximum atom-utilization efficiency, unique electronic structure, and abundance of low-coordinated surface atoms in the noble metal nanostructures. Based on recent developments for preparing nano-sized semiconductor photocatalysts, various approaches have recently been developed to increase the conversion efficiency of solar energy into hydrogen, such as surface atom control, metal and/or non-metal elemental doping, defect formation, and morphology control [21]. Of these many strategies, the preparation of photocatalysts by depositing small-sized noble metal nanostructures on binary semiconductors is one of the most promising approaches for boosting photocatalytic performance [4,22,23]. The formation of the Schottky junction at interfaces between noble metals and semiconductors can endow efficient extraction of photogenerated charges, thereby suppressing the recombination of charge carriers [15]. In particular, since many unsaturated surface atoms that are more active for hydrogen production reactions consist of small-sized noble metal nanostructures compared with bulk material, they can effectively promote hydrogen production [24]. In addition, photocatalysts composed of noble metal nanostructures with small sizes provide effective cost reduction. On the other hand, combining two different types of semiconductors is a promising strategy for boosting photocatalytic performance [25]. Unlike single-component semiconductors, semiconductors composed of two different semiconductors with complementary band structures can promote the efficiency of solar energy absorption. In addition, precisely controlled conduction band (CB) and valence band (VB) alignment of semiconductor photocatalysts can increase the efficiency of charge separation and migration, resulting in the suppression of electron–hole charge recombination [26,27,28]. Therefore, coupling two types of semiconductors with different band structures can further improve photocatalytic performance.
Herein, ternary Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts containing Rh NCs with a diameter of less than 4 nm to achieve synergistic advantages by a combination of binary semiconductors and small-sized noble metal were prepared. For the preparation of ternary Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts, CeO2 and Rh domains were grown on the TiO2 powder dispersed in an aqueous mixture including urea. CeO2 can absorb light with a longer wavelength compared to TiO2 due to its smaller band gap energy (2.85 eV) than that of TiO2 (3.22 eV) [29]. Furthermore, since CB and VB edges of CeO2 are more negative than those of TiO2, photo-induced electrons and holes can be efficiently accumulated in CB and TiO2 and VB of CeO2, respectively, which can lead to the retardation of electron–hole charge recombination. The Rh NCs can effectively capture the electrons from the semiconductor and promote the reduction reaction [30]. Owing to synergistic effects by ternary compositions, the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts exhibited superior photocatalytic activity for hydrogen production compared to Rh–TiO2 hybrids and TiO2 photocatalysts.

