Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jun 17;38(41):e73738. doi: 10.1002/adma.73738

Regulating Electronic Structure of Transition Metal Single‐Atoms in COFs for Enhanced Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction

Yueling Chen 1,2, Shaokui Chen 3, Mingfei Yu 3, Guocheng Huang 2, Qiaoshan Chen 2,✉, Ling Wu 1, Liuyi Li 3,✉, Jinhong Bi 1,2,4,✉
PMCID: PMC13393993  PMID: 42307027

ABSTRACT

The rational regulation of the electronic structure in single‐atom catalysts (SACs) is pivotal yet challenging for enhancing photocatalytic CO2 reduction. Herein, we elaborately designed a series of M1N2 sites (M = Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, Mo) anchored on a vinylene‐linked covalent organic framework (sp2c‐COF) to construct M/COF SACs for gas‐solid CO2 photoreduction. The M/COF SACs revealed a d‐orbital electronic configuration‐dependent activity, where the d‐band center exhibiting strong correlation with CO2 adsorption energy (R2 = 0.98). Notably, the Mo/COF catalysts delivered a superior CO rate of 294.43 µmol·g−1·h−1 with near‐unity selectivity under pure CO2 and sustained 146.6 µmol·g−1·h−1 under simulated flue gas (15% CO2). The superior activity originates from the synergistic interplay of its highest d‐band center (−0.314 eV) and strongest spin polarization among the series. This unique electronic structure, featuring abundant single‐atom states near the Fermi level and half‐occupied d orbitals, facilitates optimal σ‐donation (via dz2) and π‐back‐donation (via dxz/dyz) for CO2 activation, thereby significantly lowering the energy barriers for *COOH formation and *CO desorption. This work establishes a design principle for high‐performance SACs through the co‐modulation of d‐band configuration and spin polarization.

Keywords: covalent organic frameworks, d‐band center, electronic structure modulation, photocatalytic CO2 reduction, single‐atom catalysts, spin polarization


This work develops distorted M1N2 sites (M = Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, Mo) on a vinylene‐linked COF for CO2 photoreduction. The severely distorted N─Mo─N configuration exhibits an upshifted d‐band center and strong spin polarization, synergistically enhancing CO2 activation and driving stoichiometric CO and O2 production, demonstrating an effective electronic‐structure co‐modulation strategy for efficient photocatalytic CO2 reduction.

graphic file with name ADMA-38-e73738-g004.jpg

1. Introduction

Photocatalytic CO2 reduction offers a solar‐driven route to convert a major greenhouse gas into value‐added chemicals, aligning directly with the mitigation of climate change and carbon‐neutrality goals [1, 2]. However, CO2 is thermodynamically stable and kinetically inert. The reaction proceeds via multi‐step proton‐coupled electron transfer (PCET) and competing pathways, which together demand high electron density at well‐defined active sites and precise control over the intermediate energetics [3, 4]. Although versatile organic and inorganic semiconductors have been extensively explored, most state‐of‐the‐art photocatalysts still suffer from the sluggish charge transfer kinetics and insufficient driving force for CO2 activation [5, 6].

Notably, the single‐atom catalysts (SACs) have emerged as powerful platforms for CO2 photoreduction owing to their maximal atom utilization, distinctive electronic structure, and tunable coordination microenvironment [7, 8]. Particularly, Cu‐based SACs are attractive given their low cost, multivalent chemistry, flexible coordination, and compatibility with diverse supports [9, 10]. Although numerous studies report strong CO2 adsorption on isolated Cu sites, the fully occupied 3d10 configuration intrinsically constrains its charge transfer with the front orbitals of CO2 and thereby suppresses the molecular activation and catalytic conversion. To overcome these electronic‐structure limitations, two promising strategies can guide the fine design of metallic SACs for outstanding CO2‐activation‐conversion capability by precisely modulating their d‐orbital configurations: (i) Heavier late‐transition metals below Cu in the periodic table (e.g., Pd, Pt, and Au). These metals possess larger atomic radii, inducing more diffuse d orbitals and weaker effective nuclear attraction to valence electrons, favoring electron migration into the CO2 π* levels and strengthening back‐donation activation. (ii) Early‐transition metals (e.g., Ru, Mo). They offer partially filled, energetically accessible d states, enabling stronger synergistic σ‐donation/π‐back‐donation and potentially higher spin polarization for promoting CO2 activation [11]. The d‑band center theory has established a fundamental framework for understanding and predicting the catalytic activity of transition metals, serving as a widely adopted descriptor for the adsorption strength of reaction intermediates [12]. Building upon this foundation, spin polarization is proposed as an additional tuning parameter that can further enhance catalytic performance through a synergistic mechanism. While the d‑band center primarily governs the thermodynamic binding energy of key intermediates, spin polarization provides complementary control over electron spin alignment and spin‑dependent charge transfer. Within this synergy, the d‑band center ensures favorable adsorption energetics, whereas spin polarization may facilitate CO2 activation by lowering the electron pairing energy barrier and promoting spin‑allowed electron donation and back‑donation [13, 14]. Together, these two regulatory factors could enable a more comprehensive electronic optimization, potentially achieving both favorable adsorption thermodynamics and efficient spin‑selective charge transfer kinetics. It is therefore anticipated that the synergistic combination of d‑band center modulation and spin polarization may lead to superior CO2 activation performance compared with modulating the d‑band center alone. Nevertheless, the general structure‐reactivity relationships across different metals, especially the synergistic influence of intrinsic d‐band position and spin state under identical coordination microenvironments on CO2 activation and conversion, remain poorly understood and warrant systematic investigation.

Olefin‐linked, sp2‐carbon‐conjugated covalent organic frameworks (sp2c‐COFs) incorporating pyrene and 2,2′‐bipyridine units provide an ideal platform to construct SACs with an identical coordination configuration. Unlike imine‐linked COFs formed via reversible condensations, the C═C‐bonded frameworks offer superior chemical stability and enhanced crystallinity [15, 16]. Pyrene acts as a strong electron‐donating chromophore, broadening visible‐light harvesting and promoting exciton dissociation. Meanwhile, the 2,2′‐bipyridine motifs furnish a uniform bidentate chelation sites, enabling the precise anchoring of M1N2 single‐atom centers [17]. This system thus serves as a model platform to systematically probe the intrinsic influence of metallic d‐band position and spin state on CO2 activation and conversion under an identical coordination structure.

Herein, a series of metallic single‐atom catalysts (M/COF; M = Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, Mo) with identical M1N2 coordination were synthesized via impregnation on a vinylene‐linked COF for gas‐solid CO2 reduction under visible light (Scheme 1). Among them, Mo/COF delivered a CO rate of 294.43 µmol·g−1·h−1 with stoichiometric O2 evolution (128.63 µmol·g−1·h−1) under pure CO2, evidencing the robust activity and stability. The carrier dynamics in M/COF were clarified by serial characterizations such as temperature‐dependent photoluminescence, Hall measurements, and femtosecond transient absorption (fs‐TAS). The active sites and reaction pathways for CO2 reduction and water oxidation were probed by in situ diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy (DRIFTS) in combination with thermodynamic analysis. Furthermore, detailed density functional theory (DFT) calculations, like projected density of states (PDOS) analysis, were utilized to reveal the interplay between d‐band center and the spin state of the M1N2 sites, elucidating the underlying mechanism for the distinct CO2 activation and photoreduction behaviors. The superior activity of Mo/COF was attributed to the optimized electronic configuration within its distorted linear N‐Mo‐N coordination geometry, which facilitates synergistic σ‐donation and π‐back‐donation between the Mo d‐orbitals (dz2, dxz/dyz) and CO2 molecular orbitals. This work highlights the decisive roles of d‐band position and spin state in CO2 activation and provides a guiding framework for the rational design of high‐performance SACs for photocatalytic CO2 conversion.

SCHEME 1.

