Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Aug 11.
Published in final edited form as: Chem Commun (Camb). 2020 Jul 6;56(62):8762–8765. doi: 10.1039/d0cc03163a

Enhancing the activity of photocatalytic hydrogen evolution from CdSe quantum dots with a polyoxovanadate cluster

Emily H Edwards a,, Alex A Fertig a,, Kevin P McClelland a, Mahilet T Meidenbauer a, Saikat Chakraborty a, Todd D Krauss a,b, Kara L Bren a, Ellen M Matson a
PMCID: PMC7461602  NIHMSID: NIHMS1610293  PMID: 32628236

Abstract

We report the improvement of photocatalytic proton reduction using molecular POV-alkoxide clusters as hole scavengers for CdSe quantum dots. The increased hydrogen production is explained by favorable charge interactions between reduced forms of the cluster and the charge on the quantum dots arising from the capping ligands.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1610293-f0004.jpg

Adding metal-cluster hole scavengers enhances photocatalytic hydrogen production by quantum dots


Semiconducting nanocrystals, or quantum dots (QDs), have emerged as leading photocatalysts for visible light-driven charge-transfer reactions.14 Inspired by the creation of a solar fuel in natural photosynthesis, one of the most widely studied photocatalytic reactions using QDs is the reduction of protons to form hydrogen (H2).57 When paired with sacrificial electron donors, cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs are capable of photocatalytic proton reduction from the nanoparticle surface (i.e. without a co-catalyst).8 The yield of H2 production can be significantly increased in the presence of a transition metal co-catalyst which facilitates charge separation9 and decreases the barrier for proton reduction.2,1012 For example, in combination with a homogeneous nickel catalyst (“Ni-DHLA”; DHLA = dihydrolipoic acid), CdSe QDs produced H2 with turnover numbers (TONs) up to 600,000 over two weeks in aqueous solution.13

Traditionally, research into the optimization of photocatalytic proton reduction with QDs has focused on improvements to the reduction co-catalyst. By comparison, less work has been dedicated to studying the subsequent charge balancing reactions that must occur through reduction of the QD. For cadmium chalcogenides, the large effective mass of the hole relative to that of the electron makes hole transfer a likely rate-limiting step,3,14,15 limiting catalytic efficiency (Fig. 1). Some methods to improve hole-transfer rates have used modified ligands to delocalize the hole wave function.2,3,12,16 However, as a result of the chemical instability of these ligands,17 few studies have reported on their application in enhancing photocatalysis.1820 Shelling the QD to form a type-II heterostructure is another viable method of separating the electron and hole, but this approach decreases catalytic efficiency by localizing one carrier to the core of the nanocrystal.21 Thus, a robust and efficient method of hole extraction from QDs remains necessary for improving photocatalytic systems.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Illustration of the general photocatalytic scheme. Upon excitation by visible light, the electron reduces protons at the surface of the dot, while the hole is extracted by a POV-alkoxide cluster. Ascorbic acid is used to regenerate the reduced form of the cluster in solution. Capping ligands were chosen to promote solubility in aqueous solutions, and include cysteine (top), glutathione (middle), and 3-mercaptopropionic acid (bottom).

A possible solution to enable efficient hole extraction is the coupling of QDs to either bulk or molecular metal oxides. Watson and coworkers have demonstrated that the mid-bandgap states in doped V2O5 nanowires facilitate fast (<500 fs) hole transfer from CdSe QDs.22 The authors propose that the resulting charge-separated state could be used to delay charge recombination and improve photocatalytic proton reduction.22,23 In order to study homogeneous photocatalytic systems, we hypothesized that polyoxovanadate (POV) clusters could be used as an alternative to V2O5 nanowires for efficient hole extraction. While most POV clusters are isolated in their most-oxidized state (i.e. electron-deficient), the polyoxovanadate-alkoxide (POV-alkoxide) clusters explored in this study (Fig. 1) are reduced analogues of these metal oxide assemblies, rendering them well-suited to serve as hole-transfer reagents in photocatalytic schematics (Fig. S1).24 Indeed, POV-alkoxide clusters have been shown to reductively quench molecular chromophores for reactions such as water oxidation.25 However, they have not been studied in combination with QD photosensitizers.

