ArticleNature communications2024
Assessing elevated pressure impact on photoelectrochemical water splitting via multiphysics modeling.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrophobicity Modulated Interfacial Water Distribution for Enhanced Kinetics of HER.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Highly-Conductive and Micro-Structured Transparent Glass Substrates for Efficient and Scalable Photoelectrochemical Applications.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Strategies for Photoelectrochemical Splitting of Water.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Photoelectrochemical water splitting cells at elevated pressure using BiVONature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting is a promising approach for sustainable hydrogen production. Previous studies have focused on devices operated at atmospheric pressure, although most applications require hydrogen delivered at elevated pressure. Here, we address this critical gap by investigating the implications of operating PEC water splitting directly at elevated pressure. We evaluate the benefits and penalties associated with elevated pressure operation by developing a multiphysics model that incorporates empirical data and direct experimental observations. Our analysis reveals that the operating pressure influences bubble characteristics, product gas crossover, bubble-induced optical losses, and concentration overpotential, which are crucial for the overall device performance. We identify an optimum pressure range of 6-8 bar for minimizing losses and achieving efficient PEC water splitting. This finding provides valuable insights for the design and practical implementation of PEC water splitting devices, and the approach can be extended to other gas-producing (photo)electrochemical systems. Overall, our study demonstrates the importance of elevated pressure in PEC water splitting, enhancing the efficiency and applicability of green hydrogen generation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.