SCHEME 1

(a) Synthetic scheme for sp2c‐COF and M/COF. (b) Schematic diagram of the bonding of CO2 to the Mo/COF. (c) Enhanced photocatalytic simulated flue gas reduction mechanism.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Synthesis and Structural Characterization

The elaborately designed synthesis strategy of pristine sp2c‐COF and its metal‐loaded counterparts was schematically, where the pristine sp2c‐COF was obtained through an alkali‐catalyzed Knoevenagel condensation between 1,3,6,8‐tetrakis (4‐formylphenyl) pyrene (TFPPy) and 2,2′‐([2,2′‐bipyridine]‐5,5′‐diyl) diacetonitrile (BPYDAN). Various metal ions, e.g., Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, and Mo, were subsequently introduced into the sp2c‐COF framework by a post‐impregnation method, yielding the corresponding metal single‐atom catalysts (M/COF). The Powder X‐ray diffraction (PXRD) patterns of M/COF revealed the well‐defined diffraction peaks, consistent with pristine COF, at 2.70°, 4.74°, 5.46°, 7.32°, and 25.84°, corresponding to the (110), (020), (220), (040), and (001) planes, respectively, verifying their high crystallinity (Figure S1) [18]. The simulated pattern from the AA stacking model agrees well with both the Pawley refinement results and the experimental PXRD pattern of sp2c‑COF (Figure S2). The planar structures of the TFPPy and BPYDAN units promoted strong π‐π interactions between adjacent layers, accounting for the high crystallinity of both sp2c‐COF and M/COF materials. Noticeably, the characteristic C─H stretching peak of aldehyde in TFPPy at 2718 cm−1 in the Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum disappeared after the Knoevenagel condensation, while an intensified C═C stretching vibration at 1600 cm−1 was observed in all catalysts (Figure S3), evidencing the formation of alkene linkages [19]. Moreover, a distinct band at 2215 cm−1, attributable to the C≡N stretching of the vinyl group, was present in both sp2c‐COF and M/COF, collectively verifying the successful formation of sp2c‐COF [20]. These findings were further supported by solid‐state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (Figure S4), where a peak at 107.34 ppm was assigned to the vinyl nitrile carbon [21]. Collectively, these results confirmed that the structural integrity of the sp2c‐COF framework was preserved after the incorporation of single metal atoms.

The morphology of the as‐synthesized catalysts was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which showed that the fibrous structure of sp2c‐COF was preserved after metal incorporation (Figure S5), and no detectable metal nanoparticles or clusters were observed in M/COF (Figure 1a; Figure S6). Aberration‐corrected high‐angle annular dark‐field scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF‐STEM) revealed bright atomic‐scale spots, attributable to isolated metal atoms uniformly dispersed within the sp2c‐COF framework (Figure 1b; Figure S7). The energy dispersive X‐ray (EDX) mapping also confirmed the homogeneous distributions of C, N, and the respective metal species (Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, Mo) across the frameworks (Figure S6). The metal loadings of Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, and Mo were determined to be 0.30, 0.26, 0.27, 0.25, and 0.28 wt%, respectively, via inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP‐OES) analysis. N2 adsorption‐desorption measurements at 77 K showed reduced surface areas and pore volumes for M/COF compared with the pristine COF (Figure S8), owing to partial occupation of the internal cavities by single atoms (Table S1), consistent with previous reports on single‐atom coordination catalysts [22].

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

(a) TEM and (b) HAADF‐TEM image of Mo/COF. (c) Mo 3d spectra of Mo/COF under dark and light illumination. (d) FT‐EXAFS spectra over Mo foil, MoO3, and Mo/COF. (e) 3D wavelet transform EXAFS contour plots for Mo/COF. (f) Schematic model of Mo/COF.

The X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was employed to probe the chemical composition and electronic states of M/COF (Figure S9; Figure 1c). Au 4f5/2 (89.00 eV) and Au 4f7/2 (85.50 eV) binding energies lay between Au3+ and Au0, indicating the presence of Auα+ (0 < α< 3) [23, 24]. Similar features were observed for Pt, Pd, and Ru. Specifically, the Pt 4f spectrum of Pt/COF could be deconvoluted into two peaks at 76.40 and 73.30 eV, assigned to Pt 4f5/2 and Pt 4f7/2, respectively, and located between Pt0 and Pt2+, suggesting the presence of partially oxidized Ptβ+ (0 < β < 2) [25]. Pd 3d5/2 and Pd 3d3/2 peaks were detected at 343.20 and 337.70 eV, respectively [26, 27]. Ru 3p1/2 and Ru 3p3/2 peaks appeared at 484.20 and 463.80 eV, confirming Ruγ+ species (0 < γ < 3) [28]. The Mo 3d spectrum of Mo/COF exhibited two peaks at 235.42 and 232.29 eV, corresponding to Mo 3d3/2 and Mo 3d5/2, respectively (Figure 1c) [29]. These results collectively attested that the metals existed in oxidized states rather than in metallic form. The N 1s spectrum of the pristine sp2c‐COF exhibited two peaks at 399.90 (cyano N) and 398.93 eV (pyridine N) [30, 31]. Upon the metal incorporation, the pyridine N peak shifted to higher binding energies by 0.29 (Au/COF), 0.14 (Pt/COF), 0.11 (Pd/COF), 0.15 (Ru/COF), and 0.18 eV (Mo/COF), signifying the formation of M─N bonds (Figure S9).

The coordination environment of Mo1N2 was investigated by X‐ray absorption fine structure (XAFS). As shown in Figure S10a the absorption edge of Mo/COF was close to that of MoO3, indicating a valence state of approximately +6 [29]. Compared with MoO3, the pre‐edge spectrum of Mo/COF shifted toward lower energies, which can be attributed to Mo─N coordination. Since the electronegativity of N was smaller than that of O, the lone pairs on N atoms could act as the Lewis basic sites to stabilize Mo atoms. The Fourier‐transformed k3‐weighted extended X‐ray absorption fine structure (FT‐EXAFS) spectrum of Mo/COF exhibited a peak near 1.88 Å, corresponding to Mo─N/C bonds (Figure 1d). Importantly, the absence of Mo‐Mo scattering paths at 2.43 Å ruled out the formation of metallic clusters or nanoparticles, confirming the exclusive presence of atomically dispersed Mo species [32]. To gain quantitative insight into the local coordination environment, detailed EXAFS curve fitting was performed (Figure S10b and Table S2). The fitting results showed that each Mo atom was coordinated by two N atoms with an average bond distance of 1.88 Å, forming a well‐defined Mo1N2 coordination structure. This configuration was further corroborated by wavelet transform (WT) analysis (Figure 1e), which offered improved resolution in both R‐ and k‐space. The WT contour map displayed a single intensity maximum at 5.5 Å−1 (K‐space) and 1.88 Å (R‐space), characteristic of Mo1N2 coordination. In contrast, the typical WT signals of metallic Mo─Mo (8.34 Å−1, 2.43 Å) and Mo─O (4.25 Å−1, 3.03 Å) bonds were absent in Mo/COF (Figure S10c,d), providing definitive evidence for isolated Mo atoms without metallic or oxide phase contamination. Notably, while classical coordination chemistry dictates that highly unsaturated, low‐coordinate metal centers are thermodynamically unstable and prone to binding additional ligands (e.g., solvent molecules or residual precursor anions) to achieve electronic saturation [33], the comprehensive spectroscopic data unambiguously confirm a bare, the M1N2 configuration without extra axial coordination. The complete removal of precursor‐derived anions (such as Cl−) and physically adsorbed solvent molecules was ensured by exhaustive washing protocols and rigorous vacuum drying (60°C, 24 h) during synthesis, which is corroborated by the absence of heteroatom signals in XPS survey spectra and EDX mapping (Figures S6 and S11). Collectively, these results unambiguously confirm the successful formation of atomically dispersed Mo1N2 sites within the COF framework, with precise coordination geometry and distinct electronic structure (Figure 1f).

