journal article·2026-05-08Open access

Photoelectrode Durability in Two- versus Three-Electrode Configurations: Understanding the Impact of Circuit Configuration on Water-Splitting Stability

Mitchell J. Hansen, James L. Young, Myles A. Steiner, Ryan O’Hayre, Todd G. Deutsch

ACS Energy Letters· Volume 11· Issue 5

Abstract

Device durability remains a significant challenge in photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting under ambient conditions. Yet, a lack of understanding of the test configuration and applied bias effects continue to hinder progress. In this study, we differentiate two-electrode (2E) and three-electrode (3E) configurations for evaluating PEC material durability, focusing particularly on their impacts on photoabsorber solid-state operating conditions. Our results underscore the fallacy of inferring 2E device stability from durability measurements performed solely in 3E configurations. Unmeasured and often misunderstood total circuit bias in 3E tests moderates material degradation, leading to the overestimation of photoelectrode stability compared to short-circuit operation. We demonstrate how the photoabsorber's operating voltage critically governs charge separation, surface stability, and degradation mechanisms during PEC operation. With these findings, we propose a standardized framework for conducting more reliable 3E durability experiments that simulate unassisted performance to help accelerate the development of robust, stable materials for solar-driven water splitting.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: TiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells · Iron oxide chemistry and applications · Advanced Photocatalysis Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Advanced Energy Systems Graduate Program

Colorado School of Mines

National Laboratory of the Rockies

Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering

Funding

Basic Energy Sciences

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/238037a010.1038/238037a0 ↗
2. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c0025810.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00258 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.checat.2021.12.01310.1016/j.checat.2021.12.013 ↗
4. 10.1557/JMR.2010.002010.1557/JMR.2010.0020 ↗
5. 10.3389/fenrg.2022.88436410.3389/fenrg.2022.884364 ↗
6. 10.1038/nenergy.2017.2810.1038/nenergy.2017.28 ↗
7. 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b0092010.1021/acsenergylett.8b00920 ↗
8. 10.1002/adfm.20250510610.1002/adfm.202505106 ↗
9. 10.1021/acsenergylett.0c0113210.1021/acsenergylett.0c01132 ↗
10. 10.1116/1.56980010.1116/1.569800 ↗
11. 10.1021/cm302533s10.1021/cm302533s ↗
12. 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b0258210.1021/acsenergylett.9b02582 ↗
13. 10.1039/C5EE01786F10.1039/C5EE01786F ↗
14. 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b0054910.1021/acsenergylett.9b00549 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.10026110.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100261 ↗
16. 10.1021/acsenergylett.0c0158310.1021/acsenergylett.0c01583 ↗
17. 10.3389/fenrg.2022.84014010.3389/fenrg.2022.840140 ↗
18. 10.1038/s41467-019-12977-x10.1038/s41467-019-12977-x ↗
19. 10.1021/acsaem.5c0288410.1021/acsaem.5c02884 ↗
20. 10.1021/acsenergylett.4c0268610.1021/acsenergylett.4c02686 ↗
21. 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c0232610.1021/acsenergylett.1c02326 ↗
22. 10.1021/acsenergylett.7b0059710.1021/acsenergylett.7b00597 ↗
23. 10.1126/science.125142810.1126/science.1251428 ↗
24. 10.1038/s41467-023-37754-910.1038/s41467-023-37754-9 ↗
25. 10.1021/jz300220b10.1021/jz300220b ↗
26. 10.1126/science.280.5362.42510.1126/science.280.5362.425 ↗
27. 10.1021/cr100232610.1021/cr1002326 ↗
28. 10.1021/jp109147p10.1021/jp109147p ↗
29. 10.1039/C8SC01453A10.1039/C8SC01453A ↗
30. 10.1021/acsenergylett.5c0415310.1021/acsenergylett.5c04153 ↗
31. 10.1002/9780470974704.ch810.1002/9780470974704.ch8 ↗
32. Streetman, B.; Banerjee, S. Solid State Electronic Devices , 7th ed. Pearson Education, 2014; pp 159–256.
33. 10.1021/acsami.2c0184510.1021/acsami.2c01845 ↗