Abstract

AbstractThe photochemical hydrogen evolution capabilities of paddlewheel‐type dirhodium complexes with electron withdrawing carboxylates, [Rh2(O2CR)4(H2O)2] (R=CF3 and CCl3 for [2(H2O)2] and [3(H2O)2], respectively), were investigated and compared with that of [Rh2(O2CCH3)4(H2O)2], ([1(H2O)2]), which is the most effective hydrogen evolution catalyst (HEC) among rhodium complexes developed to date. Artificial photosynthesis (AP) systems with [2(H2O)2] or [3(H2O)2], [Ir(ppy)2(bpy)](PF6), and TEA showed highly efficient hydrogen evolution activities; the turnover numbers (TON) of hydrogen evolution per Rh by the AP systems with [2(H2O)2] and [3(H2O)2] after 12 h of photo‐irradiation were 3334 and 3138, respectively. Experimental analyses and density functional theory (DFT) calculations afforded valuable insight into the hydrogen evolution mechanism of paddlewheel‐type dirhodium complexes; (i) hydrogen evolution activities of the AP systems with [2(H2O)2] and [3(H2O)2] were slightly lower than that of the AP system with [1(H2O)2] despite one‐electron reduction potentials of [2(H2O)2] and [3(H2O)2] lie on the anode side than that of [1(H2O)2], and (ii) two different pathways exist during the early stages in the photochemical hydrogen evolution by [2(H2O)2] and [3(H2O)2]. Moreover, the relative free‐energy diagrams estimated by DFT calculations clarified the energy profiles of the mechanism including the rate‐determining steps of the hydrogen evolution by [1(H2O)2]−[3(H2O)2].

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call