The photoelectrochemical properties of the as‐synthesized catalysts were systematically evaluated. As shown in Figure S12a, the UV–vis diffuse reflectance spectrum (UV–vis DRS) of the pristine sp2c‐COF displayed a characteristic absorption edge at 629 nm, corresponding to its intrinsic π‐π* transitions within the conjugated framework. The incorporation of single‐atom metal sites induced a pronounced bathochromic shift and narrowed the optical band gap owing to metal‐ligand charge transfer (MLCT) and strengthened π‐conjugation [34]. Tauc plots revealed progressively decreasing Eg values of 2.14 eV (COF), 2.09 (Au/COF), 2.07 (Pt/COF), 2.08 (Pd/COF), 2.08 (Ru/COF), and 2.05 (Mo/COF) (Figure S12b), with Mo/COF exhibiting the largest reduction, consistent with strong Mo‐N coordination. The conduction‐band (CB) potentials of COF, Au/COF, Pt/COF, Pd/COF, Ru/COF, and Mo/COF were determined to be −0.68, −0.90, −0.95, −0.99, −1.06, and −1.11 V versus NHE (Figure S13), respectively, via Mott–Schottky measurement, showing a gradual negative shift with metal incorporation [35]. Based upon Eg = EVB—ECB, the corresponding valence‐band (VB) positions were calculated as 1.46, 1.19, 1.12, 1.09, 1.02, and 0.94 V versus NHE (Figure S14). The increasingly negative CB (up to −1.11 V for Mo/COF) exceeded the CO2/CO potential (−0.52 V vs. NHE at pH = 7) [36], while the VB remains sufficiently positive for water oxidation (+0.82 V vs. NHE), indicating thermodynamically favorable band alignment; together with enhanced light absorption, this rendered the M/COFs promising photocatalysts for CO2 reduction to value‐added chemicals.

2.2. Charge Transfer Dynamics

The electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy was utilized to probe the electronic states of pristine and metal‐incorporated COFs under dark conditions and visible‐light illumination (λ ≥ 420 nm). The pristine COF showed a strong signal at g = 2.005, attributing to the unpaired electron spin states in spin‐coupled electron pairs arising from the push‐pull units (Figure S15a) [37]. Under illumination, all M/COFs showed substantially increased EPR signals compared to their dark states. The most intense signal was observed for Mo/COF, which was consistent with its superior photoinduced charge separation efficiency (Figure S15b). Photoelectrochemical measurements further corroborated these findings: Mo/COF delivered the highest photocurrent under irradiation (Figure S16a), while electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) revealed a substantially smaller Nyquist semicircle for Mo/COF than other catalysts (Figure S16b), indicative of reduced charge‐transfer resistance and improved charge transport [38]. As demonstrated in Figure S17, the Mo/COF displayed the lowest photoluminescence intensity among all samples, manifesting the most effective suppression of radiative recombination. The time‐resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) was adopted to quantify the excited‐state lifetimes (Figure 2a; Figure S18). All M/COFs possessed longer average lifetimes (τavg) than the pristine sp2c‐COF (0.73 ns): 0.92 ns (Au/COF), 1.16 ns (Pt/COF), 2.92 ns (Pd/COF), 3.13 ns (Ru/COF). Notably, Mo/COF showed the longest τavg (3.72 ns), ∼5‐fold higher than the pristine COF, implying markedly suppressed charge recombination in the Mo/COF system. Furthermore, the exciton binding energy (Eb) was examined via the temperature‐dependent PL (10‐300 K) using Arrhenius fits. As the temperature increased, the PL intensity decreased owing to more thermally generated free carriers (Figure 2b; Figure S19). The Mo/COF presented a lower Eb (30.07 meV) than sp2c‐COF (37.34 meV), implying more efficient exciton dissociation into free carriers that can subsequently participate in photocatalytic reactions [39]. The carrier transport kinetics was further evaluated by Hall measurements (Figure 2c). Notably, Mo/COF showed obviously reduced resistivity (0.0154 Ω·cm−2) than the pristine sp2c‐COF (0.0380 Ω·cm−2), consistent with the EIS results. The carrier concentration and mobility (n = 1.18 × 1017 cm−3, µ = 0.641 cm2·V−1·s−1) of Mo/COF both exceeded those of COF (n = 4.05 × 1016 cm−3, µ = 0.406 cm2·V−1·s−1), underscoring that high‐valence Mo single atoms acted as electron‐accepting centers to facilitate charge migration. Furthermore, the light‐induced shifts in the binding energies of the N 1s (toward higher energy) and Mo 3d (toward lower energy) provided direct evidence for this charge‐transfer pathway (Figure 1c; Figure S9i).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

(a) TRPL spectra of COF and Mo/COF. (b) Temperature‐dependent PL and extracted exciton binding energy of Mo/COF. (c) Resistivity, charge mobility, and carrier concentration of COF and Mo/COF measured at 300 K based on the Hall effect. (d) The 3D fs‐TAs, (e) transient fs‐T As, (f) TAs kinetic plots, and typical fitting curves of Mo/COF. Calculated (g) HOMO and (h) LUMO distribution, and (i) distributions of the photo‐excited electrons and holes in Mo/COF.

To interrogate the underlying charge‐separation dynamics on the sub‐picosecond timescale, femtosecond transient absorption spectroscopy (fs‐TAs) was employed. As presented in Figure 2d and Figure S20a, sp2c‐COF and Mo/COF exhibited discernible 3D fs‐TAs of excited state absorption (ESA) or photoinduced absorption (PIA) signals across the full probe wavelength range (400–720 nm). In comparison to pure sp2c‐COF, Mo/COF manifested a pronounced negative absorption band in the vicinity of 500 nm, which was ascribed to its ground state bleaching (GSB) signal [40]. The new negative absorption band represented the trapping process of the hole in the surface trap. Besides, Figure 2e and Figure S20b illustrated the fs‐TAs attenuation at varying probe delays, spanning from 10 to 2000 ps. During this time period, the absorption bands of naked sp2c‐COF and Mo/COF gradually decreased at 700 and 580 nm, respectively, which could be assigned to the capture process of light‐induced electrons in the surface trap [41]. Following 300 ps, the carrier spectral properties of Mo/COF underwent a comparatively gradual alteration in comparison to those of pure sp2c‐COF, indicating that the recombination of trapped holes with deeply trapped electrons occurred at a relatively slow rate. The reduced mobility of electrons upon relaxing into deeper positions resulted in a decreased probability of recombination with trapped holes. TAs could be divided into three distinct components through a process of global fitting (Figure 2f; Figure S20c and Table S3). τ1, τ2, and τ3 were ascribed to the cooling of hot electrons to the conduction band bottom of sp2c‐COF, the annihilation of band gap excitons, and the formation of a shallow electron trapping state, respectively [42]. Critically, Mo/COF exhibited a substantially elongated τ3 (481.1 ps) compared with the pristine COF (152.5 ps), and its overall mean lifetime (324.8 ps) exceeded that of the parent framework (50.6 ps) by nearly one order of magnitude. Consequently, the prolonged, shallow electron capture and long‐lived carrier separation state afforded a superior opportunity for photocatalyzed CO2 reduction reactions.

To investigate the intrinsic mechanism of the enhanced charge‐separation efficiency, the charge‐density distribution of the highest occupied (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied (LUMO) molecular orbitals were computed (Figure 2g,h; Figure S21). In the pristine sp2c‐COF, HOMO and LUMO largely overlapped and delocalized across the whole framework, resulting in the rapid recombination. Upon incorporation of single atoms, the orbitals became spatially separated: the HOMO resided mainly on the pyrene unit, while the LUMO was concentrated on the bipyridine unit and the coordinated metal center [43]. This spatial separation enabled directional transfer of photoexcited electrons to the LUMO, effectively suppressing recombination. Furthermore, the incorporation of metal atoms markedly reduced the work function of the pristine sp2c‐COF. Compared with sp2c‐COF (5.018 eV), Au/COF (3.963 eV), Pt/COF (3.782 eV), Pd/COF (3.716 eV), Ru/COF (3.828 eV), and Mo/COF (3.798 eV) all exhibited lower values, thereby facilitating rapid electron migration to surface reaction sites (Figure S22) [44]. The substantially larger excited‐state electron‐hole centroid distance of Mo/COF (2.63 Å) relative to sp2c‐COF (0.89 Å), Au/COF (1.06 Å), Pt/COF (1.78 Å), Pd/COF (1.81 Å), and Ru/COF (1.88 Å) further underscored its superior capability for promoting photogenerated charge separation and transport (Figure 2i; Figure S23) [45].