2. Results and Discussion

Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts were prepared by seed-mediated methods growing Rh and CeO2 on as-prepared bulk anatase TiO2. The crystalline and compositional features of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts were measured using X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement (Figure 1). All samples showed typical diffraction peaks of anatase TiO2, which signifies the preservation of the crystal structure of anatase TiO2 during the growth of CeO2 and Rh. The XRD patterns for the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts showed inherent peaks corresponding to face-centered cubic (fcc) CeO2. The diffraction patterns of inherent Rh were not observed due to its low content in both Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements for the Ti 2p, Rh 3d, and Ce 3d core levels of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts were performed, indicating the successful formation of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts (Figure 2). In XPS spectra, the Ti 2p binding energies of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts showed higher values than that of TiO2 photocatalysts. For instance, the Ti 2p3/2 binding energies of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts are 458.73, 458.72, and 458.39 eV, respectively (Figure 2a,c,e). The intimate contact of constituent elements for the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts can account for these changes in electronic structure.
To further investigate the formation of Rh NCs and the morphology of the products, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts were obtained. Representative TEM images of the prepared samples are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3a,b show that pure TiO2 possesses smooth surfaces. Compared with pure TiO2, Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts showed the formation of highly distributed Rh NCs (3.1 ± 0.4 nm) on bulk TiO2 (Figure 3c,d). Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts also possessed small-sized Rh NCs with an average diameter of 3.8 ± 0.5 nm and CeO2 nanostructures distributed on the bulk TiO2 (Figure 3e–g). The high-resolution TEM (HR-TEM) image of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts indicates that the d-spacing for adjacent lattice fringes in the NCs was 2.2 Å, which matches well with that of the (111) planes of Rh (Figure 3h) [31].
To further verify the formation of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts, the compositional structure of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts was investigated by elemental mapping images for Rh, Ti, Ce, and O (Figure 4). Figure 4a shows that Rh and Ce signals were highly distributed on the bulk TiO2. In addition, the formation of Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts was verified through Rh signals observed on bulk TiO2 in the elemental mapping images (Figure 4b). The Rh/Ti/Ce and Rh/Ti atomic ratios of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts determined by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) measurement were 0.3/87.2/12.5 and 0.5/99.5, respectively. In addition, the Rh/Ti/Ce atomic ratio of the surface for the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts was 4.2/31.1/64.7 obtained from XPS measurement.
The UV–Vis diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrids, Rh–TiO2 hybrids, and TiO2 photocatalysts was obtained to estimate the optical properties yielded upon the combination of Rh NPs, TiO2, and CeO2 domains. As expected, TiO2 absorbed only UV light due to its band gap of 3.22 eV (Figure 5a,d). In contrast, although the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts also showed similar band gaps to the Rh–TiO2 hybrid and TiO2 photocatalyst (Figure 5b–d), they exhibited visible light absorption at wavelengths longer than 400 nm (Figure 5a). The slightly extended light absorption of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts can be attributed to the incorporation of CeO2 and Rh domains into TiO2, which can yield enhanced solar energy conversion efficiency for Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts. The VB XPS pattern of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts shows the onset at 2.58 eV.
The band structure of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts was constructed based on the results of the UV–Vis DRS and VB XPS of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts (Figure 6). Photo-induced holes in the VB of the TiO2 domain transfer to the VB of the CeO2 domain due to their more positive potential (Process 1 in Figure 6). Meanwhile, photo-induced electrons are accumulated in the CB of the TiO2 domain through two pathways, such as the transfer of photo-induced electrons from the CB of the CeO2 domain and the formation of electrons in the CB of the TiO2 domain (Process 2 in Figure 6). The electrons in the CB of TiO2 can migrate to Rh NCs, which leads to the production of hydrogen through a reduction reaction (Process 3 in Figure 6).
To verify the advantages of the ternary Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen production, the amounts of hydrogen evolved by the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts during irradiation were measured using GC measurement. The photocatalytic hydrogen production reaction was performed under visible light irradiation (λ > 400 nm) in a methanol/water mixture (v/v = 1/3), in which methanol was used as a hole scavenger. Figure 7a,b show the amounts of hydrogen evolved of the Rh-TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts during photocatalysis and corresponding hydrogen production rates. Apparently, the photocatalytic activity of the photocatalysts was dependent on their constituents. Noticeably, the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts exhibited the most remarkable photocatalytic activity for hydrogen production among the different photocatalysts (Figure 7a,b), demonstrating that the formation of ternary hybrid photocatalysts constructed with two different TiO2 and CeO2 semiconductors and Rh NCs can lead to notable solar energy conversion efficiency. The hydrogen production rates of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts were 48.3, 25.6, and 5.8 μmol g−1 h−1, respectively, which signifies that the hydrogen production rate of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts was 1.9 and 8.3-fold larger than those of the Rh–TiO2 hybrid and TiO2 photocatalysts, respectively (Figure 7b). The higher photocatalytic activity of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts can be attributed to efficient electron and hole transfer between interfaces of TiO2/CeO2, the efficient co-catalyst effect by Rh NCs, and enhanced visible light absorption capabilities. Based on the band structure of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts (Figure 6), photo-induced electrons formed in CeO2 migrate to the CB of TiO2, whereas photo-induced holes are accumulated in the VB of CeO2, resulting in efficient charge separation. The efficient electron and hole transfer in the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts can suppress the charge recombination, which can effectively promote photocatalytic hydrogen production. Furthermore, Rh NCs can not only efficiently capture the electrons from both TiO2 and CeO2, but also encourage the reduction reactions for producing hydrogen [29]. Taken together, the efficient photocatalytic performance of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts compared to the Rh–TiO2 hybrid and TiO2 photocatalysts can be attributed to positive synergistic effects upon combining Rh, TiO2, and CeO2. The hydrogen production activity of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts was compared with those of recent TiO2 or CeO2-based photocatalysts (Table 1).
The photocatalytic stability for the hydrogen production reaction was further estimated with Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts. To confirm the photocatalytic stabilities of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts, their hydrogen production rates were examined by three cycles of repeated hydrogen production reactions under standard conditions. The Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts exhibited nearly retained hydrogen production activity over three repeated photocatalysis cycles (Figure 7c), which indicates the good recyclability of the catalysts.
To unveil the superior photocatalytic activity of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts compared to the Rh–TiO2 hybrid and TiO2 catalysts, photocurrent responses of different photocatalysts were measured to estimate their charge generation and transfer rates (Figure 7d). The Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts showed higher photocurrent density compared to that of the Rh–TiO2 hybrid and TiO2 catalysts, demonstrating that the CeO2 and Rh can improve the separation of photo-induced electron–hole pairs. Furthermore, photoluminescence (PL) measurement performed for investigating the electron transfer process revealed that significant quenching of PL is observed after a combination of CeO2 and Rh into TiO2 (Figure 7e). In addition, compared with TiO2 catalysts, Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts exhibited higher current density (Figure 7d) and lower PL intensity (Figure 7e), respectively. These findings verify that the recombination of electron–hole pairs is effectively suppressed by incorporating both CeO2 and Rh components. On the other hand, to further investigate the benefit of the Rh domain as a co-catalyst, an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) was performed with different samples (Figure 7f). In HER polarization curves, the potentials are −0.28, −0.34, and −0.51 V vs. RHE at 10 mA cm−2 for the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts, respectively. This result indicates that the Rh domain promotes the proton reduction to hydrogen. Particularly, the higher HER activity of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts than Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts signifies the promotion effect by the Rh–CeO2 combination.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Chemicals

