Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 2;6(49):33398–33408. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c03796

Table 2. Photocurrent Density (J) Achieved for Different CuO Photocathodes of Different Nanostructures Prepared Using Various Methods.

material and morphology preparation method photocurrent density (J) reference
CuO nanoparticles sol–gel dip-coating –2.0 mA/cm2 at 0.45 V vs RHE, 1 M NaOH electrolyte, and under 1 sun this work
CuO nanowires facile thermal treatment –1.4 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (100 mW/cm2) (35)
CuO nanoparticles electrodeposition –0.49 μA/cm2 at −0.55 V vs Ag/AgCl, 1 M KOH electrolyte, and 1 sun (36)
CuO pyramid structures electrodeposition –0.50 mA/cm2 at 1.23 V vs Ag/AgCl, 0.5 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (9)
CuO nanoparticles sol–gel dip-coating –0.94 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 240 mW/cm2 irradiation (41)
CuO intermingled nanosheets microwave-assisted –1.15 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (38)
CuO nanoleaves hydrothermal –1.50 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs Ag/AgCl, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (38)
CuO nanowires electrodeposition –1.40 mA/cm2 at −0.4 V vs Ag/AgCl, 1 M NaOH electrolyte, and under 320 mW/cm2 irradiation. (42)
CuO nanoparticles thermal condensation –0.50 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun. (43)
CuO nanoparticles electrodeposition –1.39 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (44)
CuO hollow spheres doctor-blade –1.47 mA/cm2 at −0.3 V vs Ag/AgCl, 0.5 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (45)
CuO nanoparticles sol–gel spin-coating –0.35 mA/cm2 at 0.5 V vs RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (29)
CuO nanoparticles sputtering –1.68 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs RHE, 0.1 M Na2SO4 electrolyte, and under 1 sun (46)