“…Thus, their CO 2 RR paths and performance should be correlated with sulfur precursors employed. Sulfur sources including thiourea (TU), thioacetamide (TAA), sodium thiosulfate (STS), and sodium sulfide (SS) with distinct chemical structures and hydrolysis rates have been most widely employed for synthesizing sulfur-containing composite materials. , The unique structures and the different S 2– release rates of the sulfur sources in hydrothermal synthesis will result in CuS catalysts with distinct morphologies, and their catalytic activity and selectivity in the CO 2 RR might be affected. , Previous contributions have also highlighted the use of different sulfur sources and synthesis methods for preparing CuS nanostructures for electrochemical CO 2 reduction. ,,,− On the condition that both the synthesis method and sulfur source play important roles in deciding the morphology and CO 2 RR performance of CuS catalysts, it is rather difficult to identify the sulfur precursor effect on the structure and activity of the catalysts. In other words, a comparative investigation on fabricating CuS nanostructures using different sulfur sources in the same system and unraveling their impacts on CO 2 RR performance are still limited.…”