RhCl3 (rhodium(III) chloride, 98%, Sigma-Aldrich), Ce(NO3)·6H2O (cerium(III) nitrate hexahydrate, 99.99% trace metals basis, Sigma-Aldrich), urea (NH2CONH2, 99.0%, Samchun chemical), and TiO2 (titanium(IV) oxide, anatase, powder, 99.8% trace metals basis, Sigma-Aldrich) were used as received. Deionized water (18.2 MΩ·cm) was used to prepare the reaction mixtures.

3.2. Preparation of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and Rh–TiO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts

In a typical preparation of Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts, 2.0 g of urea and 0.5 g of TiO2 powder were dispersed in 8.0 mL of deionized water. The mixtures were sonicated for 30 min. Then, 10 mL of an aqueous mixture containing 0.967 mmol of Ce(NO3)·6H2O and 0.165 mmol of RhCl3 was added to the above mixture with vigorous stirring. The resultant mixture was heated to 95 °C and kept at 95 °C for 24 h with vigorous stirring. Subsequently, wet precipitate was collected by centrifugation and washed two times with deionized water. Then, the wet precipitate was dried at 150 °C for 6 h and finally was calcined at 500 °C in air for 2 h.
For the preparation of Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts, all synthetic conditions are identical except adding Ce(NO3)·6H2O.

