Table 2. Comparison of Our Results with Previously Reported Ones for Photoelectrochemical NRR.
| catalyst | electrolyte | applied potential (V vs. RHE) | NH3 yield | FE (%) | ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Au-PTFE/TS | 0.05 M H2SO4 | –0.2 | μg h–1 cm–2 | 18.9 | 37.8 | (20) |
| BiVO4/PANI | 0.1 M Li2SO4 | –0.1 | 0.93 | 26.43 | (22) | |
| MoS2@LZO | 0.1 M KOH | –0.4 | 10.4 | 2.25 | (23) | |
| CQDs/STO | 0.1 M Na2SO4 | –0.3 | 32.56 | 10.2 | (25) | |
| Cu2S-In2S3 | 0.2 M K2SO4 | –0.6 | 23.7 | 33.25 | (43) | |
| Au/SiO2/Si | 0.05 M K3PO4 | –0.2 | 22.0 | 23.7 | (44) | |
| Cu2O | 0.1 M KOH | 0.4 | 7.2 | 20.0 | (45) | |
| CeO2-FeB/P | 0.5 M Na2SO4 | –0.12 | 9.54 | 10.1 | (46) | |
| Au NRs | 0.1 M KOH | –0.4 | 0.54 | 6.0 | (47) | |
| B-doped Bi nanorolls | 0.05 M H2SO4 | 0.48 | μg h–1 mgcat–1 | 29.2 | 8.3 | (48) |
| NV-g-C3N5/BiOBr | 0.05 M HCl | –0.2 | 29.4 | 11.0 | (49) | |
| B-TiO2/CPE | 0.1 M Na2SO4 | –0.8 | 14.4 | 3.4 | (50) | |
| BQD/MS | 1 M Li2SO4 | –0.4 | 18.5 | 33.2 | (51) | |
| Cu2O/Ru | 0.05 M H2SO4 | –0.2 | 37.4 | 17.1 | (52) | |
| β-FeOOH | 0.5 M LiClO4 | –0.75 | 23.32 | 6.7 | (53) | |
| black phosphorus | 0.1 M HCl | –0.4 | 102.4 | 23.3 | (54) | |
| Mo-doped WO3@CdS | 0.5 M H2SO4 | –0.3 | 38.99 | 36.72 | (55) | |
| Au grating/TiB2@AuNPs (sunlight simulation) | 0.1 M Na2SO4 | –0.2 | 319.4 (μg h–1 cm–2) | 31.7 | this work | |
| 535.2 (μg h–1 mgcat–1) | ||||||