To test our hypothesis that charge transfer between photoexcited CdSe QDs and the POV-alkoxide cluster, [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1, is possible, steady-state photoluminescence quenching experiments were conducted. Given previous activity of mid-sized CdSe QDs as photocatalysts, QDs with a first excitonic absorbance peak at 525 nm (± 5 nm) (correlating with a diameter of approximately 2.6 nm26) capped with trioctylphosphine (TOP) ligands were synthesized (Fig. S2). Their luminescence was monitored in the presence of increasing equivalents of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 (Fig. 2 inset). The photoluminescence of the QDs was efficiently quenched in the presence of the POV-alkoxide clusters, with a 96% decrease in emission intensity at 10 equivalents.27 The nonlinear behavior of the Stern-Volmer analysis suggests that the clusters quench the QD fluorescence through both static and dynamic mechanisms (Fig. S3).28 It is worth noting that there is a small overlap between the absorbance spectrum of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 and the emission of CdSe QDs, so we cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an energy transfer quenching mechanism (Fig. 2). However, given the low absorbance of the clusters at these concentrations, contributions from such a pathway are predicted to be negligible in comparison to those of charge transfer (Fig. S4; see SI for details).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The absorbance and photoluminescence (inset) spectra of CdSe-TOP with varying equivalents of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]1- (“V6O7”). All samples contained 1 μM CdSe with 0–15 equivalents of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]1- in dichloromethane and the photoluminescence was normalized to the absorbance at the excitation wavelength (500 nm).

Given the promising results from photoluminescence quenching (vide supra), we sought to probe the proton reduction characteristics upon the addition [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 to a solution of glutathione capped (CdSe-GSH) QDs and sacrificial electron donor ascorbic acid (Fig. 3). For this study, we opted to not include an external co-catalyst in an effort to simplify the already-complicated system, ensuring that any changes in catalysis were due to cluster/QD interactions. To establish a baseline for photoactivity of QDs under our conditions, a mixture of ascorbic acid and CdSe-GSH QDs dissolved in ethanol and water (1:1) was irradiated with green (525 nm ± 10 nm) light (Fig. 3, Fig. S5). Over 48 hours, the multicomponent system produces 110 μmol (± 42 μmol) of H2. In the absence of ascorbic acid, negligible hydrogen evolution is observed (Fig. S6). The rate of H2 evolution remains constant over this time frame, indicating minimal degradation of the QDs, with an average rate of H2 evolution of 2.22 μmol/hr (± 0.78 μmol/hr). This correlates to a quantum yield (QY) of 8.0% (± 2.4%) (see SI for details).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

A) Structures of the capping ligands used on the surface of CdSe; B) Total H2 evolution after 48 hours from CdSe-GSH, CdSe-Cys, and CdSe-MPA in the presence of 0.5 M ascorbic acid, in a 1:1 EtOH:H2O mixture, being irradiated by 530-nm light at 15 °C. Upon addition of 100 μM [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1, the positive change in total H2 production for CdSe-GSH and CdSe-Cys is shown (n = 3); C) Representative trials of H2 evolution over time for the CdSe-GSH H2 evolution system described in B, showing improvement in the presence of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1.

Upon addition of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 (100 μM) to the photocatalytic system described above, both the average H2 evolved in 48 hours and the rate of catalysis are approximately doubled (Fig. 3, Fig. S5). The total H2 produced improves to 222 μmol (± 37 μmol) with an improvement in rate to 4.61 μmol/hr (± 0.85 μmol/hr), and an increase of 125% in average QY to 18% (± 4.5%). To evaluate whether [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 might act as a H2-production catalyst, which would complicate its intended use as an electron mediator in this system, independent electrochemical analysis of the POV-alkoxide cluster was performed. Upon titration of 40 mM aqueous phosphate buffer (pH = 6) to a solution of 1 mM [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 and 0.1 M [nBu4N]PF6 in acetonitrile, no change in the electrochemical response of the cluster was observed, indicating that this reduced POV-alkoxide cluster is not active as a proton reduction catalyst (Fig. S7). Taken together, these results support our hypothesis that POV-alkoxide clusters efficiently extract the hole from the CdSe QDs, acting as a hole shuttle and resulting in improved production of H2.