3.3. Characterization

DRS was measured with a UV–Vis absorption spectrometer (Shimadzu UV-2600). TEM and EDS elemental mapping images were obtained with a JEOL JEM-2100F transmission electron microscope operating 200 kV after placing a drop of hydrosol on carbon-coated Cu grids (200 mesh). XRD patterns were obtained with a Bruker AXS D8 DISCOVER diffractometer using Cu Ka (0.1542 nm) radiation for 2θ at 20 to 80°. XPS measurements were conducted using a Thermo VG Scientific Thermo VG Scientific Sigma Probe spectrometer with Al Kα X-ray (1486.6 eV). XPS data were calibrated using the C 1s peak at 284.5 eV. PL measurements were performed using an aqueous photocatalyst mixture (1 mg mL−1) with Horiba Fluoromax-4. Photocurrent responses and electrochemical HER were conducted in a three-electrode cell using potentiostat (CHI 600E). Ag/AgCl (NaCl 3 M) and Pt wire were used as the reference and counter electrodes, respectively. For measurement of photocurrent responses for photocatalysts, photocatalysts (5 mg) loaded on FTO were irradiated under visible light (λ > 400 nm) using a Xe lamp (300 W, Newport 66902). For electrochemical HER, 100 μg of photocatalysts was loaded on glassy carbon electrode (Diameter size: 5 mm). The linier sweep voltammetry (LSV) measurements were performed in the range potentials from −0.6 to 0.2 V (vs. RHE) with a sweep rate of 5 mV s−1.

3.4. Photocatalysis Experiments

Photocatalytic hydrogen production was performed under visible light irradiation using a Xe lamp (300 W, Newport 66902) and a UV-cut on filter (λ > 400 nm). The intensity of light in the cell was measured to be 100 mW cm−2. For photocatalytic hydrogen production experiments, 1.0 mg of photocatalysts was dispersed into 20 mL of methanol/deionized water (3/1) mixture. The amount of hydrogen produced during photocatalysis was detected using gas chromatography (GC, Agilent Technologies 7890B).

