Corrigendum to unbiased photocatalytic hydrogen generation from pure water on stable Ir-treated In_0.33Ga_0.67N nanorods (Nano Energy (2017) 37 (158–167), (S2211285517302860) (10.1016/j.nanoen.2017.05.013))

The authors regret < that the results of this work were extracted at zero applied bias vs Ag/AgCl reference electrode. This is equivalent to NHE (normalized hydrogen electrode) of 0.197 V or RHE (reversible hydrogen electrode) of 0.61 V as indicated on page 159 in the article. The word “unbiased” in the title is not justified and therefore the solar-to-hydrogen (STH) energy conversion efficiency cannot be used to gauge the performance of the catalyst. [Formula presented] Equation 2 on page 165 used for the calculation of the STH needs to be replaced by the “Applied Bias Photon to current conversion Efficiency (ABPE) equation: [Formula presented] The ABPE of the EDT/Ir-treated sample is 1.9% and that of the as-grown sample is ~0.2%. Based on the above, the following sentences are amended: Table 1 on the top of page 165 needs to be changed to: [Figure presented] On page 158, abstract, the sentence “This treatment when applied to In_0.33Ga_0.67N NRs resulted in a photo-catalyst that achieved 3.5% solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiency, in pure water (pH~7, buffer solution) under simulated one-sun (AM1.5G) illumination and without electrical bias” should be changed to “This treatment when applied to In_0.33Ga_0.67N NRs resulted in a photo-catalyst that achieved 1.9% ABPE, in pure water (pH~7, buffer solution) under simulated one-sun (AM1.5G) illumination. On page 159, second paragraph: the sentence “A 3.5% STH efficiency of unbiased pure water (pH~7) splitting is achieved, which is approximately 14 times higher than the best reported STH for III-nitrides single photoelectrodes at similar experimental conditions [10], should be changed to “A 1.9% ABPE is obtained”. On page 163, second paragraph: the sentence “The change in the charge concentration gradient near the photoanode surface was studied using chronoamperometry technique at zero bias and under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination using the same buffer electrolyte” should be changed to “The change in the charge concentration gradient near the photoanode surface was studied using chronoamperometry technique at 0.6 V vs RHE and under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination using the same buffer electrolyte”. On page 163 the experimental conditions inserted in Fig. 4 (c) and (d), and the caption of Fig. 4 (b) and (c) should be changed to zero applied bias vs Ag/AgCl. [Figure presented] Fig. 4. PEC performance of In_0.33Ga_0.67N-based NRs. (a) LSV of the EDT/Ir-treated sample compared to the as-grown one, measured under 1 sun (AM1.5 G) illumination in pH= 7 buffer electrolyte. Dotted-lines represent the dark currents. (b) Nyquist plots measured under stimulated sun light illumination (1 sun-AM1.5G) at zero applied bias vs Ag/AgCl showing the interfacial resistance behaviors between the In_0.33Ga_0.67N-based NRs and the electrolyte. (c) Chronoamperometry test showing the long-term stability of the current against time at zero bias vs Ag/AgCl and under 1 sun (AM1.5 G) illumination. (d) Chronoamperometry test under chopped light illumination emphasizes the high photoactivity of the photoanodes after PEC experiment. At the end of page 163: the sentence “To further test the performance of In_0.33Ga_0.67N-based NRs photoanodes, the gas evolution was measured using gas chromatography under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination at zero-bias and pH~7″ should be changed to “To further test the performance of In_0.33Ga_0.67N-based NRs photoanodes, the gas evolution was measured using gas chromatography under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination at zero-bias vs Ag/AgCl (~0.61 V vs RHE) and pH~7″. On page 164 the experimental conditions inserted in Fig. 5 (a) as well as the caption of the same figure should be changed to zero bias vs Ag/AgCl. [Figure presented] Fig. 5. Hydrogen and oxygen evolution measured at zero bias vs Ag/AgCl and under 1 sun (AM1.5G). (a) The as-grown sample. (b) After EDT/Ir treatment. Red dotted-lines represent the straight-line fitting used to calculate the gas evolution rate. The gas evolution was normalized to the surface area of each sample. The black lines represent the calculated gas amount. On page 165 on the second paragraph: the sentence “The STH efficiency was estimated to be 3.5% for the EDT/Ir-treated sample that is approximately nine times higher than that of the as-grown sample, which is the highest gas evolution rate-based STH efficiency obtained for III-nitrides single photoanodes in an unbiased PEC system to date at neutral pH” should be changed to “The ABPE was estimated to be 1.9% for the EDT/Ir-treated sample, approximately 10 times higher than that of the as-grown sample”. On page 165 on the conclusion: the sentence “An STH efficiency of 3.5% at zero bias and under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination is reported” should be changed to “An ABPE of 1.9% at 0.61 V vs RHE and under 1 sun (AM1.5G) illumination is reported”.>. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.