2.3. CO2 Photoreduction Performance

The visible‐light‐driven CO2 reduction was conducted without photosensitizers or sacrificial agents (Figure 3a; Table S4). The pristine sp2c‐COF afforded CO and H2 yields of 35.8 and 4.1 µmol·g−1·h−1, respectively. In contrast, M/COF samples showed markedly enhanced activity, following the order Mo/COF (CO: 294.43 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 6.8 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Ru/COF (CO: 202.50 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 15.8 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Co/COF (CO: 189.55 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 6.24 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Pd/COF (CO: 174.60 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 13.7 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Ni/COF (CO: 121.36 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 9.50 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Pt/COF (CO: 107.64 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 9.2 µmol·g−1·h−1) > Au/COF (CO: 69.75 µmol·g−1·h−1; H2: 8.0 µmol·g−1·h−1). The CO selectivity reached 98% for Mo/COF and 90% for Au/COF, both exceeding that of the pristine sp2c‐COF (85.65%) (Figure 3c). The electron‐consumption yield, defined as 2 × CO + 2 × H2, also followed the trend Mo/COF > Ru/COF > Pt/COF > Pd/COF > Au/COF. Herein, Mo/COF achieved 601.06 µmol·g−1·h−1, representing a 7.2‐fold enhancement over that of the pristine COF. The apparent quantum efficiency of Mo/COF gradually decreases with increasing wavelength, reaching 1.85% at 420 nm (Table S5 and Figure S24). Notably, the Mo/COF exhibited superior CO evolution activity and selectivity compared with most reported COF‐based photocatalysts under comparable conditions, even including systems employing photosensitizers and sacrificial agents (Figure 3b; Table S6).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

(a) Photocatalytic CO2 reduction activities of sp2c‐COF and M/COFs (λ ≥ 420 nm). (b) Performance comparison of Mo/COF with other COF‐based catalysts under pure CO2 or simulated flue‐gas. (blue: with sacrificial agent and photosensitizer; orange: without sacrificial agent; red: without sacrificial agent or photosensitizer; green: dilute CO2 atmosphere). (c) Calculated CO selectivity and electron consumption for sp2c‐COF and M/COFs. (d) Control experiments on Mo/COF under different conditions. (e) Mass spectra of products in photocatalytic 13CO2 reduction over Mo/COF.

Under simulated flue‐gas conditions (15% CO2), Mo/COF still maintained a high CO evolution rate of 146.6 µmol·g−1·h−1 (Figure S25), surpassing all the reported photocatalysts under comparable conditions (Figure 3b; Table S7). Control catalysts on alternative supports—Mo/C3N4 (CO: 60.77 µmol·g−1·h−1, 73.07%), Mo/COF (C═N) (25.36 µmol·g−1·h−1, 73.30%), and Mo/MIL‐41 (no detectable products)—showed markedly lower activity under identical irradiation (Figure S26), underscoring the structural advantages of the designed sp2c‐COF matrix for single‐atom catalysis. UV–vis DRS, photocurrent, and EIS measurements revealed that the sp2c‑COF offered two key structural advantages, namely a fully conjugated sp2 framework for enhanced light absorption and an intrinsic donor‐acceptor structure for efficient charge separation (Figures S27 and S28). In addition, structural characterizations including N2 physisorption, XPS, and EXAFS confirmed that the sp2c‑COF matrix possesses abundant bipyridine chelating sites within its open pores for single‑atom anchoring and mass transfer. The unique structural features of sp2c‑COF, including its conjugated framework and well‑defined catalytic sites, are likely the reasons why it exhibits advantages over the other carriers. 1H NMR detected no liquid products, confirming CO as the main product (Figure S29). Blank tests showed that no CO was produced in the absence of catalysts or CO2 (Figure 3d), verifying that CO arose from photocatalytic CO2 reduction over Mo/COF. No carbonaceous products were detected in the absence of the Mo/COF catalyst with only the ionic liquid, indicating that the ionic liquid serves solely as an additive to promote CO2 adsorption and local concentration near the active sites, thus boosting the overall efficiency. The quantitative O2 evolution reached 85%–90% with no detectable oxidative by‐products, evidencing a stoichiometrically balanced CO2/H2O photocatalytic cycle (Figure S30). The series of photocatalytic CO2 reduction chromatographic data for Mo/COF further corroborated that the O2 generated in the system originated from the water oxidation process, ruling out the possibility of device leakage (Figures S31–S36). The isotopic labelling with 13CO2 and H2 18O (Figure 3e) yielded MS signals at m/z = 29 (13CO) and m/z = 36 (18O2), confirming that CO originated from CO2 reduction while O2 derived from water oxidation. Notably, the Mo/COF maintained its performance over ten consecutive runs with negligible loss (Figure S37). The density functional theory (DFT)‐calculated formation energies for metal anchoring followed Mo (−4.67 eV) > Ru (−4.13 eV) > Pd (−3.68 eV) > Pt (−3.39 eV) > Au (−2.96 eV), identifying Mo/COF as the most thermodynamically stable configuration. Post‐reaction PXRD and FTIR profiles were essentially unchanged from the fresh catalyst, further demonstrating the robust structural integrity (Figures S38 and S39).

In addition, the CO2 activation process was evaluated through linear sweep voltammetry (LSV), where a greater current density was recorded for the CO2‐saturated solution in comparison to the N2‐saturated solution, indicating that the CO2 molecules were sufficiently activated by M/COF (Figure S40). Notably, Mo/COF manifested the most robust current density in the CO2‐saturated solution in comparison with Ru/COF, Pd/COF, Pt/COF, and Au/COF, thereby substantiating the pronounced activation capacity of Mo/COF toward CO2. The CO2 temperature‐programmed desorption (CO2‐TPD) further corroborated these trends (Figure S41). In the 100°C–200°C region, Au/COF, Pt/COF, Pd/COF, Ru/COF, and Mo/COF exhibited larger desorption peak areas than the pristine COF, indicative of the stronger physisorption. Peaks at 200°C–300°C were assigned to chemisorbed CO2, with Mo/COF showing the largest area, whereas the COF peak was negligible [46]. These results demonstrated the robust CO2 chemisorption capacity of M/COFs and underscored the key role of single‐atom sites in promoting CO2 adsorption and activation.

2.4. Insights Into CO2 Photoreduction Mechanism

In situ diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy (DRIFTS) was used to track key intermediates during CO2 photoreduction over Mo/COF. Under vacuum and in the dark, the introduced high‐purity CO2 led to a progressive increase of the CO2 band at 2364 cm−1 (Figure S42), evidencing the intense adsorption [47]. When comparing the CO2 adsorption capacity, the Mo/COF demonstrated the strongest CO2 band intensity, with the trend: Mo/COF > Ru/COF > Pd/COF > Pt/COF > Au/COF > COF (Figure 4a), verifying the exceptional CO2 adsorption ability of Mo/COF. During illumination, the bands assignable to surface carbonaceous species—s‐HCO3 − (1440 cm−1), m‐CO3 2− (1478 cm−1), and HCO3 − (1651 cm−1)—increased (Figure 4b), alongside new peaks at 1502 and 1615 cm−1 attributable to *COOH, a well‐known CO‐forming intermediate [48, 49, 50]. A *CO adsorption band at 2165 cm−1 was also observed, revealing the elevated *CO coverage under irradiation [51]. The water oxidation process was further probed via in situ DRIFTS under pure H2O vapor: bands associated with oxygenated intermediates—*OH (997 cm−1), *OOH (1250, 1152, 834 cm−1), and *O (1410 cm−1)—grew with illumination time (Figure 4c), providing direct evidence for water oxidation on Mo/COF [52, 53]. On basis of these observations, a reasonable pathway was proposed: (i) CO2 adsorption at Mo sites; (ii) adsorption of H2O on pyrene units followed by stepwise dehydrogenation to generate oxygen species; (iii) protonation of activated CO2 to form *COOH, which was further reduced to *CO; and (iv) CO desorption from the catalyst surface (Figure 4g).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

(a) The interactions between sp2c‐COF and M/COF with CO2. In situ DRIFTS of Mo/COF for (b) CO2 reduction and (c) water oxidation under visible‐light irradiation (λ ≥ 420 nm). (d) Gibbs free energy pathway for the formation of CO from CO2 over sp2c‐COF and M/COF. (e) Relationship between the CO2 adsorption energy and the d‐band centers of the M/COF catalysts. (f) Gibbs free energy profiles of sp2c‐COF and M/COF in the H2O oxidation process. (g) Schematic diagram of proposed artificial photosynthetic CO2 reduction mechanism for Mo/COF. (h) Schematic diagram of the bonding of CO2 to the Mo/COF.

