Photocatalytic Versus Stoichiometric Hydrogen Generation Using Mesoporous Silicon Catalysts: The Complex Role of Sacrificial Reagents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mesoporous silicon has emerged as a promising photocatalyst for solar‐driven hydrogen production via water splitting. However, its cyclability and stability are poor because silicon oxidizes during the reaction, which also produces stoichiometric amounts of hydrogen. Despite this, the exact contribution of the stoichiometric component in the reaction remains unknown. This study demonstrates that the stoichiometric hydrogen contribution when using silicon photocatalysts is dependent on the type of sacrificial reagent. In the presence of triethanolamine and sodium sulfite, which increase the solution's pH, over 90% of the hydrogen produced originates from the stoichiometric reaction. In contrast, when alcohol‐based sacrificial reagents are used, the ratio of catalytic to stoichiometric hydrogen depends on the size of the alcohol molecule. Smaller alcohols, such as methanol and ethanol, result in higher overall hydrogen production; however, more than 40% of it originates from the stoichiometric reaction of silicon with water. As the alcohol size increases, the amount of water near the catalyst surface is limited, leading to decreased hydrogen production rates but improved photocatalyst stability. This study highlights the major role of the undesirable side reactions in silicon based photocatalysis and the need for more rigorous hydrogen quantification protocols to determine true photocatalytic activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".