4. Conclusions

In summary, an efficient synthetic method for the preparation of ternary Rh–TiO2–CeO2 photocatalysts with small size and a high distribution of Rh NCs on binary TiO2–CeO2 photocatalysts was developed in this work. The Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts showed extended light absorption compared to the TiO2–CeO2 hybrid and TiO2 photocatalysts. This improved photocatalytic activity can be ascribed to the synergistic combination of Rh, TiO2, and CeO2. It is expected that the present strategy will be valuable toward the development of advanced photocatalysts for hydrogen production reactions, and this design can be extended to semiconductor–metal hybrid catalysts with distinct functions.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (NRF-2020R1C1C1008514) and the Priority Research Centers Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2019R1A6A1A11053838).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cheng, L.; Xiang, Q.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, H. CdS-based photocatalysts. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 1362–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kudo, A.; Miseki, Y. Heterogeneous photocatalyst materials for water splitting. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wu, H.; Tan, H.L.; Toe, C.Y.; Scott, J.; Wang, L.; Amal, R.; Ng, Y.H. Photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical systems: Similarities and differences. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1904717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Xu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Yu, J.; Wageh, S.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Jaroniec, M. Direct Z-scheme photocatalysts: Principles, synthesis, and applications. Mater. Today 2018, 21, 1042–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hong, J.W.; Wi, D.H.; Lee, S.-U.; Han, S.W. Metal–semiconductor heteronanocrystals with desired configurations for plasmonic photocatalysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 15766–15773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yu, E.-J.; Kim, H.C.; Kim, H.J.; Jung, S.-Y.; Ryu, K.-S.; Choi, S.-I.; Hong, J.W. Anisotropic heteronanocrystals of Cu2O–2D MoS2 for efficient visible light driven photocatalysis. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 538, 148159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bang, J.; Das, S.; Yu, E.-J.; Kim, K.; Lim, H.; Kim, S.; Hong, J.W. Controlled photoinduced electron transfer from InP/ZnS quantum dots through Cu doping: A new prototype for the visible-light photocatalytic hydrogen evolution reaction. Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 6263–6271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Huang, H.; Dai, B.; Wang, W.; Lu, C.; Kou, J.; Ni, Y.; Wang, L.; Xu, Z. Oriented built-in electric field introduced by surface gradient diffusion doping for enhanced photocatalytic H2 evolution in CdS nanorods. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 3803–3808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, N.; Schneider, C.; Freitag, D.; Hartmann, M.; Venkatesan, U.; Müller, J.; Spiecker, E.; Schmuki, P. Black TiO2 nanotubes: Cocatalyst-free open-circuit hydrogen generation. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 3309–3313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ju, L.; Qin, J.; Shi, L.; Yang, G.; Zhang, J.; Sun, L. Rolling the WSSe Bilayer into double-walled nanotube for the enhanced photocatalytic water-splitting performance. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, C.; Koenigsmann, C.; Ding, W.; Rudshteyn, B.; Yang, K.R.; Regan, K.P.; Konezny, S.J.; Batista, V.S.; Brudvig, G.W.; Schmuttenmaer, C.A. Facet-dependent photoelectrochemical performance of TiO2 nanostructures: An experimental and computational study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1520–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kargar, A.; Jing, Y.; Kim, S.J.; Riley, C.T.; Pan, X.; Wang, D. ZnO/CuO heterojunction branched nanowires for photoelectrochemical hydrogen generation. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 11112–11120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Qiu, B.; Zhu, Q.; Du, M.; Fan, L.; Xing, M.; Zhang, J. Efficient solar light harvesting CdS/Co9S8 hollow cubes for Z-scheme photocatalytic water splitting. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 2684–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mansingh, S.; Padhi, D.; Parida, K. Enhanced photocatalytic activity of nanostructured Fe doped CeO2 for hydrogen production under visible light irradiation. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 14133–14146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wi, D.H.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, S.; Sung, J.; Hong, J.W.; Han, S.W. Metal–semiconductor ternary hybrids for efficient visible-light photocatalytic hydrogen evolution. J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 13225–13235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, B.; Zhou, W.; Li, H.; Ren, L.; Qiao, P.; Li, W.; Fu, H. Synthesis of particulate hierarchical tandem heterojunctions toward optimized photocatalytic hydrogen production. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1804282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tan, C.F.; Su Su Zin, A.K.; Chen, Z.; Liow, C.H.; Phan, H.T.; Tan, H.R.; Xu, Q.