The thermodynamics of CO2 reaction at different metal active sites were further studied by DFT calculation. The low CO2 adsorption energy imposed a significant kinetic limitation on the CO2RR in the pristine COF (−0.596 eV). Conversely, the adsorption of CO2 by M/COF was markedly enhanced following the incorporation of the metal active sites. In general, CO2 and metal atoms will bond in one of the four forms shown in Figure S43, namely η1‐O, η1‐C, η2‐C, O, and η2‐O, O, where the superscript number indicates the coordination number of CO2 with the metal center [54, 55]. Taking Mo/COF as a representative, the CO2 adsorption energy of different adsorption modes was calculated, and the optimal adsorption configuration was predicted to be η2‐C, O, as its adsorption energy (−2.585 eV) was markedly superior to η1‐O (−0.366 eV), η1‐C (−0.968 eV), and η2‐O, O, (−1.247 eV) configurations. Specifically, Mo/COF exhibited the highest CO2 adsorption capacity, exceeding that of Ru/COF (−1.896 eV), Pd/COF (−1.496 eV), Pt/COF (−0.678 eV), and Au/COF (−0.181 eV). The formation energy barrier of *COOH in Mo/COF was 0.497 eV, which was markedly lower than that observed for COF (0.755 eV), Ru/COF (0.698 eV), Pd/COF (0.866 eV), Pt/COF (1.038 eV), and Au/COF (0.679 eV). In contrast, the formation of *OCHO by hydrogenation of *CO2 was a process that required a significant input of energy (Mo/COF: 0.714 eV), which was consistent with the high selectivity of CO2 for CO. Furthermore, the Mo/COF exhibited a considerable degree of free energy variation during the formation of *H, suggesting that the incorporation of Mo SAs inhibited the HER kinetics during CO2RR (Figure S44). *COOH → *CO was an exothermic process. Moreover, due to the smaller energy barrier, CO molecules adsorbed in Mo/COF were more conducive to the formation of CO through *CO desorption (Figure 4d). In CO‐saturated solutions, the current density of Mo/COF was found to be the lowest in comparison to Ru/COF, Pd/COF, Pt/COF, and Au/COF, confirming the weak binding ability of Mo/COF to CO (Figure S45).

The H2O oxidation pathway of these M‐COFs in the artificial photosynthetic reaction was further investigated. The HOMO‐LUMO analysis was conducted, which revealed that the holes were predominantly concentrated in the pyrene radicals. To provide further clarification regarding the active site of H2O oxidation, the energy required for the initial step of *OH formation in site 1 and site 2 in the pyridyl was calculated to be 2.07 and 2.38 eV, respectively, indicating that the likely active site of H2O oxidation was site 1 (Figure S46). Then, the free energy barrier of water oxidation on different catalysts was compared. The resultant findings evidenced that the free energy barrier of H2O → *OH, the step determining the water oxidation rate of Mo/COF (2.07 eV), was significantly inferior to that of COF (2.73 eV), Au/COF (2.65 eV), Pt/COF (2.8 eV), Pd/COF (2.46 eV), and Ru/COF (2.28 eV), thus confirming the effectiveness of introducing a single Mo atom into COF to promote the oxidation activity of H2O (Figure 4f).

To elucidate how different metal sites activate CO2, we analyzed the projected density of states (PDOS) of the M1N2 centers and compared them with their PDOS after CO2 adsorption. As illustrated in Figure S47, the gas‐phase CO2 exhibited characteristic molecular orbitals near the Fermi level (FL): σ, π, lone pair (LP), σ*, and π*. The O‐centered LP (derived from O 2p) lied close to Fermi level and could donate electrons, whereas the antibonding π* level (mainly C 2p and O 2p) could accept electrons [56]. As depicted in Figure 5a, the Au PDOS in Au/COF was highly symmetric and largely degenerate, with most states lying below the Fermi level, indicating its electrons were confined to deep and less reactive levels. Likewise, the late transition metals Pt and Pd exhibited similarly symmetric PDOS with only modest state density near the FL (Figure 5b,c). By contrast, Ru and Mo in Ru/COF and Mo/COF displayed substantial state density near the FL (Figure 5d,e). In particular, Mo1N2 sites showed pronounced spin polarization, with asymmetric spin‐up and spin‐down channels straddling FL, imparting exceptionally high electronic activity in this region. Upon adsorption on Au/COF or Pt/COF, the CO2 molecular orbitals remained essentially unchanged from the gas phase, implying negligible CO2 activation (Figure 5f,g). In comparison, the adsorption on Pd/COF and Ru/COF induced the partial hybridization between CO2 molecular orbitals and metal d states, indicative of moderate activation (Figure 5h,i). Strikingly, CO2 coordinated on Mo/COF underwent an extensive orbital hybridization with Mo, pronounced level splitting, and a clear shift to deeper binding energies relative to gas‐phase CO2, evidencing an intensive CO2 activation (Figure 5j). Evidently, CO2 activation across the M/COF series correlated closely with the metal d‐band center (εd). Specifically, according to the Hammer‐Nørskov d‐band model, when the metal d orbitals interact with the frontier orbitals of CO2, particularly the π* antibonding orbitals, bonding and antibonding hybridized states are generated [57, 58]. As the εd shifts upward toward the Fermi level, the energy mismatch between the metal d states and the CO2 π* orbitals decrease, thereby strengthening the orbital hybridization and facilitating stronger π‐back‐donation from the metal center to CO2. Meanwhile, the hybridized antibonding states are shifted closer to or above the Fermi level and remain less occupied, reducing the energetic penalty associated with antibonding electron occupation. Mo/COF exhibited the shallowest d‐band center (εd = −0.314 eV), closer to FL than Au/COF (−2.638 eV), Pt/COF (−1.942 eV), Pd/COF (−1.430 eV), and Ru/COF (−0.845 eV). A strong linear relationship linked the d‐band center to CO2 adsorption energy (Ead): y = −1.044x – 2.864 (R2 = 0.98) (Figure 4e). To test the universality of this correlation, additional M1N2 sites, including Co and Ni, were evaluated. While Co closely followed the established trend (εd = −1.215 eV, Ead = −1.543 eV), Ni exhibited a moderate deviation of approximately 0.17 eV (εd = −1.524 eV, Ead = −1.103 eV), which led to weaker CO2 adsorption than predicted by the d‐band center alone (Table S4). This deviation highlighted the limitation of using the d‐band center as a single‐parameter thermodynamic descriptor for late transition metals. The electronic origins of this deviation, specifically related to orbital occupancy and energy alignment, were further elucidated in the following PDOS and orbital splitting analysis. Consistently, both electron transfer from M/COF to CO2 and the CO2 bond‐angle distortion scaled with the d‐band center: Mo/COF donated the most charge to CO2 molecule (Mo/COF 0.753 e− > Ru/COF 0.413 e− > Pd/COF 0.249 e− > Pt/COF 0.247 e− > Au/COF 0.208 e− > COF 0.188 e−) and induced the largest CO2 bond‐angle bending (132° for Mo/COF vs 171° for Au/COF, 164° for Pt/COF, 158° for Pd/COF, and 144° for Ru/COF), further underscoring the superior activation capability of Mo/COF.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

PDOS plots of *CO2, and central metals in (a,f) Au/COF, (b,g) Pt/COF, (c,h) Pd/COF, (d,i) Ru/COF, and (e,j) Mo/COF before and after interaction with CO2. Schematics of d‐orbital electronic configurations of central metals in (k) Au/COF, (l) Pt/COF, (m) Pd/COF, (n) Ru/COF, and (o) Mo/COF.