Activity enhancement from the introduction of the POV-alkoxide cluster to the GSH-capped CdSe QDs prompted further exploration of the photocatalytic system. Given previously reported ligand-dependence on the photocatalytic activity of QDs12,2931, additional thiolate ligands were selected to determine if the mechanism of enhancement by [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 could be generalized to other QD-ligand systems. Cysteine (Cys) and 3-mercaptopropionic acid (MPA) were chosen as additional water-soluble ligands to cap QDs (Fig. 3a, Fig. S8). The impact of the capping ligands on the first excitonic absorbance is small (<10 nm).

It has been previously reported that the degree of passivation of surface Cd2+ ions dramatically influences the yield of proton reduction for QDs in the absence of a co-catalyst.8,32,33 Given the differences in the molecular structure of the three thiolate ligands investigated in this work, we anticipated that surface coverage would vary between GSH-, Cys- and MPA-capped QDs. Thus, to establish new baselines for H2 production for each system, we evaluated the photocatalysis for the CdSe QDs in the absence of POV-alkoxide clusters. The CdSe-Cys and CdSe-MPA systems have slow H2 evolution in the first ten hours of catalysis Fig. (S9-S10). After this induction period, H2 generation is linear over the remainder of the experiment. This is in contrast to the GSH-capped dots, which produce H2 at a constant rate throughout the 48 hours of irradiation (Fig. 3c). In total, the Cys-capped CdSe QDs produce a similar amount of H2 to those capped with glutathione ligands (106 μmol ± 22 μmol), while the CdSe MPA analogues produce significantly less H2 in the same time period (48 μmol ± 10 μmol) (Fig. S11). Since proton reduction has been reported to occur at solvated Cd surface-sites,8 these differences in H2 production without POV-alkoxide clusters suggest that MPA-capped QDs have a higher packing density than Cys- or GSH-capped QDs. This may be due to differences in the available binding modes of the ligands, or the ligand exchange procedures used.

Upon introduction of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1 to the photocatalytic experiments with Cys- and MPA-capped QDs, interesting trends were observed. As with GSH, Cys-capped CdSe QDs showed a boost in activity with the addition of the POV-alkoxide clusters (Fig. 3, Fig. S9). In the presence of clusters, the average H2 evolved increases to 128 μmol (± 20 μmol) from 106 μmol (± 22 μmol). In contrast, negligible change in the total production of H2 is observed upon addition of POV-alkoxide cluster to the MPA-capped CdSe QDs (Fig. 3, Fig. S10; 50 μmol ± 12 μmol vs. 48 μmol ± 10 μmol with [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1).

We justify the observed differences in H2 production as resulting from differences in the interactions between the QDs and the POV-alkoxide clusters. The ligands chosen to probe the photocatalytic reactivity of these QDs have a different charge at pH = 4.5, thus providing a different surface chemistry for the photosensitizer. Glutathione is a zwitterionic tripeptide containing cysteine, glutamate, and glycine (pKas: 2.1 (COOH), 3.5 (COOH), 8.8 (NH3+)).3 It is anticipated that this ligand binds to the surface of the QD through the thiol moiety, allowing for the remaining charged regions of the ligand to interact with the environment.34 At pH = 4.5, the amine group located on the GSH ligand will remain protonated (i.e. positively-charged) and may interact with the anionic charge-states of the POV-alkoxide cluster.35 As charge transfer from the POV-alkoxide to the QD occurs, the anionic cluster cycles through higher oxidation states (e.g. [V6O7(OC2H5)12]n; n = 0, +1, +2), at which point the charge attraction with the amine group becomes less favorable. The diminished coulombic interaction between the anionic POV-alkoxide cluster and the positively charged residues at the QD surface drives more oxidized forms of the cluster away from the QD surface, preventing charge recombination via back electron transfer. The dissociated, oxidized form of the POV-alkoxide cluster subsequently reacts with ascorbic acid, resulting in re-reduction of the vanadium oxide assembly.

