Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of

---

Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia

Perspective

Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis – A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations Frank E Osterloh ACS Energy Lett., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00665 • Publication Date (Web): 18 Jan 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 23, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

ACS Energy Letters is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

ACS Energy Letters

Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis – A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations Frank E. Osterloh*a Department of Chemistry, University of California, Davis. One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. Supporting Information Placeholder ABSTRACT: The chemical literature often does not differentiate between photocatalytic (PC) and photosynthetic (PS) processes (including artificial photosynthesis) even though these reactions differ in their thermodynamics. Photocatalytic processes are thermodynamically downhill (∆G0) and require photochemical energy input to occur. Here we apply this differentiation to analyze the basic functions of PC and PS devices and to formulate design criteria for improved performance. As will be shown, the corresponding devices exhibit distinctly different sensitivities to their functional parameters. For example, under conditions of optimal light absorption, carrier lifetimes, and electrochemical rates, the performance of PCs is only limited by their surface area, while type 1 PS devices are limited by their carrier mobility and mass transport, and type 2 PS devices are limited by electrochemical charge transfer selectivity. Strategies for the optimization of type 1 and 2 photosynthetic devices and photocatalysts are also discussed.

Table of Contents artwork

The last decades have seen increasing research activity in photochemical processes for environmental remediation (1-5) and for the generation of sustainable fuels from sunlight. (6-11) Light driven systems that have excited states and that promote a chemical reaction can be generally classified as ‘excitonic chemical conversion systems’. In the literature, such devices are more commonly referred to as ‘Photocatalysts’, or as ‘Photosynthetic’ or “Artificial Photosynthesis’ devices. Interestingly, there appears to be no clear distinction between the terms ‘photosynthetic’ or ‘photocatalytic’. For example, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines a ‘photocatalyst’ as a “Catalyst able to produce, upon absorption of light, chemical transfor-

mations of the reaction partners. The excited state of the photocatalyst repeatedly interacts with the reaction partners forming reaction intermediates and regenerates itself after each cycle of such interactions.” (12) This definition refers to all excitonic chemical conversion device and includes photosynthetic ones. A refined definition from Nozik (13) and Bard (14) differentiates between photosynthetic and photocatalytic process, based on the thermodynamics of the coupled reaction: “Photoelectrolytic cells ... can be classified as photosynthetic or photocatalytic. In the former case, radiant energy provides a Gibbs energy to drive a reaction such as H2O + H2 + ½ O2, and electrical or thermal energy may be later recovered by allowing the reverse, spontaneous reaction to proceed. In a photocatalytic cell the photon absorption promotes a reaction with ∆G < 0 so there is no net storage of chemical energy, but the radiant energy speeds up a slow reaction.” (15) This distinction was highlighted recently by Rajeshwar as part of a historical perspective on semiconductor photocatalysis.(16) Here we apply this differentiation to perform a detailed analysis of the functions and of the design of photocatalytic (PC) and photosynthetic (PS) devices. As we will show, all excitonic chemical conversion devices can be classified as either PC, type 1 PS or type 2 PS devices, depending on the energetics of the coupled reactions and depending on the device design. It is shown that PC and PS devices are separate technologies that show different sensitivities to specific surface area, carrier mobility, and charge transfer kinetics. The relative importance of these parameters and the influence of reagent selectivity, mass transport, optical absorption on performance will be discussed. Two alternative approaches to effective photosynthetic systems will also be described. Classification of photocatalysts and photosynthetic devices As excitonic chemical conversion systems, photosynthetic devices and photocatalysts rely on the conversion of photons into charge carriers and their reaction with redox species at the solid-liquid or solid-gas interface (Figure 1A).

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

ACS Energy Letters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 10

tion II) itself is thermo-neutral, because under steady state conditions, the excited light absorber is in equilibrium with its radiation field.(17)

(II) Cat + hν 
e– + h+ These generated charge carriers then react according to the half reactions III and IV to produce reduced and oxidized products PRED and POX.

