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