Fig. 4: PHE performance of all as-prepared catalysts and comparison with reported interface engineering strategies. | Nature Communications

Fig. 4: PHE performance of all as-prepared catalysts and comparison with reported interface engineering strategies.

From: A superlattice interface and S-scheme heterojunction for ultrafast charge separation and transfer in photocatalytic H2 evolution

Fig. 4

a Average PHE rate, where N.D. represents no detection. b The optical absorbance-dependent AQE measurement of SL-MCS/MW NRs. Error bars in (a) and (b) represent standard deviation. c Cycling stability test of SL-MCS/MW NRs. d Comparison of PHE performance and AQE (λ = 420 nm) with different reported photocatalysts marked by numbers 1–14. 1: Mn0.8Cd0.2S (no interface), 2: Mn0.25Cd0.75S/MoS2 (Schottky interface), 3: NiS/Mn0.25Cd0.75S (Schottky interface), 4: FeWO4/Mn0.5Cd0.5S (p-n junction), 5: CdWO4/Mn0.5Cd0.5S (Z-scheme heterojunction), 6: CdS/PT polymer (S-scheme heterojunction), 7: g-C3N4/CdS/TiO2 DRSP (dual S-scheme heterojunctions), 8: HOCN-0.01 (homojunction & Ohmic contact), 9: CZS/NiSx (twin homojunction & Schottky heterojunction), 10: CdZnS NCSSs (twin homojunction), 11: Ni-Cd0.5Zn0.5S (twin homojunction & Schottky heterojunction), 12: Cd0.5Zn0.5S/WO3-x (twin homojunction & Z-scheme heterojunction), 13: (3CdS/Au)-4ZnS QDNWs (quasi-superlattice interface), and 14: Cu1.8S-ZnS ASLNWs (quasi-superlattice interface).

Back to article page