Enhancing photoelectrochemical water splitting performance of TiO 2 nanotube arrays by controlling morphological properties
Source abstract
Abstract
Anodic TiO2 nanotube (TONT) with various morphological features was developed by simple electrochemical anodization in the variation of applied voltage where the morphological properties such as pore diameter, wall thickness, and inter-tube spacing can be adjusted to survey the influence on the photoelectrochemical (PEC) activity. Thus, in the applied voltage from 20 V to 60 V at different reaction times, the identical thickness of 3.0 ± 0.2 µm was maintained. From the field-emission scanning electron microscopy, the geometric factors were compared and the porosity of TONT films was calculated. The results demonstrated that the porosity of TONT film grown at 20 V (denoted as 20 V) is the highest and that the porosity steadily reduced with increasing applied voltage. On the basis of these geometric factors, the PEC performance of TONT film (20 V) shows the highest photocurrent of 1.64 mA/cm2 at 0 V vs. Ag/AgCl. This was attributed to the lowest series resistance due to the high porosity for the hole or ions pathway and to the high crystallite size for the beneficial charge transport. On the other hand, TONT films (above 40 V) exhibit a similar photocurrent with high series resistance for opposite reasons.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: TiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells · Advanced Photocatalysis Techniques · Anodic Oxide Films and Nanostructures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (14)
Show source-provided references
1. S. H. Kang, J.-W. Lim, H. S. Kim, and Y.-E. Sung, Chem. Mater. 21, 2777 (2009).10.1021/cm900378c ↗
2. E. Hendry, M. Koeberg, B. O’Regan, and M. Bonn, Nano Lett. 6, 755 (2006).10.1021/nl0600225 ↗
3. S. Hoang, S. Guo, N. T. Hahn, A. J. Bard, and B. Mullins, Nano Lett. 12, 26 (2012).10.1021/nl2028188 ↗
4. K.-J. Noh, B.-R. Kim, G.-J. Yoon, S.-C. Jung, W. Kang, and S.-J. Kim, Electron. Mater. Lett. 8, 345 (2012).10.1007/s13391-012-2007-0 ↗
5. Y. J. Hwang, C. Hahn, B. Liu, and P. Yang, ACS Nano 6, 5060 (2012).10.1021/nn300679d ↗
6. C. Liu, Z. Liu, Y. Li, J. Ya, and X. Chen, Electron. Mater. Lett. 8, 481 (2012).10.1007/s13391-012-2048-4 ↗
7. G. K. Mor, O. K. Varghese, and C. A. Grimes, J. Mater. Res. 19, 2989 (2004).10.1557/JMR.2004.0370 ↗
8. S. Liang, J. He, Z. Sun, Y. Jiang, and S. Wei, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 9049 (2012).10.1021/jp300552s ↗
9. X. Jia, W. He, W. Yang, H. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Mater. Lett. 62, 1896 (2008).10.1016/j.matlet.2007.10.034 ↗
10. K. Zhu, N. R. Neale, and A. J. Frank, Nano Lett. 7, 69 (2007).10.1021/nl062000o ↗
11. P. Scherrer, Math.-Physikal. Kl. 2, 98 (1918).
12. A. Wolcott, W. A. Smith, Y. Zhao, and J. Z. Zhang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 19, 1849 (2009).10.1002/adfm.200801363 ↗
13. M. G. Walter, E. L. Warren, and N. S. Lewis, Chem. Rev. 110, 6446 (2010).10.1021/cr1002326 ↗
14. V. Spagnol, E. Shtter, and B. Baroux, Electrochim. Acta 54, 1228 (2009).10.1016/j.electacta.2008.08.070 ↗