| Literature DB >> 30416913 |
Jesús A Díaz-Real1,2,3,4, Geyla C Dubed-Bandomo1, Juan Galindo-de-la-Rosa1, Luis G Arriaga1, Janet Ledesma-García3, Nicolas Alonso-Vante2.
Abstract
class="Chemical">Titanium oxide nanotubes (<class="Chemical">span class="Chemical">TNTs) were anodically grown in ethylene glycol electrolyte. The influence of the anodization time on their physicochemical and photoelectrochemical properties was evaluated. Concomitant with the anodization time, the NT length, fluorine content, and capacitance of the space charge region increased, affecting the opto-electronic properties (bandgap, bathochromic shift, band-edge position) and surface hydrophilicity of TiO2 NTs. These properties are at the origin of the photocatalytic activity (PCA), as proved with the photooxidation of methylene blue.Entities:
Keywords: fluorine doping; nanotubes; photocatalytic activity; photoelectrochemistry; titanium(IV) oxide (TiO2)
Year: 2018 PMID: 30416913 PMCID: PMC6204776 DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.9.244
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol ISSN: 2190-4286 Impact factor: 3.649
Figure 1SEM images, a) top and b) cross section, of TNTs for each of the anodization times (ta): c) 0.5 h, d) 1 h, e) 2 h, and f) 4 h. g) EDS spectra of a TNT array after 0.5 h of anodization.
Figure 2High-resolution XPS spectra for Ti 2p, O 1s, F 1s and N 1s obtained for the TNTs after each ta.
Binding energy (EB) values for the peaks of the high-resolution XPS spectra.
| peak | ||||
| 0.5 h | 1.0 h | 2.0 h | 4.0 h | |
| Ti 2p3/2 | 459 | 458.9 | 459.3 | 459.2 |
| Ti 2p1/2 | 464.6 | 464.6 | 464.9 | 464.9 |
| O 1s I | 530.2 | 530.2 | 530.5 | 530.4 |
| O 1s II | 531.6 | 531.8 | 532.2 | 532 |
| O 1s III | 532.4 | — | — | — |
| F 1s I | 683.7 | 684.5 | 685.2 | 685.2 |
| F 1s II | — | — | — | 686.5 |
| N 1s I | 399.5 | 399.9 | 399.4 | 399.2 |
| N 1s II | — | 401.8 | 401.9 | 401.4 |
Figure 3X-ray diffraction patterns of TNT grown at different ta.
Summary of structural parameters estimated from XRD diffractograms.
| unit cell volume | crystallite size (nm) | (101)/(004) | ||||
| Scherrer | Rietveld | |||||
| 0.5 | 3.7828 | 9.4830 | 135.6977 | 30.9 | 31.6 | 1.24 |
| 1 | 3.7814 | 9.4922 | 135.7288 | 34.6 | 36.6 | 1.46 |
| 2 | 3.7833 | 9.4965 | 135.9268 | 37.5 | 43.5 | 1.35 |
| 4 | 3.7841 | 9.4934 | 135.9399 | 34.5 | 42.7 | 0.97 |
Figure 4Raman spectra for TNT grown at different ta. Laser intensity: 2.5 mW/cm2.
Figure 5(a) Cyclic voltammograms (CV) at v = 50 mV/s; and (b) linear-sweep voltammograms (LSV) at v = 5 mV/s in the anodic direction for the TNTs grown at different ta, in 0.5 M H2SO4, in darkness in N2-saturated electrolyte.
Figure 6Extracted photo-current density, jph, from potentiodynamic curves for the TNTs grown at different ta in (a) N2-saturated electrolyte, (b) O2-saturated electrolyte, with (c) 0.5 M MeOH. (d) On–off photocurrent transients for the same samples in N2-saturated electrolyte. Conditions: 0.5 M H2SO4, v = 5mV/s, and irradiation power = 20 mW/cm2.
Figure 7(a) Incident photon-to-current (IPCE) plot for each TNT. (b) Tauc plots for a direct electronic transition. Conditions: E = 1.0 V/RHE, 0.5 M H2SO4, 20 min N2 bubbling and irradiation power = 20 mW/cm2.
Figure 8a) Mott–Schottky plots recorded at f = 400 Hz in 0.5 M H2SO4. The electrode potential range was from −0.2 to 1.0 V vs SCE with a potential step of 50 mV and 2 min of stabilization time. Table 3 shows the dopant number concentration (ND) calculated by using Equation 2. b) Schematic for the band diagram estimated from the measurements.
Experimental and calculated values from PEC measurements for TNTs as a function of ta.
| 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.57 | −0.074 | 2.98 | 3.16 × 1019 |
| 1 | 0.076 | 0.53 | 0.066 | 2.95 | 6.15 × 1019 |
| 2 | 0.094 | 0.56 | 0.098 | 2.93 | 8.76 × 1019 |
| 4 | 0.12 | 0.52 | 0.154 | 2.87 | 7.17 × 1020 |
aLSV/transients, bMott–Schottky plots, cTauc plots.
Figure 9a) Schematics of the experimental setup used for the PEC degradation of MB. b) UV–vis spectra for the initial MB solution and after 180 min of treatment. c) Relative MB concentration followed in situ with a 638 nm laser. d) Removal percentage of MB evaluated from the UV–vis spectra. e) Raman spectra of the solution samples after 180 min of treatment. Raman conditions: laser 785 nm, slit 100 μm.