The experimental results demonstrated that the photocatalytic CO
2RR activities of the five monomolecular compounds gradually decreased by CuNi-L
2, Ni
2-L
2, Ni-L
1, Cu
2-L
2 and Cu-L
1 successively. DFT calculation was employed to get insight into the activity of the photocatalytic conversion of CO
2-to-CO. Then the Gibbs free energy (G) of the CO
2RR paths are compared to explore the differences in photocatalytic activity of the five catalysts (
Fig. 4a). The CO
2-to-CO reduction pathway is primarily composed of three steps: CO
2 activation and hydrogenation (CO
2 → *COOH), dehydration (*COOH → *CO), and CO desorption (*CO → CO), where the rate-determining step is the first path. The energy change from CO
2 to *COOH on CuNi-L
2 and Ni
2-L
2 are the lowest (0.81 eV and 0.85 eV), Ni-L
1 (1.44 eV), Cu
2-L
2 (1.57 eV) and Cu-L
1 (1.97 eV), suggesting the highest activity of dual TM centers (CuNi-L
2 and Ni
2-L
2) for CO
2 reduction. For the two investigated transitional metal ions, Cu
II sites apparently present an inactive behavior for the CO
2RR due to large energy increase for the formation of *COOH. Although the above results are consistent with the photocatalytic activity of the catalysts, the energy change from CO
2 to *COOH of CuNi-L
2 is not far different from Ni
2-L
2, while the CO production of CuNi-L
2 is about 1.5 times than that of Ni
2-L
2 in experiment. The dual TM sites were expected to stabilize the *COOH intermediate with a bridge structure, but the adsorbate returns to a single Ni
II site after geometry optimization (Fig. S22 in Supporting information). That is to say, the coordination environment of the Ni
II ions is crucial during the photocatalytic possess. In order to further explore the structure-activity relationship between CuNi-L
2 and Ni
2-L
2, time-dependent DFT calculations were performed to investigate the excitation properties of CuNi-L
2 and Ni
2-L
2 systems.
Fig. 4b illustrates the electron contributions of the first excited state, which is basically contributed by HOMO-LUMO transition, the charge density difference between the ground state (S
0) and the first excited state (S
1). It is clear from the result above that the excited electron of Ni
2-L
2 is concentrated around two Ni
II ions and the coordinated N, O atoms, while the electron of CuNi-L
2 is mainly concentrated on the Ni
II ion and O atoms, no electron accumulates around the Cu
II ion and N atoms. In addition, the charge analysis reveals that the charge transfer from Ni
II ions to N
2O
2 and O
4 coordination are 0.21 and 0.47 respectively (
Fig. 4c), indicating that Ni
II ions in the two coordination environments both have good reduction ability, of which the Ni
II in O
4 coordination possesses better reduction activity. Meanwhile, comparing the free energy change between the two Ni
II sites, the Ni
II in O
4-coordination expresses a lower energy change from CO
2 to *COOH than Ni
II in N
2O
2 coordination environment, which further proves the result above. The charge transfer in CuNi-L
2 for metal ions are 0.65 (Ni
II) and 0.01 (Cu
II) respectively. It can be found that the existence of inactive Cu
II ion promotes the accumulation of electrons on Ni
II, which causes the Ni
II with O
4 coordination environment in CuNi-L
2 expressing better reduction ability than that of Ni
2-L
2, and then significantly accelerates the photocatalytic reduction reaction of CO
2 to CO.