| Literature DB >> 32548417 |
Jiawei Sun1, Weiwei Xia1, Qian Zheng1, Xianghua Zeng1,2, Wei Liu3, Gang Liu1, Pengdi Wang1.
Abstract
Uniform rectangular α-Fe2O3 nanorods (R-Fe2O3) and irregular α-Fe2O3 nanorods (D-Fe2O3) with a random size vertically aligned on fluorine-doped tin oxide were prepared with a facile one-step hydrothermal procedure. X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements and Raman spectra confirm that the obtained samples are α-Fe2O3, and XRD patterns show that D-Fe2O3 has two extra (012) and (104) planes of hematite in addition to the identical peaks to R-Fe2O3. The carrier density of the D-Fe2O3 sample is four times larger than that of R-Fe2O3. Finally, the D-Fe2O3 photoelectrode exhibited a better photoelectrochemical (PEC) performance under visible illumination than that of R-Fe2O3, achieving the photocurrent density of 0.15 mA cm-2 at 1.23 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode. In addition, incident photo-to-current conversion efficiency of D-Fe2O3 is nearly three times larger than that of R-Fe2O3. Hence, the improved PEC performance of D-Fe2O3 can be ascribed to higher carrier density resulting from the amount of oxygen vacancies and more activated exposed surface facets.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32548417 PMCID: PMC7271369 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c01072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1(a) Schematic illustration of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 grown on the FTO substrate; (b) XRD patterns of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 nanostructured arrays. (c,d) SEM images of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 nanostructured arrays, respectively.
Figure 2(a,b) Low-magnification images of an individual R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 nanorod. (c) High-magnification bright-field image of the D-Fe2O3 nanorod. (d) SAED pattern corresponding to the external side of the nanorod marked in (c).
Figure 3(a) Diffuse reflectance spectra measured with an integrating sphere and absorption spectra taken with reflectance and transmission (inset: a photograph of the R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 nanorod arrays on the FTO substrates after the postannealing process). (b) Ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) secondary-electron cutoff and the VBM region. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectra of Fe 2p (c) and O 1s (d) for R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3.
Energy Level of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3
| samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-Fe2O3 | 2.02 | 4.66 | 4.96 | 6.66 |
| D-Fe2O3 | 1.70 | 4.76 | 5.36 | 6.46 |
Relative Percentages of the OL, OV, OC, and −OH Components for R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3
| sample | OL | OV | OC & −OH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-Fe2O3 | binding energy (eV) | 529.6 | 531.5 | 533.2 |
| relative percentage (%) | 58.1% | 29.9% | 12% | |
| D-Fe2O3 | binding energy (eV) | 529.6 | 531.8 | |
| relative percentage (%) | 63.8% | 36.2% |
Figure 4(a) EIS Nyquist plots of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 photoanodes under dark conditions obtained in a frequency range from 1 to 500,000 Hz. (b) Mott–Schottky plot at 10 kHz of the PEC system with R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 photoanodes. (c) Proposed energy band alignment of R-Fe2O3 and D-Fe2O3 photoanodes. (d) Current density vs applied potential (J–V) curves. Changes of IPCE (e) and responsivity (f) with the wavelength.