Furthermore, given the two‐coordinate geometry (M1N2) of the active sites in M/COF, an approximately linear ML2 crystal‐field model was adopted, with the relevant d orbitals grouped as dz2, dxz/dyz, and dx2‐y2/dxy [59]. The d‐orbital splitting and occupancy were thoroughly analyzed from the integrated PDOS occupation numbers (Figure S48 and Table S8). In Au/COF, Pt/COF, Pd/COF, and Ru/COF, extensive d‐orbital electron pairing was observed (Figure 5k–n), and the associated pairing energy limited the electron activity. Noticeably, the Mo1N2 sites depicted significant spin polarization, with its dxz, dyz, dx2‐y2, and dxy orbitals being closely aligned in energy (Figure 5o). Three unpaired electrons were present, consistent with a magnetic moment of ∼3 µB. Furthermore, room‐temperature magnetization versus magnetic field (M‐H) measurements revealed a significantly enhanced magnetic response for Mo/COF (Figure S49). Specifically, Mo/COF exhibited a magnetization of approximately 0.035 emu·g−1 at 4 T, which was approximately 18‐fold that of pristine sp2c‑COF (0.002 emu·g−1). The linear and hysteresis‐free M‐H behavior indicated a dominant paramagnetic response, confirming that the atomically dispersed Mo sites possess significant spin polarization. In addition, the geometry optimization exhibited that the N─Mo─N angle (76.7°) deviated more strongly from the ideal linear configuration than N─Au─N (80.0°), N─Pt─N (83.1°), N─Pd─N (79.9°), and N─Ru─N (83.2°), which fundamentally contributed to the high‐spin state of Mo. Upon CO2 adsorption, the Mo dz2 orbital accepted the lone‐pair electrons from the O pz orbital via σ bonding, while the Mo dxz and dyz orbitals donated electrons into the CO2 π* orbital composed by px and py orbital of C and O through π back‐donation (Figure 4h). Overall, the reactivity of the d electrons was governed by the metal's d‐band characteristics. The shallowest d‐band center near FL and the strongest spin polarization of Mo1N2 induced the most abundant unpaired electrons, being free from pairing‐energy constraints. The unshackled single electrons in Mo/COF were most active, along with the half‐occupied d‐orbitals, could extensively activate CO2 through synergistic σ‐donation/π‐back‐donation. To further evaluate the universality of this electronic‐structure‐dependent activity, additional M1N2 sites, including Co and Ni, were investigated. While Co closely followed the established linear trend between εd and Ead, Ni showed a moderate deviation of approximately 0.17 eV, resulting in weaker CO2 adsorption than predicted. Although the vacant dz2 orbital of Ni (3d8) could facilitate σ lone‐pair donation, its substantially deeper d‐band center caused a pronounced energy mismatch with the CO2 π* orbitals, thereby suppressing effective π‐back‐donation. Furthermore, the absence of high‐spin‐enabled orbital vacancies in Ni limited its ability to bypass pairing‐energy constraints (Figure S50). This comparative analysis revealed that the superior performance of Mo/COF stemmed from an optimal synergy: the shallowest εd provided the thermodynamic driving force, while high spin polarization furnished the essential kinetic freedom for efficient charge transfer. Furthermore, the introduction of the [Emim]BF4 ionic liquid plays a pivotal synergistic role in the overall photocatalytic system. By selectively absorbing and enriching CO2, the ionic liquid effectively mitigates kinetic mass‐transfer limitations, thereby substantially elevating the local reactant concentration in the immediate vicinity of the M1N2 active sites. Besides, it actively promotes CO2 activation through a combined mechanism [60, 61]. The [Emim]+ cation polarizes the oxygen atoms of CO2, while the interaction between the Mo center and the carbon atom further weakens the C─O bonds. This cooperative effect facilitates subsequent C─O bond cleavage and lowers the overall activation barrier for CO2 reduction.

Obviously, the remarkable performance leap from pristine sp2c‐COF to Mo/COF is dictated by a fundamental structure‐performance synergy. The sp2‐carbon‐conjugated framework functions as more than a passive support; its pyrene chromophores serve as efficient antenna units for broadened visible‐light harvesting, while the fully conjugated backbone promotes initial exciton dissociation. Moreover, the rigid 2D pores and bidentate bipyridine motifs provide a well‐defined microenvironment that stabilizes the highly unsaturated Mo1N2 sites through strong metal‐support interactions and steric hindrance. While the pristine COF suffers from spatial overlap of HOMO and LUMO leading to rapid recombination, the incorporation of Mo atoms triggers a decisive orbital redistribution. The LUMO shifts to the Mo‐bipyridine sites while the HOMO remains on the pyrene units, establishing a directional intramolecular charge transfer pathway that prolongs the average carrier lifetime by nearly five‐fold. This allows energized electrons to be efficiently channeled to the d‐band‐optimized Mo centers, where the high spin polarization and abundant unpaired electrons facilitate intense CO2 activation through synergistic σ‐donation and π‐back‐donation. Consequently, this multi‐level structural optimization ensures both high charge separation efficiency and low reaction energy barriers, boosting the CO2 evolution.

3. Conclusions

In summary, various M1N2 single‐atom sites (Au, Pt, Pd, Ru, and Mo) were designed and anchored on a vinylene‐linked covalent organic framework via a facile impregnation protocol for gas‐solid photocatalytic CO2 reduction under visible light. The optimal Mo/COF achieved a CO evolution rate of 294.43 µmol·g−1·h−1 with a stoichiometric O2 release of 128.63 µmol·g−1·h−1 under pure CO2 and still maintained a rate of 146.6 µmol·g−1·h−1 under 15% CO2. The PDOS calculations revealed that the superior activity of Mo/COF was not solely a consequence of its shallow d‐band center (−0.314 eV), but originated from its synergistic interplay with strong spin polarization. Compared with modulating the d‑band center alone, this synergy breaks the electron pairing energy and generates abundant unpaired electrons near the Fermi level, enabling charge transfer free from pairing constraints. This specific electronic configuration generated abundant unpaired single electrons near the Fermi level, which exhibited enhanced activity for CO2 activation owing to the absence of pairing‐energy constraints. Such synergy facilitated pronounced σ‐donation and π‐back‐donation, as quantitatively evidenced by the largest charge transfer (0.753 e−) and the most pronounced O═C═O bond‐angle distortion (132°) within the series. In situ DRIFTS and thermodynamic analyses further confirmed that the Mo1N2 sites facilitated *COOH formation, lowered the energy barrier for CO desorption, and promoted the water oxidation. This work elucidates how d‐band position and spin polarization in isostructural M1N2 SACs govern the CO2 photoreduction process, providing a blueprint for the rational design of efficient photocatalysts.

4. Experimental Section

4.1. Synthesis of Pure COF and M/COF

TFPPy (60 mg), BPYDAN (45 mg), 1,4‐dioxane (2 mL), and 4 m KOH (0.2 mL) were placed in a 25 mL Pyrex tube and sonicated for 5 min. The mixture was then degassed by three freeze‐pump‐thaw cycles (liquid N2), sealed under vacuum, and heated at 110°C for 72 h. The resulting precipitate was collected by centrifugation, washed with water and THF, and dried under vacuum at 110°C for 12 h to afford the COF. The Mo/COF catalyst was prepared by dispersing COF (25 mg) and Mo(CO)6 (10 mg) in toluene (25 mL), heating the mixture at 110°C for 5 h under N2, and isolating the product by washing with methanol and water, followed by drying under vacuum at 60°C for 24 h. The Au/COF, Pt/COF, Pd/COF, Ru/COF, Co/COF, and Ni/COF catalysts were obtained analogously by suspending COF (25 mg) in methanol solutions (15 mL) of PtCl4, PdCl2, RuCl3, HAuCl4, CoCl2, and NiCl2, respectively.

4.2. Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction

For a typical photocatalytic CO2 reduction reaction, a slurry was prepared by dispersing 5 mg of photocatalyst in 1 mL of H2O, which was then coated onto a glass fiber. The glass fiber was transferred to a 40 mm × 1.5 mm glassware, dried at 60°C. The glassware was then placed in the reactor, and 200 µL of deionized water and 100 µL of ionic liquid (to enhance CO2 adsorption) were injected. After CO2 was introduced and the adsorption equilibrium was established in the dark, the reaction was initiated under simulated sunlight. To prevent leakage, strict sealing was performed, and Ar gas was purged before injection of CO2 gas. The reactor was irradiated for 4 h with a 300 W Xe lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm) at an irradiance of 100 mW/cm2, under vigorous stirring. The CO2 reduction products were analyzed using a Shimadzu gas chromatograph (GC‐2014C) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a thermal conductivity detector (TCD). To determine the carbon source of the products, isotope‐labeling experiments with 13CO2 were performed under identical conditions, and the resulting 13CO products were identified by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry (GC‐MS, Agilent 7890B‐5977B) equipped with a CP‐Molecular Sieve 5A column (25.0 m × 0.32 mm × 30 µm). The analysis of 18O2 was carried out using the same procedure as for 13CO.

