Deciphering the Controversial Role of Sacrificial Agents in Photocatalytic H2O2 Production: Promoters or Source of Artifacts?
Source abstract
Abstract
Photocatalytic H 2 O 2 synthesis holds great promise for sustainable H 2 O 2 production. While extensive efforts have focused on optimizing catalysts and reaction conditions to enhance H 2 O 2 yields, the accuracy of H 2 O 2 quantification─a fundamental prerequisite for reliable performance evaluation─remains underexplored. Conventional colorimetric methods can be compromised by the widespread use of organic sacrificial agents due to their intrinsic redox activity and optical absorption properties. Herein, we systematically investigate the interference effects of common sacrificial agents and their oxidation products on H 2 O 2 quantification across several established colorimetric assays. Our results reveal that quantification inaccuracies arise from a combination of factors, including pre-existing H 2 O 2 contamination, spectral overlap, unintended redox reactions, and self-sensitization effects. Drawing from these findings, we propose practical guidelines for selecting compatible sacrificial agents, detection methods, and excitation wavelengths to minimize analytical artifacts and enable accurate evaluation of photocatalytic H 2 O 2 production.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Photocatalysis Techniques · Advanced Nanomaterials in Catalysis · Gas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Functional Nano & Soft Materials (FUNSOM)
Soochow University
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Advanced Negative Carbon Technologies
Funding
Collaborative Innovation Center of Suzhou Nano Science and Technology · National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/cssc.20160089510.1002/cssc.201600895 ↗
2. 10.1002/anie.20050377910.1002/anie.200503779 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.mtsust.2024.10081910.1016/j.mtsust.2024.100819 ↗
4. 10.1002/cctc.20180143510.1002/cctc.201801435 ↗
5. 10.1039/D0CS00458H10.1039/D0CS00458H ↗
6. 10.1002/aenm.20240074010.1002/aenm.202400740 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.mattod.2023.10.00510.1016/j.mattod.2023.10.005 ↗
8. 10.1007/s12274-021-3882-110.1007/s12274-021-3882-1 ↗
9. 10.1021/acscatal.8b0021710.1021/acscatal.8b00217 ↗
10. 10.1039/D4EE01808G10.1039/D4EE01808G ↗
11. 10.1039/D1CS01164B10.1039/D1CS01164B ↗
12. 10.1016/j.mattod.2018.04.00910.1016/j.mattod.2018.04.009 ↗
13. 10.1039/D3NR00260H10.1039/D3NR00260H ↗
14. 10.1039/D0SE01322F10.1039/D0SE01322F ↗
15. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c0019710.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00197 ↗
16. 10.1038/s41560-019-0456-510.1038/s41560-019-0456-5 ↗
17. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c0201010.1021/acs.chemmater.0c02010 ↗
18. 10.1002/anie.20230948010.1002/anie.202309480 ↗
19. 10.1002/anie.20230434910.1002/anie.202304349 ↗
20. 10.1002/anie.20240576310.1002/anie.202405763 ↗
21. 10.1038/s41467-025-55894-y10.1038/s41467-025-55894-y ↗
22. 10.1039/D3TA03966H10.1039/D3TA03966H ↗
23. 10.1038/s41929-023-00980-x10.1038/s41929-023-00980-x ↗
24. 10.1021/ac60103a04210.1021/ac60103a042 ↗
25. 10.1002/ppap.20210006210.1002/ppap.202100062 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.13055610.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130556 ↗
27. 10.1021/ac60267a01610.1021/ac60267a016 ↗
28. 10.1016/0891-5849(95)00020-X10.1016/0891-5849(95)00020-X ↗
29. 10.1038/s41467-024-52405-310.1038/s41467-024-52405-3 ↗
30. 10.1039/C9RA06490G10.1039/C9RA06490G ↗
31. 10.3762/bjoc.16.7610.3762/bjoc.16.76 ↗
32. 10.1002/cctc.20180028410.1002/cctc.201800284 ↗
33. 10.1002/anie.20230308610.1002/anie.202303086 ↗
34. 10.1002/anie.20230898010.1002/anie.202308980 ↗
35. 10.1021/ja00023a03210.1021/ja00023a032 ↗
36. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b0016110.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00161 ↗