Loading…

Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations

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 (ΔG < 0) and are merely acce...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:ACS energy letters 2017-02, Vol.2 (2), p.445-453
Main Author: Osterloh, Frank E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743
container_end_page 453
container_issue 2
container_start_page 445
container_title ACS energy letters
container_volume 2
creator Osterloh, Frank E
description 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 (ΔG < 0) and are merely accelerated by the catalyst, whereas photosynthetic processes are thermodynamically unfavorable (ΔG > 0) 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 limited only 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00665
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>acs_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1341470</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>b684161135</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUEtLAzEQDqJgqf4EIXjfmuwmu9FbqfUBBYXWc8hms27KNpFMWtibP930cdCTzGGG78XwIXRDyYSSnN4pDcaZ8Dn0JsZJWRNSlvwMjfJCkEzQe37-675E1wBrQggtBU8zQt_vnY9eq6j6ASzgnQmwBXxAYXCxMwl9wFO8NA5stDsbBzx1J7Vv8aPZWW0Atz7gpe9VwPPDO3jm3T7MeoeVa_CsMxurVY9XQTlI6o2KiYMrdNGqHsz1aY_Rx9N8NXvJFm_Pr7PpIlOs4DHTqi0bVrVMCUoIV0TVPC_rQhQJaJnmLTeMNpUQeW1IZQhlpRCa1U1BalaxYoxuj7keopWgbTS60945o6OkBaOsIknEjyIdPEAwrfwKdqPCICmR-7rln7rlqe7ko0dfouXab0MqCP7x_AAI8ouM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations</title><source>American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read &amp; Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)</source><creator>Osterloh, Frank E</creator><creatorcontrib>Osterloh, Frank E ; Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>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 (ΔG &lt; 0) and are merely accelerated by the catalyst, whereas photosynthetic processes are thermodynamically unfavorable (ΔG &gt; 0) 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 limited only 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2380-8195</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2380-8195</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00665</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>SOLAR ENERGY</subject><ispartof>ACS energy letters, 2017-02, Vol.2 (2), p.445-453</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9288-3407 ; 0000000292883407</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1341470$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Osterloh, Frank E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations</title><title>ACS energy letters</title><addtitle>ACS Energy Lett</addtitle><description>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 (ΔG &lt; 0) and are merely accelerated by the catalyst, whereas photosynthetic processes are thermodynamically unfavorable (ΔG &gt; 0) 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 limited only 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.</description><subject>SOLAR ENERGY</subject><issn>2380-8195</issn><issn>2380-8195</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUEtLAzEQDqJgqf4EIXjfmuwmu9FbqfUBBYXWc8hms27KNpFMWtibP930cdCTzGGG78XwIXRDyYSSnN4pDcaZ8Dn0JsZJWRNSlvwMjfJCkEzQe37-675E1wBrQggtBU8zQt_vnY9eq6j6ASzgnQmwBXxAYXCxMwl9wFO8NA5stDsbBzx1J7Vv8aPZWW0Atz7gpe9VwPPDO3jm3T7MeoeVa_CsMxurVY9XQTlI6o2KiYMrdNGqHsz1aY_Rx9N8NXvJFm_Pr7PpIlOs4DHTqi0bVrVMCUoIV0TVPC_rQhQJaJnmLTeMNpUQeW1IZQhlpRCa1U1BalaxYoxuj7keopWgbTS60945o6OkBaOsIknEjyIdPEAwrfwKdqPCICmR-7rln7rlqe7ko0dfouXab0MqCP7x_AAI8ouM</recordid><startdate>20170210</startdate><enddate>20170210</enddate><creator>Osterloh, Frank E</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9288-3407</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000292883407</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170210</creationdate><title>Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations</title><author>Osterloh, Frank E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>SOLAR ENERGY</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Osterloh, Frank E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>ACS energy letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Osterloh, Frank E</au><aucorp>Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations</atitle><jtitle>ACS energy letters</jtitle><addtitle>ACS Energy Lett</addtitle><date>2017-02-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>445</spage><epage>453</epage><pages>445-453</pages><issn>2380-8195</issn><eissn>2380-8195</eissn><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 (ΔG &lt; 0) and are merely accelerated by the catalyst, whereas photosynthetic processes are thermodynamically unfavorable (ΔG &gt; 0) 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 limited only 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><doi>10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00665</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9288-3407</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000292883407</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2380-8195
ispartof ACS energy letters, 2017-02, Vol.2 (2), p.445-453
issn 2380-8195
2380-8195
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1341470
source American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read & Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)
subjects SOLAR ENERGY
title Photocatalysis versus Photosynthesis: A Sensitivity Analysis of Devices for Solar Energy Conversion and Chemical Transformations
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A30%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-acs_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Photocatalysis%20versus%20Photosynthesis:%20A%20Sensitivity%20Analysis%20of%20Devices%20for%20Solar%20Energy%20Conversion%20and%20Chemical%20Transformations&rft.jtitle=ACS%20energy%20letters&rft.au=Osterloh,%20Frank%20E&rft.aucorp=Univ.%20of%20California,%20Davis,%20CA%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2017-02-10&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=445&rft.epage=453&rft.pages=445-453&rft.issn=2380-8195&rft.eissn=2380-8195&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00665&rft_dat=%3Cacs_osti_%3Eb684161135%3C/acs_osti_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-caf6d47f4a81005a0ab526b383a81f4c5f5e41d7882be07e014688c4bd30b4743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true