The electron consumption rate for CO2 reduction was evaluated based on the formula:

Relectron=2YieldCO+2YieldH2/mcat×t

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (22272028), the Youth Talent Support Program of Fujian Province (00387077), the Industry‐University Research Collaboration Project of Fujian Province (2023H6005).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting File: adma73738‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx.

ADMA-38-e73738-s001.docx (13.8MB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (22272028), the Youth Talent Support Program of Fujian Province (00387077), the Industry‐University Research Collaboration Project of Fujian Province (2023H6005).

Contributor Information

Qiaoshan Chen, Email: chenqiaoshan@fzu.edu.cn.

Liuyi Li, Email: lyli@fzu.edu.cn.

Jinhong Bi, Email: bijinhong@fzu.edu.cn.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article.

References

  • 1. Fang S., Rahaman M., Bharti J., et al., “Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers 3 (2023): 61, 10.1038/s43586-023-00243-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Jia G., Zhang Y., Yu J. C., and Guo Z., “Asymmetric Atomic Dual‐Sites for Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Advanced Materials 36 (2024): 202403153, 10.1002/adma.202403153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Che W., Zhao S., Byun W. J., et al., “From Carbon Nitrides to COFs: Opportunities and Prospects in Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Advanced Materials (2025): 06961, 10.1002/adma.202506961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Lin C. C., Huang S. K., Tseng W. N., et al., “Chirality‐Regulated Spin‐Polarization of Perovskite Nanoplates for Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction Reaction,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 147 (2025): 40347–40355, 10.1021/jacs.5c11357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Long D., Li J., Qian G., et al., “Photocatalytic Reduction of Low‐Concentration CO2: Progress and Challenges,” Coordination Chemistry Reviews 549 (2026): 217246, 10.1016/j.ccr.2025.217246. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Qiu C., Shen J., Li H., et al., “Deciphering the Quantitative Relationship between the Photocatalytic Activity and the Built‐in Electric Field of Heterojunction,” Advanced Materials 38 (2025): 05900, 10.1002/adma.202505900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Han Z., Gan R., Gong T., et al., “Breaking the Intermediate Solvation Shell on Single‐Atom Catalysts with a Proximal Group Perturber for Enhanced Oxygen Reduction,” Advanced Materials 38 (2026): 23627, 10.1002/adma.202523627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Zhang W., Deng C., Wang W., Sheng H., and Zhao J., “Achieving Almost 100% Selectivity in Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction to Methane via in‐Situ Atmosphere Regulation Strategy,” Advanced Materials 36 (2024): 2405825, 10.1002/adma.202405825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Liu Z., Ma Y., Li J., et al., “Regulating Exciton Dissociation and Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction over Single‐Atom Cu‐in2S3 Nanosheets,” Advanced Materials 38 (2026): 12150, 10.1002/adma.202512150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Liu J., Han B., Liu X., et al., “Tailoring D ‐Band Center of Single‐Atom Nickel Sites for Boosted Photocatalytic Reduction of Diluted CO2 from Flue Gas,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 64 (2024): 202417435, 10.1002/anie.202417435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vojvodic A., Nørskov J. K., and Abild‐Pedersen F., “Electronic Structure Effects in Transition Metal Surface Chemistry,” Topics in Catalysis 57 (2013): 25–32, 10.1007/s11244-013-0159-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kim B., Han S., Wang S., Ringe S., and Oh J., “Peaks and Pitfalls of Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction Descriptor Models,” Nature Catalysis 9 (2026): 471–481, 10.1038/s41929-026-01526-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Qian Q., Liu Q., Wang M., et al., “Dual‐site Cooperation for Synergistic Optimization of the Band Structure and Spin state to Facilitate C─N Coupling Reaction,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (2025): 2508077122, 10.1073/pnas.2508077122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Do V. and Lee J., “Orbital Occupancy and Spin Polarization: from Mechanistic Study to Rational Design of Transition Metal‐Based Electrocatalysts toward Energy Applications,” ACS Nano 16 (2022): 17847–17890, 10.1021/acsnano.2c08919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Shi J. L., Chen R., Hao H., Wang C., and Lang X., “2D sp2 Carbon‐Conjugated Porphyrin Covalent Organic Framework for Cooperative Photocatalysis with TEMPO,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59 (2020): 9088–9093, 10.1002/anie.202000723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Jin E., Asada M., Xu Q., et al., “Two‐dimensional sp2 Carbon–conjugated Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Science 357 (2017): 673–676, 10.1126/science.aan0202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Zhao Z., Chen X., Li B., et al., “Spatial Regulation of Acceptor Units in Olefin‐Linked COFs toward Highly Efficient Photocatalytic H2 Evolution,” Advanced Science 9 (2022): 2203832, 10.1002/advs.202203832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Fan Y., Kang D. W., Labalme S., Li J., and Lin W., “Enhanced Energy Transfer in a π‐Conjugated Covalent Organic Framework Facilitates Excited‐State Nickel Catalysis,” Angewandte Chemie 135 (2023): 202218908, 10.1002/ange.202218908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Xiang Y., Dong W., Wang P., et al., “Constructing Electron Delocalization Channels in Covalent Organic Frameworks Powering CO2 Photoreduction in Water,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 274 (2020): 119096, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Bu R., Zhang L., Liu X. Y., Yang S. L., Li G., and Gao E. Q., “Synthesis and Acid‐Responsive Properties of a Highly Porous Vinylene‐Linked Covalent Organic Framework,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13 (2021): 26431–26440, 10.1021/acsami.1c01791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. You J., Yuan F., Cheng S., et al., “AIEgen‐Based sp2 Carbon‐Conjugated Covalent Organic Frameworks with High Stability and Emission for Activatable Imaging and Ferroptosis in Target Tumor Cells,” Chemistry of Materials 34 (2022): 7078–7089, 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c01726. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. He T., Zhao Z., Liu R., et al., “Porphyrin‐Based Covalent Organic Frameworks Anchoring Au Single Atoms for Photocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 145 (2023): 6057–6066, 10.1021/jacs.2c10233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Yang Y., Li F., Chen J., Fan J., and Xiang Q., “Single Au Atoms Anchored on Amino‐Group‐Enriched Graphitic Carbon Nitride for Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Chemsuschem 13 (2020): 1979–1985, 10.1002/cssc.202000375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Yu J., Chen C., Zhang Q., et al., “Au Atoms Anchored on Amorphous C3N4 for Single‐Site Raman Enhancement,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 144 (2022): 21908–21915, 10.1021/jacs.2c07413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Li J., Liu P., Tang Y., et al., “Single‐Atom Pt–N3 Sites on the Stable Covalent Triazine Framework Nanosheets for Photocatalytic N2 Fixation,” ACS Catalysis 10 (2020): 2431–2442, 10.1021/acscatal.9b04925. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lv T., Xiao B., Xia F., et al., “Insights into Synergistic Effect of Pd Single Atoms and Sub‐nanoclusters on TiO2 for Enhanced Photocatalytic H2 Evolution,” Chemical Engineering Journal 450 (2022): 137873, 10.1016/j.cej.2022.137873. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Zhang Y., Cheng Y., Wang X., Sun Q., He X., and Ji H., “Enhanced Hydrogenation Properties of Pd Single Atom Catalysts with Atomically Dispersed Ba Sites as Electronic Promoters,” ACS Catalysis 12 (2022): 15091–15096, 10.1021/acscatal.2c04626. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Cao D., Wang J., Xu H., and Cheng D., “Construction of Dual‐Site Atomically Dispersed Electrocatalysts with Ru‐C5 Single Atoms and Ru‐O4 Nanoclusters for Accelerated Alkali Hydrogen Evolution,” Small 17 (2021): 2101163, 10.1002/smll.202101163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Kou M., Liu W., Wang Y., et al., “Photocatalytic CO2 Conversion over Single‐atom MoN2 Sites of Covalent Organic Framework,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 291 (2021): 120146, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Aiyappa H. B., Thote J., Shinde D. B., Banerjee R., and Kurungot S., “Cobalt‐Modified Covalent Organic Framework as a Robust Water Oxidation Electrocatalyst,” Chemistry of Materials 28 (2016): 4375–4379, 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b01370. