Carbon nitride compounds with high N : C ratios and graphitic to polymeric structures are being investigated as potential next-generation materials for incorporation in devices for energy conversion and storage as well as for optoelectronic and catalysis applications. The materials are built from C- and N-containing heterocycles with heptazine or triazine rings linked via sp²-bonded N atoms (N(C)₃ units) or –NH– groups. The electronic, chemical and optical functionalities are determined by the nature of the local to extended structures as well as the chemical composition of the materials. Because of their typically amorphous to nanocrystalline nature and variable composition, significant challenges remain to fully assess and calibrate the structure–functionality relationships among carbon nitride materials. It is also important to devise a useful and consistent approach to naming the different classes of carbon nitride compounds that accurately describes their chemical and structural characteristics related to their functional performance. Here we evaluate the current state of understanding to highlight key issues in these areas and point out new directions in their development as advanced technological materials.

Polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs) are a promising replacement for the fossil fuel–dependent automotive and energy sectors. They have become increasingly commercialized in the last decade; however, significant limitations on durability and performance limit their commercial uptake. Catalyst layer (CL) design is commonly reported to impact device power density and durability; although, a consensus is rarely reached due to differences in testing conditions, experimental design, and types of data reported. This is further exacerbated by aspects of CL design such as catalyst support, proton conduction, catalyst, fabrication, and morphology, being significantly interdependent; hence, a wider appreciation is required in order to optimize performance, improve durability, and reduce costs. Here, the cutting‐edge research within the field of PEFCs is reviewed, investigating the effect of different manufacturing techniques, electrolyte distribution, support materials, surface chemistries, and total porosity on power density and durability. These are critically appraised from an applied perspective to inform the most relevant and promising pathways to make and test commercially viable cells. This holistic view of the competing aspects of CL design and preparation will facilitate the development of optimized CLs, especially the incorporation of novel catalyst support materials.

The growing interest in the development of next-generation net zero energy systems has led to the expansion of molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂) research in this area. This activity has resulted in a wide range of manufacturing/synthesis methods, controllable morphologies, diverse carbonaceous composite structures, a multitude of applicable characterization techniques, and multiple energy applications for MoS₂. To assess the literature trends, 37,347 MoS₂ research articles from Web of Science were text scanned to classify articles according to energy application research and characterization techniques employed. Within the review, characterization techniques are grouped under the following categories: morphology, crystal structure, composition, and chemistry. The most common characterization techniques identified through text scanning are recommended as the base fingerprint for MoS₂ samples. These include: scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Raman spectroscopy. Similarly, XPS and Raman spectroscopy are suggested for 2H or 1T MoS₂ phase confirmation. We provide guidance on the collection and presentation of MoS₂ characterization data. This includes how to effectively combine multiple characterization techniques, considering the sample area probed by each technique and their statistical significance, and the benefit of using reference samples. For ease of access for future experimental comparison, key numeric MoS₂ characterization values are tabulated and major literature discrepancies or currently debated characterization disputes are highlighted.