The authors regret that incorrect data was presented in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Table 1 of this Communication. The corrected Figures and Table entries are shown below. The hydrogen evolution rates were incorrectly calculated, but by a common scaling factor. Hence, the trends observed between materials and the overall conclusions made in the Communication remain valid. The correct H2 evolution rate for the most active polymer, P7, under visible light (>420 nm) should be 37.3 μmol h−1 (1492 μmol g−1 h−1), not 92.0 μmol h−1 as initially reported. The apparent quantum yields at 420 nm for P1K, P6, and P7 should be corrected to 0.4 % (±0.1 %), 2.2 % (±0.2 %), and 7.2 % (±0.3 %), respectively.
Figure 1.
Photocatalytic hydrogen evolution rates. Each measurement was performed with 25 mg catalyst in water/MeOH/triethylamine mixture under broad‐spectrum irradiation (λ>295 nm; see Table 1 for visible light HERs).
Figure 2.
a) Time‐course for photocatalytic H2 production using visible light for P1K, P6, and P7 (25 mg catalyst in water/MeOH/triethylamine mixture λ>420 nm). b) P6 and P7 (25 mg catalyst in water/MeOH/triethylamine mixture; λ>420 nm), photolysis run for a total of 65 h.
Table 1.
Photophysical properties and hydrogen evolution rates (HERs) for the polymer photocatalysts.
|
Polymer |
Optical gap |
λ em |
HER > 420 nm[c] [μmol h−1] |
HER > 295 nm[c] [μmol h−1] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
P1K |
… |
… |
0.8 (± 0.04) |
4.2 (± 0.3) |
|
P1S |
… |
… |
1.6 (± 0.1) |
5.8 (± 0.2) |
|
P2 |
… |
… |
3.4 (± 0.1) |
17.7 (± 0.1) |
|
P3 |
… |
… |
>0.04 (± 0.02) |
20.0 (± 0.2) |
|
P4 |
… |
… |
3.2 (± 0.1) |
14.2 (± 0.5) |
|
P5 |
… |
… |
0.9 (± 0.2) |
11.1 (± 0.2) |
|
P6 |
… |
… |
10.8 (± 0.1) |
41.5 (± 0.3) |
|
P7 |
… |
… |
37.3 (± 0.8) |
58.8 (± 1.9) |
… [c] Reaction conditions: 25 mg polymer was suspended in water/MeOH/triethylamine solution, irradiated by 300 W Xe lamp for 5 hours using a suitable filter.
The most active polymer, P7, was studied independently by another research group,1 who reported an apparent quantum yield of 6.61 %, close to the corrected value of 7.2 %. The precise value of the apparent quantum yield and hence the H2 evolution rate will depend on the details of the experimental set up and the irradiation intensity.
References
- 1. Yang C., Ma B. C., Zhang L., Lin S., Ghasimi S., Landfester K., Zhang K. A. I., Wang X., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 9202–9206; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2016, 128, 9348–9352.. [Google Scholar]