Supporting this mechanistic hypothesis, photocatalytic experiments with CdSe-Cys dots also showed an increase in the amount of H2 produced in the presence of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]-1. Cysteine, an amino acid (pKas: 1.8 (COOH), 10.7 (NH3+))5, has also been used as a zwitterionic capping ligand for QDs.12,36 The cysteine ligands offer a similar positively charged site for electrostatic interactions to occur, attracting the reduced cluster to the surface of the QD. We believe, however, that the smaller size of cysteine relative to glutathione leads to a more densely packed surface which inhibits the adsorption of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]−1, reducing the impact the clusters have on catalysis.

In contrast, CdSe-MPA showed no enhancement of H2 production in the presence of [V6O7(OC2H5)12]-1. The absence of a positively charged residue in the MPA capping ligands would disfavor interaction between the QD and the reduced, anionic forms of the POV-alkoxide cluster. Instead, the more oxidized (cationic) states of the POV-alkoxide cluster (e.g. [V6O7(OC2H5)12]n; n = +1, +2) would be attracted to the QD surface. In these oxidation states, the cluster would energetically prefer to accept reducing equivalents from the QD, no longer functioning as a hole scavenging reagent. Also, as noted above, MPA-capped CdSe QDs appear to have fewer uncoordinated sites which could further inhibit interaction with the POV-alkoxide clusters and hole transfer from the QD.

Here, we have used POV-alkoxide clusters to efficiently extract photogenerated holes from CdSe QDs in order to significantly increase the volumes of H2 produced without the addition of a proton reduction co-catalyst. CdSe QDs capped with GSH show the largest increase in both the rate of reaction and the total amount of H2 produced with the addition of POV-alkoxide clusters. Cys-capped QDs show a moderate increase in the amount of H2 produced when clusters are present, while QDs capped with MPA show no significant increase in the amount of H2 produced following addition of the vanadium oxide cluster. These results provide insight into the electrostatic interaction required for charge transfer between the photosensitizer and the cluster, which will aid in designing more efficient systems for the photocatalytic production of H2.

Supplementary Material

esi

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG02–09ER16121. E.H.E. Acknowledges support from training grant T32-GM118283.

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available: Experimental details, electronic absorption spectra, luminescence quenching analyses, cyclic voltammetry, hydrogen evolution curves, quantum yield calculations and tabulated results collected herein. See DOI: 10.1039/d0cc03163a

