4.7 Article

Photoelectrical and charge transfer properties of hydrogen-evolving TiO2 nanotube arrays electrodes annealed in different gases

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 4732-4738

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.071

Keywords

Hydrogen production; TiO2 nanotube arrays; Defect density; Charge carrier; Charge transfer

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50806003]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [3093018]
  3. China National key Basic Research Special Funds [2009CB220006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

TiO2 nanotube arrays were fabricated by sonoelectrochemical anodic oxidation and calcined in nitrogen, air, or 5% hydrogen/nitrogen which was denoted as TNT-A, TNT-N, and TNT-H, respectively. All annealed TiO2 nanotube arrays samples exhibited similar surface morphology. With UV illumination (365 +/- 15 nm), the photocurrent density of the TNT-A, TNT-N and TNT-H was about 0.27 mA/cm(2), 0.45 mA/cm(2) and 0.60 mA/cm(2), respectively. The trapped electron at the Ti4+ center of TiO2 nanotube arrays shows absorption at around 500-700 nm. From the XPS measurement, it was found that annealing in 5% hydrogen/nitrogen helped the sample obtain a greater defect density. Because of the reduction of Ti4+ and the formation of oxygen vacancies, the charge transfer resistance appeared in this order: TNT-A > TNT-N > TNT-H. Thus TNT-H harvested the greatest charge carrier density of 9.86 x 10(20) cm(-3), TNT-N and TNT-A obtained a charge carrier density of 1.38 x 10(20) cm(-3) and 1.06 x 10(20) cm(-3), respectively. Accordingly, the hydrogen production rate by water splitting over TNT-A, TNT-N and TNT-H (320-780 nm irradiation, 3 h) was about 120 mu L/h cm(2), 159 mu L/h cm(2) and 231 mu L/h cm(2), respectively. Copyright (C) 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available