-H.; Ho, G.W. Inverse stellation of CuAu-ZnO multimetallic-semiconductor nanostartube for plasmon-enhanced photocatalysis. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 4512–4520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wang, Q.; Hisatomi, T.; Jia, Q.; Tokudome, H.; Zhong, M.; Wang, C.; Pan, Z.; Takata, T.; Nakabayashi, M.; Shibata, N. Scalable water splitting on particulate photocatalyst sheets with a solar-to-hydrogen energy conversion efficiency exceeding 1%. Nat. Mater. 2016, 15, 611–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kang, Y.; Ye, X.; Murray, C.B. Size-and shape-selective synthesis of metal nanocrystals and nanowires using CO as a reducing agent. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 6156–6159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qian, K.; Sweeny, B.C.; Johnston-Peck, A.C.; Niu, W.; Graham, J.O.; DuChene, J.S.; Qiu, J.; Wang, Y.-C.; Engelhard, M.H.; Su, D. Surface plasmon-driven water reduction: Gold nanoparticle size matters. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 9842–9845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ramasamy, K.; Malik, M.A.; Revaprasadu, N.; O’Brien, P. Routes to nanostructured inorganic materials with potential for solar energy applications. Chem. Mater. 2013, 25, 3551–3569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nakibli, Y.; Mazal, Y.; Dubi, Y.; Wächtler, M.; Amirav, L. Size matters: Cocatalyst size effect on charge transfer and photocatalytic activity. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wolff, C.M.; Frischmann, P.D.; Schulze, M.; Bohn, B.J.; Wein, R.; Livadas, P.; Carlson, M.T.; Jäckel, F.; Feldmann, J.; Würthner, F. All-in-one visible-light-driven water splitting by combining nanoparticulate and molecular co-catalysts on CdS nanorods. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 862–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, Y.; Min, X.; Ding, Z.; Chen, S.; Ai, C.; Liu, Z.; Yang, T.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y.; Lin, S.; et al. Metal-based nanocatalysts via a universal design on cellular structure. Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 1902051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Chen, X.; Shen, S.; Guo, L.; Mao, S.S. Semiconductor-based photocatalytic hydrogen generation. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 6503–6570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gao, X.; Wu, H.B.; Zheng, L.; Zhong, Y.; Hu, Y.; Lou, X.W. Formation of mesoporous heterostructured BiVO4/Bi2S3 hollow discoids with enhanced photoactivity. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 5917–5921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Linic, S.; Christopher, P.; Ingram, D.B. Plasmonic-metal nanostructures for efficient conversion of solar to chemical energy. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 911–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eskandarloo, H.; Badiei, A.; Behnajady, M.A. TiO2/CeO2 Hybrid photocatalyst with enhanced photocatalytic activity: Optimization of synthesis variables. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 7847–7855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lu, X.; Li, X.; Chen, F.; Chen, Z.; Qian, J.; Zhang, Q. Biotemplating synthesis of N-doped two-dimensional CeO2–TiO2 nanosheets with enhanced visible light photocatalytic desulfurization performance. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 815, 152326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luo, F.; Guo, L.; Xie, Y.; Xu, J.; Cai, W.; Qu, K.; Yang, Z. Robust hydrogen evolution reaction activity catalyzed by ultrasmall Rh–Rh2P nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 12378–12384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Soldano, G.; Schulz, E.N.; Salinas, D.R.; Santos, E.; Schmickler, W. Hydrogen electrocatalysis on overlayers of rhodium over gold and palladium substrates—More active than platinum? Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 16437–16443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Waqas, M.; Yang, B.; Cao, L.; Zhao, X.; Iqbal, W.; Xiao, K.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, J. Tuning the N-bonded cerium(III) fraction/g-C3N4 interface in hollow structures using an in situ reduction treatment for superior photochemical hydrogen evolution. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2019, 9, 5322–5332. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wu, L.; Shi, S.; Li, Q.; Zhang, X.; Cui, X. TiO2 nanoparticles modified with 2D MoSe2 for enhanced photocatalytic activity on hydrogen evolution. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 44, 720–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, J.; Ke, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, B.J.; Wang, L.D.; Xiao, H.N.; Wang, S.B. Co3O4 quantum dots/TiO2 nanobelt hybrids for highly efficient photocatalytic overall water splitting. Appl. Catal. B-Environ. 2018, 236, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dubnova, L.; Zvolska, M.; Edelmannova, M.; Matejova, L.; Reli, M.; Drobna, H.; Kustrowski, P.; Koci, K.; Capek, L. Photocatalytic decomposition of methanol-water solution over N-La/TiO2 photocatalysts. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 469, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Xing, X.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, M.; Xiao, L.; Li, Q.; Yang, J. Effect of heterojunctions and phase-junctions on visible-light photocatalytic hydrogen evolution in BCN-TiO2 photocatalysts. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2019, 727, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Catalysts 11 00848 g001 550