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Notes and references

  • 1.Huang C, Li X-B, Tung C-H and Wu L-Z, Chem. Eur. J. 2018, 24, 11530–11534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kodaimati MS, McClelland KP, He C, Lian S, Jiang Y, Zhang Z and Weiss EA, Inorg. Chem, 2018, 57, 3659–3670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Harris RD, Bettis Homan S, Kodaimati M, He C, Nepomnyashchii AB, Swenson NK, Lian S, Calzada R and Weiss EA, Chem. Rev, 2016, 116, 12865–12919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Norris DJ and Bawendi MG, Phys. Rev. B, 1996, 53, 16338–16346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Barber J, Chem. Soc. Rev, 2009, 38, 185–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cook TR, Dogutan DK, Reece SY, Surendranath Y, Teets TS and Nocera DG, Chem. Rev, 2010, 110, 6474–6502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li X-B, Tung C-H and Wu L-Z, Nat. Rev. Chem, 2018, 2, 160–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhao J, Holmes MA and Osterloh FE, ACS Nano, 2013, 7, 4316–4325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Matylitsky VV, Dworak L, Breus VV, Basché T and Wachtveitl J, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2009, 131, 2424–2425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schweinberger FF, Berr MJ, Döblinger M, Wolff C, Sanwald KE, Crampton AS, Ridge CJ, Jäckel F, Feldmann J, Tschurl M and Heiz U, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2013, 135, 13262–13265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Berr MJ, Schweinberger FF, Döblinger M, Sanwald KE, Wolff C, Breimeier J, Crampton AS, Ridge CJ, Tschurl M, Heiz U, Jäckel F and Feldmann J, Nano Lett, 2012, 12, 5903–5906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Weiss EA, ACS Energy Lett, 2017, 2, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Han Z, Qiu F, Eisenberg R, Holland PL and Krauss TD, Science, 2012, 338, 1321–1324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Knowles KE, Peterson MD, McPhail MR and Weiss EA, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117, 10229–10243. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kamat PV, Christians JA and Radich JG, Langmuir, 2014, 30, 5716–5725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lian S, Weinberg DJ, Harris RD, Kodaimati MS and Weiss EA, ACS Nano, 2016, 10, 6372–6382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Harris RD, Amin VA, Lau B and Weiss EA, ACS Nano, 2016, 10, 1395–1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee JR, Li W, Cowan AJ and Jäckel F, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2017, 121, 15160–15168. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pearce OM, Duncan JS, Damrauer NH and Dukovic G, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2018, 122, 17559–17565. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wolff CM, Frischmann PD, Schulze M, Bohn BJ, Wein R, Livadas P, Carlson MT, Jäckel F, Feldmann J, Würthner F and Stolarczyk JK, Nat. Energy, 2018, 3, 862–869. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ding TX, Olshansky JH, Leone SR and Alivisatos AP, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2015, 137, 2021–2029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cho J, Sheng A, Suwandaratne N, Wangoh L, Andrews JL, Zhang P, Piper LFJ, Watson DF and Banerjee S, Acc. Chem. Res, 2019, 52, 645–655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Andrews JL, Cho J, Wangoh L, Suwandaratne N, Sheng A, Chauhan S, Nieto K, Mohr A, Kadassery KJ, Popeil MR, Thakur PK, Sfeir M, Lacy DC, Lee T-L, Zhang P, Watson DF, Piper LFJ and Banerjee S, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2018, 140, 17163–17174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.VanGelder LE, Kosswattaarachchi AM, Forrestel PL, Cook TR and Matson EM, Chem. Sci, 2018, 9, 1692–1699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Santoni M-P, La Ganga G, Mollica Nardo V, Natali M, Puntoriero F, Scandola F and Campagna S, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2014, 136, 8189–8192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yu WW, Qu L, Guo W and Peng X, Chem. Mater, 2003, 15, 2854–2860. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Qiu F, Han Z, Peterson JJ, Odoi MY, Sowers KL and Krauss TD, Nano Lett, 2016, 16, 5347–5352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lakowicz JR, in Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, ed. Lakowicz JR, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2006, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-46312-4_8, pp. 277–330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Das A, Han Z, Haghighi MG and Eisenberg R, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 2013, 110, 16716–16723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chang CM, Orchard KL, Martindale BCM and Reisner E, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 2856–2862. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Green M, J. Mater. Chem, 2010, 20, 5797–5809. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Greaney MJ, Couderc E, Zhao J, Nail BA, Mecklenburg M, Thornbury W, Osterloh FE, Bradforth SE and Brutchey RL, Chem. Mater, 2015, 27, 744–756. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kim WD, Kim J-H, Lee S, Lee S, Woo JY, Lee K, Chae W-S, Jeong S, Bae WK, McGuire JA, Moon JH, Jeong MS and Lee DC, Chem. Mater, 2016, 28, 962–968. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sudeep PK, Joseph STS and Thomas KG, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2005, 127, 6516–6517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aliakbar Tehrani Z, Jamshidi Z, Jebeli Javan M and Fattahi A, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2012, 116, 4338–4347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shi F, Liu S and Su X, New J. Chem, 2017, 41, 4138–4144. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

esi

RESOURCES