Review of photocatalytic water-splitting methods for sustainable hydrogen production

International Journal of Energy ResearchVolume 40, Issue 11 p. 1449-1473 Review Paper Review of photocatalytic water-splitting methods for sustainable hydrogen production Canan Acar, Corresponding Author Canan Acar Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 7K4 Canada Correspondence Canan Acar, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada. E-mail: canan.acar@uoit.caSearch for more papers by this authorIbrahim Dincer, Ibrahim Dincer Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 7K4 CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorGreg F. Naterer, Greg F. Naterer Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 240 Prince Phillip Drive, St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1B 3X5 CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Canan Acar, Corresponding Author Canan Acar Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 7K4 Canada Correspondence Canan Acar, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada. E-mail: canan.acar@uoit.caSearch for more papers by this authorIbrahim Dincer, Ibrahim Dincer Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 7K4 CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorGreg F. Naterer, Greg F. Naterer Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 240 Prince Phillip Drive, St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1B 3X5 CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 11 May 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3549Citations: 342Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Summary This paper examines photocatalytic hydrogen production as a clean energy solution to address challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. Advantages and disadvantages of various hydrogen production methods, with a particular emphasis on photocatalytic hydrogen production, are discussed in this paper. Social, environmental and economic aspects are taken into account while assessing selected production methods and types of photocatalysts. In the first part of this paper, various hydrogen production options are introduced and comparatively assessed. Then, solar-based hydrogen production options are examined in a more detailed manner along with a comparative performance assessment. Next, photocatalytic hydrogen production options are introduced, photocatalysis mechanisms and principles are discussed and the main groups of photocatalysts, namely titanium oxide, cadmium sulfide, zinc oxide/sulfide and other metal oxide-based photocatalyst groups, are introduced. After discussing recycling issues of photocatalysts, a comparative performance assessment is conducted based on hydrogen production processes (both per mass and surface area of photocatalysts), band gaps and quantum yields. The results show that among individual photocatalysts, on average, Au–CdS has the best performance when band gap, quantum yield and hydrogen production rates are considered. From this perspective, TiO2–ZnO has the poorest performance. Among the photocatalyst groups, cadmium sulfides have the best average performance, while other metal oxides show the poorest rankings, on average. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Citing Literature Volume40, Issue11September 2016Pages 1449-1473 RelatedInformation