@article {1080,
	title = {Addressing the Stability Gap in Photoelectrochemistry: Molybdenum Disulfide Protective Catalysts for Tandem III{\textendash}V Unassisted Solar Water Splitting},
	journal = {ACS Energy Letters},
	year = {2020},
	month = {07/2020},
	pages = {2631-2640},
	doi = {10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01132},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01132},
	author = {Micha Ben-Naim and Reuben J. Britto and Chase W. Aldridge and Rachel Mow and Myles A. Steiner and Adam C. Nielander and Laurie A. King and Daniel J. Friedman and Todd G. Deutsch and James L. Young and Thomas F. Jaramillo}
}
@article {1089,
	title = {Molybdenum Disulfide Catalytic Coatings via Atomic Layer Deposition for Solar Hydrogen Production from Copper Gallium Diselenide Photocathodes},
	journal = {ACS Applied Energy Materials},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1060-1066},
	abstract = {<p><span style="color: $\#$111111; font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, {\textquoteright}Segoe UI{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteright}Helvetica Neue{\textquoteright}, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: $\#$fafafa;">We demonstrate that applying atomic layer deposition-derived molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) catalytic coatings on copper gallium diselenide (CGSe) thin film absorbers can lead to efficient wide band gap photocathodes for photoelectrochemical hydrogen production. We have prepared a device that is free of precious metals, employing a CGSe absorber and a cadmium sulfide (CdS) buffer layer, a titanium dioxide (TiO2) interfacial layer, and a MoS2 catalytic layer. The resulting MoS2/TiO2/CdS/CGSe photocathode exhibits a photocurrent onset of +0.53 V vs RHE and a saturation photocurrent density of -10 mA cm{\textendash}2, with stable operation for \&gt;5 h in acidic electrolyte. Spectroscopic investigations of this device architecture indicate that overlayer degradation occurs inhomogeneously, ultimately exposing the underlying CGSe absorber.</span></p>},
	doi = {10.1021/acsaem.8b01562},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.8b01562},
	author = {Thomas R. Hellstern and David W. Palm and James Carter and Alex D. DeAngelis and Kimberly Horsley and Lothar Weinhardt and Wanli Yang and Monika Blum and Nicolas Gaillard and Clemens Heske and Thomas F. Jaramillo}
}
@article {1002,
	title = {Benchmarking Hydrogen Evolving Reaction and Oxygen Evolving Reaction Electrocatalysts for Solar Water Splitting Devices},
	journal = {Journal of the American Chemical Society},
	volume = {137},
	year = {2015},
	note = {{\textquoteright}doi: 10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01132\n - I.Am.Hydrogen{\textquoteright}
{\textquoteright}\n - jyoungstrom{\textquoteright}
{\textquoteright}Jason thinks this is great.\n~\n - jyoungstrom{\textquoteright}
{\textquoteright}\n - estechel{\textquoteright}
},
	pages = {4347-4357},
	abstract = {Published on April 8th, 2015.
Objective comparisons of electrocatalyst activity and stability using standard methods under identical conditions are necessary to evaluate the viability of existing electrocatalysts for integration into solar-fuel devices as well as to help inform the development of new catalytic systems. Herein, we use a standard protocol as a primary screen for evaluating the activity, short-term (2 h) stability, and electrochemically active surface area (ECSA) of 18 electrocatalysts for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and 26 electrocatalysts for the oxygen evolution reaction (OER) under conditions relevant to an integrated solar water-splitting device in aqueous acidic or alkaline solution. Our primary figure of merit is the overpotential necessary to achieve a magnitude current density of 10 mA cm{\textendash}2 per geometric area, the approximate current density expected for a 10\% efficient solar-to-fuels conversion device under 1 sun illumination. The specific activity per ECSA of each material is also reported. Among HER catalysts, several could operate at 10 mA cm{\textendash}2 with overpotentials <0.1 V in acidic and/or alkaline solutions. Among OER catalysts in acidic solution, no non-noble metal based materials showed promising activity and stability, whereas in alkaline solution many OER catalysts performed with similar activity achieving 10 mA cm{\textendash}2 current densities at overpotentials of \~{}0.33{\textendash}0.5 V. Most OER catalysts showed comparable or better specific activity per ECSA when compared to Ir and Ru catalysts in alkaline solutions, while most HER catalysts showed much lower specific activity than Pt in both acidic and alkaline solutions. For select catalysts, additional secondary screening measurements were conducted including Faradaic efficiency and extended stability measurements.},
	issn = {0002-7863},
	doi = {10.1021/ja510442p},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/ja510442p},
	author = {Charles C. L. McCrory and Suho Jung and Ivonne M. Ferrer and Shawn M. Chatman and Jonas C. Peters and Thomas F. Jaramillo}
}
