Photoactive anodes consisting of Ru(bpy)3 type photosensitizer 1 and molecular catalysts 2 and 3 on nanostructured TiO2 have been assembled in functional devices for successful light driven water splitting. From their performance measurements we found that the photoanode TiO2(1 + 3) in which the molecular ruthenium catalyst and the phosphonate anchoring group are linked by a flexible –CH2CH2CH2– chain showed a significantly higher photocurrent density than the photoanode TiO2(1 + 2) with only –CH2– linkage. The possible reasons for the different water splitting performance of otherwise identical devices are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: