| Literature DB >> 34163693 |
Sushma A Rawool1, Kishan K Yadav1, Vivek Polshettiwar1.
Abstract
Photocatalytic conversion of CO2 into fuels and valuable chemicals using solar energy is a promising technology to combat climate change and meet the growing energy demand. Extensive effort is going on for the development of a photocatalyst with desirable optical, surface and electronic properties. This review article discusses recent development in the field of photocatalytic CO2 conversion using defective TiO2. It specifically focuses on the different synthesis methodologies adapted to generate the defects and their impact on the chemical, optical and surface properties of TiO2 and, thus, photocatalytic CO2 conversion. It also encompasses theoretical investigations performed to understand the role of defects in adsorption and activation of CO2 and identify the mechanistic pathway which governs the formation and selectivity of different products. It is divided into three parts: (i) general mechanism and thermodynamic criteria for defective TiO2 catalyzed CO2 conversion, (ii) theoretical investigation on the role of defects in the CO2 adsorption-activation and mechanism responsible for the formation and selectivity of different products, and (iii) the effect of variation of physicochemical properties of defective TiO2 synthesized using different methods on the photocatalytic conversion of CO2. The review also discusses the limitations and the challenges of defective TiO2 photocatalysts that need to be overcome for the production of sustainable fuel utilizing solar energy. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34163693 PMCID: PMC8179507 DOI: 10.1039/d0sc06451c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of different processes occurring during the photocatalytic conversion of CO2 into useful products. The absorption of light energy equal to or greater than the bandgap (Eg) resulting in excitation of the electrons from the valence band (VB) to the conduction band (CB), leaving behind holes in the VB. The electrons and holes promote the reduction and oxidation of the reactant molecules, respectively.
Fig. 2Schematic of the different types of defects present in the TiO2 crystal.
Fig. 3(a) Type of oxygen vacancies on the (001) surface of anatase TiO2 (Ti = gray, O = red, oxygen vacancy = yellow) and (b) adsorption configurations of CO2 on the reduced TiO2 anatase surface with different vacancies in side view (upper panel) and top view (lower panel) (Ti = blue, OTiO = red, OCO = red and yellow plus sign and C = brown) (reproduced from ref. 43 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2016).
Fig. 4(a) Schematic showing the oxygen vacancy (VO, in a black color square), bridged hydroxyl group (OHb, black color circle) and CO2 molecule adsorbed at the VO site on the reduced TiO2 (1) (1 × 1) surface. The fivefold-coordinated Ti(5f) atoms and bridged oxygen (Obr) are indicated in red and blue, respectively. The inset shows that the molecular axis of CO2 is perpendicular to the direction of the bridging-oxygen row ([001] azimuth) and is tilted away from the surface normal by 57°; (b) STM image (1.5 V, 5 pA, 15 nm × 15 nm) of the TiO2 (110) surface after adsorption of CO2 at 55 K. Three CO2 and two OHb features are shown as diamonds and circles, respectively. The inset shows two STM images (5.1 nm × 2.6 nm) of the same area on the surface. The upper inset shows two CO2 molecules (in the dotted ellipse) that diffused away from their VO sites, leaving two intact VO sites visible, as shown in the lower inset image; (c) dissociation probability (Pdiss) plotted as a function of bias voltage. The threshold voltage was Vthres = +1.7 V, and Pdiss approached 1 at +2.2 V. (d) The electron-transfer process at the STM tip/CO2/TiO2 interface. Above eVthres = 1.7 eV, the electrons start to tunnel into the negative-ion state of the adsorbed CO2 and (e) schematics of an electron-induced CO2 dissociation process (reproduced from ref. 44 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2011).
Fig. 5Energy levels formed due to the presence of defects such as oxygen vacancy, titanium vacancy and titanium interstitial within the bandgap of reduced rutile TiO2−. Energy levels were taken from ref. 46.
Fig. 6Reaction pathway for the photocatalytic CO2 conversion (red and black color font indicate the species adsorbed at the oxygen vacancy and on surface Ti, respectively) (reproduced from ref. 48 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2016).
Fig. 7Overall potential energy surface from CO to CH4. Black, red, blue, and green bars and curves represent a desorption state, the most favorable pathway for CO(A), the most favorable pathway for CO(B) and pathways after merged, respectively (reproduced from ref. 49 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2019).
Fig. 8(a) Schematic of the chemical reaction that occurred on the surface of the TiO2 during hydrogenation (gray color: Ti and red color: O), (b) FTIR spectra of non-hydrogenated and hydrogenated TiO2 samples, (c) diffuse reflectance spectra of TiO2 and hydrogenated samples and (d) apparent quantum efficiency (AQE) for H2, CO and CH4 using the TiO2-12 sample (reproduced from ref. 51 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2019).
Photocatalytic CO2 conversion using defective TiO2
| Sr no. | Reference | Chemicals used to create defects | Photocatalytic experimental conditions | Light source used | Products | Yield | AQE/SFE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Liu | H2 gas | 10 mg catalyst dispersed in 1.0 mL (CH3)2CHOH and 4.0 mL H2O, (0.2 MPa) CO2 | 300 W Xe lamp | CH4 | 1708.1 μmol g−1 h−1 | AQE: 17.40% |
| CO | 463.2 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| H2 | 2.11 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 2 | Xuan | H2 gas | 25 mg of catalyst, CO2 was generated inside the reactor | 300 W Xe lamp, intensity on the sample was 0.5W cm−2 | CH4 | 124.3 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 14.7 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 3 | Billo | H2 gas | CO2 bubbled through water, co-catalyst: Ni | 300 W Xe lamp | CH3CHO | 10 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| 4 | Fu | H2 gas | 100 mg of catalyst, CO2 bubbled through water | Solar simulator AM 1.5 | CH3CHO | 11.3 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| CH3OH | 1.2 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — | |||||
| 5 | Ye | H2 gas | Sample concentration 1 g L−1, CO2 flow rate 100 mL min−1, NaOH = 0.20 mol L−1, Na2SO3 = 0.20 mol L−1, reaction temperature 5 °C | 300 W Xe lamp | CO | 12.1 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 6 | Liu | H2 gas | 50 mg catalyst, CO2 passed through water | 150 W solar simulator (90 mW cm−2) | CH4 | 4.4 μmol g−1 in 6.5 h | — |
| CO | 25 μmol g−1 in 6.5 h | — | |||||
| 7 | Li | N2 : H2(9 : 1) | 50 mg catalyst dispersed in 2 mL of water, CO2 gas passed through it temperature: 393 K, co-catalyst: CoO | 150 W UV lamp (20 mW cm−2 at 365 nm) | CH4 (selectivity: 71.02%) | 10.1 μmol g−1 h−1 | 0.0126 |
| CO (selectivity: 28.98%) | 16.4 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 8 | Sorcar | NaBH4 | 40 mg of catalyst, moist CO2 (40 mL min−1), co-catalyst: Pt (0.33 wt%) | 100 W Xe solar simulator (AM1.5 filter) | CH4 | 80.3 μmol g−1 h−1 | 12.4 |
| 9 | Sorcar | NaBH4 | 40 mg of catalyst, moist CO2 (40 mL min−1), co-catalyst: Pt 1 wt% | 100 W Xe solar simulator (AM1.5 filter) | C2H6 | 77 μmol g−1 in 7 h | 2.7 |
| CH4 | 259 μmol g−1 in 7 h | 5.2 | |||||
| 10 | Sorcar | NaBH4 | 40 mg of catalyst, moist CO2 (40 mL min−1), co-catalyst: Cu–Pt | 100 W Xe solar simulator AM1.5 filter | C2H6 | 150 μmol g−1 in 6 h | Total AQE: 86%, SFE: 1% |
| CH4 | 3000 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — | |||||
| 11 | Yan | H2 plasma | 90 mg photocatalyst, CO2 bubbled through water | 550 W Xe-lamp with an AM 1.5 G filter, 100 mW cm−2 | CH4 | 14.03 nmol h−1 in 90 mg | — |
| CO | 21.67 nmol h−1 in 90 mg | — | |||||
| 12 | Liu | He gas | 100 mg catalyst, CO2 and H2O vapor (H2O ≈ 2.3 v/v%), | 150 W solar simulator, AM1.5 filter; 90 mW cm−2 | CH4 + CO | 18.9 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| 13 | Xin | Oxidation-based hydrothermal method | Flow reactor (2 mL min−1) CO2 bubbled through water | 300 W Xe lamp, vis-light, 0.216W cm−2 (≥420 nm) | CH4 | 11.9 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 23.5 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 14 | Zhao | Vacuum annealing | 20 mg catalyst dispersed over a quartz disc with a diameter of 50 cm2, CO2 from NaHCO3 and H2SO4 | 500 W Xe lamp, 0.220 W cm−2, (400–800 nm) | CO | 48.5 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| CH4 | 8 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — | |||||
| 15 | Kar | Flame reduction method | TiO2 nanotube array with an area of 1 cm × 2 cm, 50 psi CO2 pressure and 80 °C to vaporize the water, a few droplets of water were placed in the reactor beside the catalyst without direct contact with the catalyst | 300 W Xe lamp AM1.5 filter | CH4 | 156.5 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 16 | Tu |
| 100 mg photocatalyst, CO2 at ambient pressure, 0.4 mL H2O | 300 W Xe lamp | CH4 | 8 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| C2H6 | 16.8 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 17 | Yin | Aluminothermic reduction | 50 mg catalyst, 2 bar CO2, 6 mL H2O | 300 W Xe lamp | CH4 (selectivity: 74%) | 14.3 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 18 | Gao | Aluminothermic reduction | Two pieces of the black TiO2 NTAs catalyst – equivalent to 0.01 g TiO2, CO2 is introduced in solution | 300 W Xe lamp with a 420 nm cut-off filter | CO | 185.39 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 19 | Wang | Lithiothermic reduction | 100 mg photocatalyst, 0.4 mL water, CO2, co-catalyst: 1 wt% Pt | 300 W xenon arc lamp equipped with a UV light filter (∼100 mW cm−2) | CH4 (visible light) | 3.37 μmol g−1 in 8 h | — |
| CH4 (UV-visible light) | 8.85 μmol g−1 in 8 h | — | |||||
| 20 | Sasan | One-step combustion and hydrothermal methods | 100 mg catalyst held on a Teflon holder, 4 mL liquid water at the bottom of reactor, CO2, co-catalyst: Cu( | Xe lamp (300 W) with 400 nm cut-on filter | CH4 | ∼6 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| 21 | Fang | Hydrothermal method using HCl and a small amount of HF | 0.03 g of catalyst amount, 1 mL pure water, batch reactor, no co-catalyst | 300 W Xe lamp AM1.5 filter | CH4 | ∼0.9 μmol g−1 in 4 h | — |
| CO | ∼0.8 μmol g−1 in 4 h | — | |||||
| 22 | Liu | NaBH4 reduction | 40 mg catalyst spread over a glass fiber filter, CO2 bubbled through water, temperature: 150 °C, no cocatalyst | 100 W Hg vapor lamp with 10 mW cm−2 at | CO (UV-visible) | 54.5 μmol g−1 in 5 h | 0.31 |
| 300 W Xe lamp with UV filter 28 mW cm−2 in visible range | (Visible) | 26.5 μmol g−1 in 5 h | 0.134 | ||||
| 23 | Liu | Ultrathin nanosheets of TiO2 by hydrothermal synthesis | 10 mg of sample spread in a chamber, CO2 passed through water (0.08 MPa), co-catalyst: Pt | 300 W xenon lamp | CH4 | 66.4 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 54.2 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 24 | Shi | Solvothermal method using HF | 50 mg sample, CO2 bubbled through water, H2O/CO2 = 2.3v/v% | 100 W mercury lamp ( | CH4 | 2.49 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 25 | Qingli | Treatment of the Ti plate in H2O2 solution at 110 and 130 °C (hydrothermal treatment) | TiO2 film, CO2 bubbled through water | Two 300 W Xe lamps | CH4 | 12 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 115 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 26 | Liu | Fluoride mediated self-transformation pathway | 30 mg of photocatalyst, Na2CO3 + H2SO4, batch reactor, cocatalyst: Au | 300 W Xe lamp | CO | ∼2.1 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CH4 | ∼1.2 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 27 | Yin | Solvothermal method with Li-dissolved EDA as solution. (Considerable number of defects (VO or Ti3+) existed in H–TiO2− | 50 mg catalyst, 2 bar CO2, 6 mL H2O | 300 W Xe lamp, simulated solar AM1.5 filter | CH4 | 16.2 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 4.2 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| H2 | 13 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 28 | Zhu |
| 30 mg catalyst,6 μL of water | 300 W commercial Xe lamp | CH4 | 8.68 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 29 | Lan | No such defect is created. Doping of Cu metal by the solvothermal method induced oxygen vacancies | 30 mg of catalyst, CO2 bubbled through solution | 300 W Xe lamp | CO | 32.5 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| 30 | Pham | Codoping of Ag and Cu into the TiO2 lattice | 2 g of catalyst CO2 passed through water was injected inside the reactor | Visible light. (Two 20 W bulbs of 0.05 W cm−2) | CO | 550 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| CH4 | 880 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — | |||||
| 31 | Pham | Co-doping of V and Cu into TiO2 lattice | 2 g of catalyst CO2 was injected inside the reactor | Visible light. (Two 20 W bulbs of 0.05 W cm−2) | CH4 | 933 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — |
| CO | 588 μmol g−1 in 6 h | — | |||||
| 32 | Wang | Cobalt-doped titanium dioxide | 100 mg of photocatalyst dispersed on a porous quartzose film in the reaction cell, and 3 mL of deionized H2O and 80 kPa pure CO2 gas | A 300 W xenon arc lamp with an L-42 glass filter was used as the light source lamp with a cut-off filter ( | CH4 | 0.09 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| CO | 1.94 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| H2 | 0.74 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| O2 | 0.133 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 33 | Yaghoubi | Oxygen vacancy and Ti3+ originated during synthesis (synthesis form peroxo-titanium complex) | 100 mg of photocatalyst + CO2 bubbled through water, (20 psi pressure), 40 °C | Both solar and visible light 300 W Xe lamp | CH4 (solar light) | 79.5 ppm g−1 h−1 | 0.0289 (250–564 nm) |
| Solar light 80 mW cm−2 | CO (solar light) | 303 ppm g−1 h−1 | — | ||||
| Visible light 408 to 1650 nm | CH4 (visible light) | 60 ppm g−1 h−1 | — | ||||
| CO (visible light) | 226 ppm g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 34 | Han | TiB2 is used to prepare (self doped) Ti+3 in TiO2 | 30 mg catalyst was dispersed into 20 mL of | 300 W Xe lamp | CO (simulated solar light) | 724 μmol g−1 h−1 | — |
| H2 (simulated solar light) | 5.5 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| CO (visible light) | 58 μmol g−1 h−1 | — | |||||
| 35 | Shi |
| 5 mg photocatalyst dispersed in 5 mL of solution of 4 mL of methyl cyanide (MeCN) solvent, 1 mL of (TEOA), bipyridine (bpy) (10 mmol L−1) and 25 μL of 20 mmol L−1 CoCl2 purged with CO2, co-catalyst: Co(bpy)32+ | 300 W xenon lamp | CO | 388.9 μmol g−1 in 5 h | — |
| UV cut-off filter ( | H2 | 75 μmol g−1 in 5 h | — | ||||
| 36 | Feng | During MgO deposition by ALD | 10 mg photocatalyst loaded over glass fiber paper, CO2 passed through water, no co-catalyst | 450 W Xe lamp | CO | 54 μmol g−1 in 4 h | — |
Fig. 9(a) Synthesis protocol for reduced DPSNs@X% TiO2− NPs, (b) photocatalytic CO2 conversion using different samples, (c and d) a probable mechanism for the different activity and selectivity of DPSNs@X% TiO2− NPs with the varied particle size of black TiO2− NPs for CO2 conversion (reproduced from ref. 52 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2019).
Fig. 10(a) DRS absorption spectra (inset shows Tauc plots with fitting), (b) the cumulative yield of acetaldehyde for 6 h on pure TiO2, TiO2–P25, Ni/TiO2, and Ni/TiO2[VO] using a halogen lamp as a light source, (c) band-edge positions of Ni/TiO2, and Ni/TiO2[VO] estimated using UPS and DRS bandgap and (d) schematic illustration of a mechanism for photocatalytic CO2 reduction of Ni/TiO2[VO]. (reproduced from ref. 53 with permission from Wiley, copyright 2018).
Fig. 11(a) DRS absorption spectra of the samples, (b) photocatalytic CO2 conversion yield under light illumination, (c) comparative band diagram and interfacial dipole effect of H–Ni–TiO2 and SCN–Ni–TiO2 (reproduced from ref. 54 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2019 American Chemical Society).
Fig. 12(A) UV-vis DRS and (B) rate of CO generation during the photocatalytic reduction of CO2 using (a) P25, (b) IO-W-TiO2, (c) IO-B-TiO2 and (d) IO-B-TiO2/Ni. (C) Schematic representation of the mechanism for photocatalytic CO2 conversion (reproduced from ref. 55 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2019).
Fig. 13(a) Stability evaluation of Cu–Pt modified blue titania for photocatalytic CO2 conversion, (b) FTIR analysis of the sample after photocatalytic reaction carried out in the presence of CO2 and He gas (reproduced from ref. 61 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2019).
Fig. 14(a) DRS spectra and the photograph of the samples with increasing plasma treatment time and (b) photocatalytic CO2 conversion using hydrogenated samples under solar light illumination (reproduced from ref. 62 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2014).
Fig. 15(a) Synthesis protocol for the generation of oxygen vacancies using propane flame treatment (inset shows TEM image of square-shaped TiO2 nanotubes after treatment with propane flame) and (b) DRS absorption spectra of LANT-aq, LANT-eg, FANT-aq and FANT-eg samples (reproduced from ref. 66 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2019).
Fig. 16(a) UV-visible DRS spectrum of Gx–TiO2 (x = 0, 1, 2 and 5 wt% of graphene) samples and (b) comparison of photocatalytic activity of Gx–TiO2 samples in the presence of water vapor (reproduced from ref. 67 with permission from Wiley, copyright 2013).
Fig. 17(a) Schematic of synthesis procedure for the black TiO2 nanotube array, (b) UV-visible DRS spectra of the sample annealed at different temperatures and (c) photocatalytic CO2 conversion using different samples under visible light illumination (reproduced from ref. 70 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2020).
Fig. 18(a) Synthesis of defective TiO2 by lithiothermic reduction, (b) XRD spectra of samples synthesized by varying the amount of Li, (c) HAADF-TEM image of R–TiO2 (20% Li), (d) EELs spectra recorded at the edge position A and center position B; inset shows the atomic structure of oxygen-deficient TiO2 and cubic LiTiO2, (e) charge difference of the CO2 molecule adsorbed on the surface of the (101) plane for anatase phase of R–TiO2 (gray: Ti atom, red: O atom), and (f and g) differential charge density after CO2 adsorption (reproduced from ref. 72 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2020).
Fig. 19(a) SEM image of the Ti3+–TiO2 sample and (b) EPR spectra of the Ti3+–TiO2 sample recorded at 100 K, (c) TEM images of the CuI/Pd/Ti3+–TiO2 sample, and (d) comparison of photocatalytic CO2 conversion using different samples (reproduced from ref. 73 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2015).
Fig. 20(a) DRS absorption spectra, (b) EPR spectra and (c) the spin intensity of reduced TiO2 samples, (d) HRTEM image of TiO2−-0.50, (e) disordered layers on the surface of TiO2− marked with white color arrows and (f) selectivity for CH4 and CO generation using TiO2−-0 and TiO2−-0.50 in the absence of the cocatalyst and under simulated solar light (reproduced from ref. 74 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2017).
Fig. 21(a) TEM image of the TiO2-homojunction, HRTEM image recorded from (b) <001> orientation, inset shows the model of truncated octahedral bipyramid projected along <001> direction, and (c) <100> orientation inset shows the model of truncated octahedral bipyramid projected along <100> direction, (d) HAADF-STEM image recorded from <100> orientation, (e) position for signal collection for EELS spectra, (f) Ti-L spectra recorded at the different positions marked with colored dots in (e) (reproduced from ref. 77 with permission from Wiley, copyright 2019).
Fig. 22(a) EPR spectra of P25, Au0/THMs, and Au1/THMs, (b) photocatalytic CO2 conversion over different samples under full-spectrum light illumination and (c) probable mechanism pathway for CO2 to CH4 conversion (reproduced from ref. 79 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2018).
Fig. 23(A) HRTEM images of the TiO2− with different amounts of Li, (B) 1H NMR spectra of the defective blue H–TiO2− samples, (C) in situ DRIFTS spectra monitored in the dark for (a) TiO2 and (b) H–TiO2−-200 and after shining light for (c) TiO2 and (d) H–TiO2−-200 (reproduced from ref. 80 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2018).
Fig. 24(A) (a) EPR spectra of TiO2 and Cu–TiO2-1.0 samples recorded under vacuum at 77 K in the dark and after solar light illumination, (b) EPR spectra of the Cu–TiO2-1.0 catalyst in the presence of air and CO2, (B) CO2 adsorption isotherm of TiO2 and Cu–TiO2-1.0 samples, (C) in situ FTIR spectra recorded in the presence of CO2 and H2O, (a) raw Cu–TiO2-1 sample (b) after 30 min in the dark, (c) after 30 min of light illumination and (d) after 50 min of light illumination, (D) comparison of the CH4 yield generated using different catalysts under simulated solar light, and (E) plausible reaction mechanism for CO2 conversion using Cu–TiO2-x. (reproduced from ref. 81 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2015).
Fig. 25(a) UV-vis DRS of different samples, (b) time profile for the generation of products, CO and H2 using 0.5 wt% Cu/TiO2 photocatalyst, and (c) by use of DFT, calculation of adsorption energy of H2 and CO on the Cu surface (reproduced from ref. 82 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2019).
Fig. 26(a) Comparison of photocatalytic CO2 conversion using different samples, (b) valence band and conduction band position in different samples, (c) schematic representation of photocatalytic CO2 conversion over Co-doped mesoporous ordered TiO2 (reproduced from ref. 85 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2015).
Fig. 27Valence band and conduction band of TiO2 nanoparticles determined using (a) UPS and (b) IPES spectra and (c) plot of Kubelka–Munk Function vs. energy derived from the UV-visible DRS spectrum of TiO2. The green line denotes the optical bandgap, whereas the red line shows Urbach's tail. (d) Schematic representation of the electronic structure of TiO2 in combination with a suggested diagram for photocatalytic CO2 conversion. The blue region shows the presence of extended localized states within the bandgap resulting in the absorption in the visible region (reproduced from ref. 86 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2015).
Fig. 28(a) Comparison of the yield of CO produced by photocatalytic CO2 conversion using SnS2/TiO2–B under simulated solar light and visible light and (b) schematic for the Z-scheme mechanism of separation of photogenerated charge carriers (reproduced from ref. 87 with permission from MDPI, copyright 2019).