No abstract

While photocatalysis is considered a promising sustainable technology in the field of heterogeneous catalysis as well as biocatalysis, figures of merit (FOM) for comparing catalytic performance, especially between disciplines, are not well established. Here, photocatalytic water splitting was conducted using a semiconductor (NiO/La-NaTaO3) and a bio-photocatalyst (Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803) in the same setup under similar reaction conditions, eliminating the often ill-defined influence of the setup on the FOMs obtained. Comparing the results enables the critical evaluation of existing FOMs and a quantitative comparison of both photocatalytic systems. A single FOM is insufficient to compare the photocatalysts, instead a combination of multiple FOMs (reaction rate, photocatalytic space time yield and a redefined apparent quantum yield) is superior for assessing a variety of photocatalytic systems.

Several different evaluation methods (EM) to obtain the band gap energy (Eg) of semiconductors via UV/Vis diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) are used in literature and no clear consensus which EM to use is established. By using P25 as a model semiconductor, evaluating 32 literature sources and our own experiments, we show that the determined Eg energy is heavily influenced by the EM (differences in Eg of up to 0.87 eV). For P25 loaded with CuO even contradictive effects of metal loading on the Eg are observed using different EM. Different phase compositions of TiO2 are also shown to yield EM‐dependent results. This paper thus comprehensively investigates the most common EM on different relevant photocatalyst material classes, illustrates their mathematical and graphical determination, gives recommendations which method to use based on a quantitative indicator and illustrates common pitfalls in determining Eg via UV/Vis DRS.

No abstract