Figure 1. XRD patterns of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts.
Figure 1. XRD patterns of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g001
Catalysts 11 00848 g002 550
Figure 2. XPS spectra of (a,c,e) Ti 2p, (b) Ce 3d, and (d,f) Rh 3d for different photocatalysts.
Figure 2. XPS spectra of (a,c,e) Ti 2p, (b) Ce 3d, and (d,f) Rh 3d for different photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g002
Catalysts 11 00848 g003 550
Figure 3. TEM images of (a,b) TiO2, (c,d) Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and (e–g) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts. (h) A high-resolution TEM image focused on Rh NC in Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts.
Figure 3. TEM images of (a,b) TiO2, (c,d) Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and (e–g) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts. (h) A high-resolution TEM image focused on Rh NC in Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g003
Catalysts 11 00848 g004 550
Figure 4. Elemental mapping images of (a) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and (b) Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts.
Figure 4. Elemental mapping images of (a) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 and (b) Rh–TiO2 hybrid photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g004
Catalysts 11 00848 g005 550
Figure 5. UV–Vis DRS of (a) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts and corresponding plots of the (αhν)0.5 versus photon energy (hν) for (b) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, (c) Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and (d) TiO2 photocatalysts.
Figure 5. UV–Vis DRS of (a) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and TiO2 photocatalysts and corresponding plots of the (αhν)0.5 versus photon energy (hν) for (b) Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid, (c) Rh–TiO2 hybrid, and (d) TiO2 photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g005
Catalysts 11 00848 g006 550
Figure 6. The schematic diagram of photocatalytic hydrogen production over Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts under irradiation.
Figure 6. The schematic diagram of photocatalytic hydrogen production over Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts under irradiation.
Catalysts 11 00848 g006
Catalysts 11 00848 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) Amount of evolved hydrogen during photocatalysis with different photocatalysts under visible light irradiation (λ > 400 nm) and (b) the corresponding hydrogen production rates. (c) Recyclability of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen production. Each photocatalysis cycle was conducted for 4 h. (d) Photocurrents, (e) PL, and (f) HER of different photocatalysts.
Figure 7. (a) Amount of evolved hydrogen during photocatalysis with different photocatalysts under visible light irradiation (λ > 400 nm) and (b) the corresponding hydrogen production rates. (c) Recyclability of the Rh–TiO2–CeO2 hybrid photocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen production. Each photocatalysis cycle was conducted for 4 h. (d) Photocurrents, (e) PL, and (f) HER of different photocatalysts.
Catalysts 11 00848 g007
Table
Table 1. Comparative results for photocatalytic H2 evolution based on previous reports using TiO2 or CeO2-based photocatalysts in the literature.
Table 1. Comparative results for photocatalytic H2 evolution based on previous reports using TiO2 or CeO2-based photocatalysts in the literature.
PhotocatalystIrradiation ConditionAdditiveRate of H2
Production		Ref.
N-CeO2-x/g-C3N4Xe lamp (300 W)
λ > 420 nm		Methanol43 µmol h−1 g−1[32]
MoSe2/TiO2Xe lamp (300 W)
λ > 420 nm		Methanol5.14 µmol h−1[33]
Co3O4 quantum dots on TiO2Xe lamp (300 W)
1.5 AM filter		Methanol41.8 µmol h−1 g−1[34]
N doped La/TiO2Mercury lamp (8 W)
λ > 365 nm		Methanol8.25 µmol h−1 g−1[35]
BCN-TiO2Xe lamp (300 W)
λ > 420 nm		Triethanolamine68.5 µmol h−1 g−1[36]
Rh-TiO2-CeO2Xe lamp (300 W)
λ > 400 nm		Methanol48.3 µmol h−1 g−1This Work
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hong, J.-W. Development of Visible-Light-Driven Rh–TiO2–CeO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts for Hydrogen Production. Catalysts 2021, 11, 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11070848

AMA Style

Hong J-W. Development of Visible-Light-Driven Rh–TiO2–CeO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts for Hydrogen Production. Catalysts. 2021; 11(7):848. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11070848

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hong, Jong-Wook. 2021. "Development of Visible-Light-Driven Rh–TiO2–CeO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts for Hydrogen Production" Catalysts 11, no. 7: 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11070848

APA Style

Hong, J.-W. (2021). Development of Visible-Light-Driven Rh–TiO2–CeO2 Hybrid Photocatalysts for Hydrogen Production. Catalysts, 11(7), 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11070848

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop