Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Photoelectrode Durability in Two- versus Three-Electrode Configurations: Understanding the Impact of Circuit Configuration on Water-Splitting Stability

  • Colorado School of Mines

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus Citations

Abstract

Device durability remains a significant challenge in photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting under ambient conditions. Yet, a lack of understanding of the test configuration and applied bias effects continue to hinder progress. In this study, we differentiate two-electrode (2E) and three-electrode (3E) configurations for evaluating PEC material durability, focusing particularly on their impacts on photoabsorber solid-state operating conditions. Our results underscore the fallacy of inferring 2E device stability from durability measurements performed solely in 3E configurations. Unmeasured and often misunderstood total circuit bias in 3E tests moderates material degradation, leading to the overestimation of photoelectrode stability compared to short-circuit operation. We demonstrate how the photoabsorber's operating voltage critically governs charge separation, surface stability, and degradation mechanisms during PEC operation. With these findings, we propose a standardized framework for conducting more reliable 3E durability experiments that simulate unassisted performance to help accelerate the development of robust, stable materials for solar-driven water splitting.
Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)4110-4116
Number of pages7
JournalACS Energy Letters
Volume11
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2026

NLR Publication Number

  • NLR/JA-5900-99041

Keywords

  • durability
  • III-V semiconductors
  • photoelectrochemical hydrogen production

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Photoelectrode Durability in Two- versus Three-Electrode Configurations: Understanding the Impact of Circuit Configuration on Water-Splitting Stability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this