(III) ROX + e–
PRED (IV) RRED + h+
POX Direct reaction of PRED and POX, can potentially reverse the photosynthetic reaction I, according to V. Figure 1 A) Elementary processes involved in photocatalysis and artificial photosynthesis. B) Energetics of photocatalysis and photosynthesis. C) Spatial separation of half reactions (as in type 1 PS devices) versus D) Reaction selectivity (as in type 2 PS devices).

(V) PRED + POX
ROX+ RRED, ∆G < 0

Accordingly, both types of devices must be able to (1) absorb light and generate free photoelectrons and –holes, and (2) react charge carriers with chemicals at the surface. The principle difference between PS and PC systems lies in the thermodynamics of the coupled chemical reactions (Figure 1B). While photocatalysts use light to speed up chemical conversions that are thermodynamically favorable (∆G0), and that require the added photochemical energy input from the light source to proceed. Because the products of PS have a higher free energy than the reagents, the reverse photosynthetic reaction is thermodynamically favored (-∆G 0. To achieve this, photosynthetic systems must suppress the reverse photosynthetic reaction. This additional function distinguishes them from photocatalysts and from catalysts in general. The reverse PS reaction can occur in a variety of ways as illustrated in the following. Let equation I be that of a general photosynthetic reaction that converts oxidized and reduced reagents into products.

(I) ROX + RRED
PRED + POX, ∆G > 0 This endergonic reaction proceeds only in the presence of a light absorber that produces electron hole pairs whose energy exceeds ∆G. The excitation process (equa-

Alternatively, reversal of I can occur via reversal of III and IV, respectively:

(VII) POX + e–
RRED This occurs, for example, when the photosynthetic products come in contact with hole and electron donating sites at the light absorber. In a photosynthetic device, processes V, VI, and VII must be prevented in order to allow the photosynthetic reaction I to move forward. This can be achieved in two different ways. Either one separates the half reactions from each other so that the products of reaction I cannot directly react with each other or come in contact with the incorrect charge donor sites on the light absorber. This type 1 approach requires separate compartments for the half reactions III and IV and it involves separating the electrons and holes and the reagents and the products from each other (Figure 1C). The other approach to prevent reversal of the PS reaction is demonstrated in Figure 1D. In this type 2 approach, neither reagents, products, or charge carriers are separated from each other. Instead reactions VI and VII are suppressed by introducing charge transfer selectivity for the half reactions III and IV. This selectivity can be accomplished, for example, by chemical modification of the surface of the light absorber so that the oxidized product POX is excluded from the reduction site, and the reduced product PRED is excluded from the oxidation site. Because the back reactions are suppressed, only the forward reactions can occur, and both products PRED and POX accumulate in the same sample space. Because no product separation takes place, the type 2 device is only applicable if the mixture of products and reagents is inert/metastable with regard to the direct back reaction V.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

ACS Energy Letters

As will be shown below, this applies to many compounds that are of interest as alternative fuels. Application to excitonic chemical conversion devices In the following we show that the classification into PC and type 1 and 2 PS schemes can be applied to the entire range of known excitonic conversion devices (Table 1).

conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen. (18-19) This endergonic (∆G>0) process can be accomplished with devices that contain separate electrodes connected to photovoltaic cells, (20-21) separate photoelectrodes in contact with an electrolyte, (22) or devices that are hybrids of these two, as shown in Figure 2A. Because the anodic and cathodic processes are spatially separated from each other, all of these devices below to the type 1 PS category.

Table 1. Excitonic chemical conversion systems Reaction

Device

Photovoltaic powered electrochemical cell or Photoelectrochemical cell Water Photoelectrolysis H2O
H2 + ½ O2; ∆G>0

Ty pe 1 PS

X

X

X

Tandem absorber particles in one compartment H2 evolution with sacrificial reagent

P C

X

Suspension or film of single absorber particles Tandem absorber particles in two compartments

Ty pe 2 PS

Particle suspension / solution

X

Particle suspension / solution

X

H2O + Red
H2 + Ox; ∆G