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Ma S., Deng T., Li Z., et al., “Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production on a sp2‐Carbon‐Linked Covalent Organic Framework,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 61 (2022): 202208919, 10.1002/anie.202208919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Tang M., Shen J., Zhang F., et al., “Upcycling of Polyamide Wastes to Tertiary Amines Using Mo Single Atoms and Rh Nanoparticles,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 64 (2024): 202416436, 10.1002/anie.202416436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Zhang Z., Zhang Z., Chen C., et al., “Single‐atom Platinum with Asymmetric Coordination Environment on Fully Conjugated Covalent Organic Framework for Efficient Electrocatalysis,” Nature Communications 15 (2024): 2556, 10.1038/s41467-024-46872-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Zhong W., Sa R., Li L., et al., “A Covalent Organic Framework Bearing Single Ni Sites as a Synergistic Photocatalyst for Selective Photoreduction of CO2 to CO,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 141 (2019): 7615–7621, 10.1021/jacs.9b02997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Jin F., Yang B., Wang X., Li T., Tsubaki N., and Jin Z., “Facilitating Efficient Photocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution via Enhanced Carrier Migration at MOF‐on‐MOF S‐scheme Heterojunction Interfaces through a Graphdiyne (C n H2 n –2) Electron Transport Layer,” Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry 42 (2023): 100198, 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100198. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Chen Y., Liang T., Lin Y., et al., “Enhanced Photocatalytic Carbon Dioxide Reduction over Iron Tungstate/Covalent Organic Framework Heterojunctions by the Induced Unified Adsorption and Reduction Sites,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 701 (2026): 138770, 10.1016/j.jcis.2025.138770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lin Y., Lai X., Huang G., et al., “Spatial Confinement of Pd Nanoclusters in Pyrene‐Based Covalent Organic Frameworks for Boosting Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Chemistry—A European Journal 31 (2025): 202500766, 10.1002/chem.202500766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Sun Y., Li Y., He J., et al., “Controlled Synthesis of MnxCd1–xS for Enhanced Visible‐light Driven Photocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution,” Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry 42 (2023): 100145, 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Yan H., Shen M., Shen Y., et al., “Spontaneous Exciton Dissociation in Organic Photocatalyst under Ambient Conditions for Highly Efficient Synthesis of Hydrogen Peroxide,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (2022): 2202913119, 10.1073/pnas.2202913119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Qiu J., Meng K., Zhang Y., et al., “COF/in2S3 S‐Scheme Photocatalyst with Enhanced Light Absorption and H2O2‐Production Activity and Fs‐TA Investigation,” Advanced Materials 36 (2024): 2400288, 10.1002/adma.202400288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Yan Z., Wang W., Du L., Zhu J., Phillips D. L., and Xu J., “Interpreting the Enhanced Photoactivities of 0D/1D Heterojunctions of CdS Quantum Dots /TiO2 Nanotube Arrays Using Femtosecond Transient Absorption Spectroscopy,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 275 (2020): 119151, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Jiang D., Hu S., Qu Y., et al., “Infrared Irradiation‐Lattice Vibration Coupling‐Initiated N→Π* Electronic Transition in Carbon Nitride Nanosheets for Increased Photocatalysis,” Advanced Functional Materials 34 (2024): 2311803, 10.1002/adfm.202311803. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Zhang Q., Gong W., Che H., Liu B., and Ao Y., “S Doping Induces to Promoted Spatial Separation of Charge Carriers on Carbon Nitride for Efficiently Photocatalytic Degradation of Atrazine,” Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry 42 (2023): 100205, 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100205. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Ran L., Li Z., Ran B., et al., “Engineering Single‐Atom Active Sites on Covalent Organic Frameworks for Boosting CO2 Photoreduction,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 144 (2022): 17097–17109, 10.1021/jacs.2c06920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Xue Q., Li H., Jin P., Zhou X., and Wang F., “Singlet‐Oxygen‐Driven Cooperative Photocatalytic Coupling of Biomass Valorization and Hydrogen Peroxide Production Using Covalent Organic Frameworks,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 64 (2025): 202423368, 10.1002/anie.202423368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Chen S., Huang G., Sheng H., et al., “Asymmetric Electronic Distribution Induced Enhancement in Photocatalytic CO2‐to‐CH4 Conversion via Boron‐doped Covalent Triazine Frameworks,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 685 (2025): 766–773, 10.1016/j.jcis.2025.01.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Ding L., Borjigin B., Li Y., Yang X., Wang X., and Li H., “Assembling an Affinal 0D CsPbBr3/2D CsPb2Br5 Architecture by Synchronously in Situ Growing CsPbBr3 QDs and CsPb2Br5 Nanosheets: Enhanced Activity and Reusability for Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13 (2021): 51161–51173, 10.1021/acsami.1c17870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. He Y., Rao H., Song K., et al., “3D Hierarchical ZnIn2S4 Nanosheets with Rich Zn Vacancies Boosting Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Advanced Functional Materials 29 (2019): 1905153, 10.1002/adfm.201905153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Xu F., Meng K., Zhu B., Liu H., Xu J., and Yu J., “Graphdiyne: a New Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction Cocatalyst,” Advanced Functional Materials 29 (2019): 1904256, 10.1002/adfm.201904256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Yu X., De Waele V., Löfberg A., Ordomsky V., and Khodakov A. Y., “Selective Photocatalytic Conversion of Methane into Carbon Monoxide over Zinc‐heteropolyacid‐titania Nanocomposites,” Nature Communications 10 (2019): 700, 10.1038/s41467-019-08525-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Wang L., Tan H., Zhang L., Cheng B., and Yu J., “In‐situ Growth of Few‐layer Graphene on ZnO with Intimate Interfacial Contact for Enhanced Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction Activity,” Chemical Engineering Journal 411 (2021): 128501, 10.1016/j.cej.2021.128501. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Dong H., Fang L., Chen K. X., et al., “Dual Metallosalen‐Based Covalent Organic Frameworks for Artificial Photosynthetic Diluted CO2 Reduction,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 64 (2024): 202414287, 10.1002/anie.202414287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Xie Z., Chen X., Wang W., et al., “Variation of Chemical Microenvironment of Pores in Hydrazone‐Linked Covalent Organic Frameworks for Photosynthesis of H2O2 ,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 63 (2024): 202410179, 10.1002/anie.202410179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Fu J., Jiang K., Qiu X., Yu J., and Liu M., “Product Selectivity of Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction Reactions,” Materials Today 32 (2020): 222–243, 10.1016/j.mattod.2019.06.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. He Y., Yin L., Yuan N., and Zhang G., “Adsorption and Activation, Active Site and Reaction Pathway of Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction: a Review,” Chemical Engineering Journal 481 (2024): 148754, 10.1016/j.cej.2024.148754. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Xie F., Wang Z., Kao C. W., Lan J., Lu Y. R., and Tan Y., “Asymmetric Local Electric Field Induced by Dual Heteroatoms on Copper Boosts Efficient CO2 Reduction over Ultrawide Potential Window,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 63 (2024): 202407661, 10.1002/anie.202407661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Hammer B., Morikawa Y., and Nørskov J. K., “CO Chemisorption at Metal Surfaces and Overlayers,” Physical Review Letters 76 (1996): 2141–2144, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.2141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Hammer B. and Nørskov J. K., “Theoretical Surface Science and Catalysis—Calculations and Concepts,” Advances in Catalysis 45 (2000): 71–129, 10.1016/S0360-0564(02)45013-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Wolters L. P. and Bickelhaupt F. M., “Nonlinear D 10 ‐ML 2 Transition‐Metal Complexes,” ChemistryOpen 2 (2013): 106–114, 10.1002/open.201300009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Zhao Y., Wang H., Zeng L., and Huang L., “Understanding the Roles of Ionic Liquids in Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Journal of Materials Chemistry A 13 (2025): 5546, 10.1039/d4ta07837c. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Yang Y., Zhang H. Y., Wang Y., et al., “Integrating Enrichment, Reduction, and Oxidation Sites in One System for Artificial Photosynthetic Diluted CO2 Reduction,” Advanced Materials 35 (2023): 2304170, 10.1002/adma.202304170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting File: adma73738‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx.

ADMA-38-e73738-s001.docx (13.8MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article.


Articles from Advanced Materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES