4.6 Review

Curious behaviors of photogenerated electrons and holes at the defects on anatase, rutile, and brookite TiO2 powders: A review

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochemrev.2018.12.001

Keywords

TiO2 photocatalysts; Photodynamics; Recombination; Defects; Charge trapping

Funding

  1. PRESTO/JST program Chemical Conversion of Light Energy
  2. Strategic Research Infrastructure Project of MEXT
  3. Cooperative Research Program of Institute for Catalysis, Hokkaido University [17A1001]
  4. [16H04188]
  5. [16H00852]
  6. [17H05491]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Photocatalytic reactions are governed by photogenerated charge carriers upon band gap excitation. Therefore, for better understanding of the mechanism, the dynamics of photocarriers should be studied. One of the attractive materials is TiO2, which has been extensively investigated in the field of photocatalysis. This review article summarizes our recent works of time-resolved visible to mid-IR absorption measurements to elucidate the difference of anatase, rutile, and brookite TiO2 powders. The distinctive photocatalytic activities of these polymorphs are determined by the electron-trapping processes at the defects on powders. Powders are rich in defects and these defects capture photogenerated electrons. The depth of the trap is crystal phase dependent, and they are estimated to be < 0.1 eV, similar to 0.4 eV and similar to 0.9 eV for anatase, brookite, and rutile, respectively. Electron trapping reduces probability to meet with holes and then elongate the lifetime of holes. Therefore, it works negatively for the reaction of electrons but positively works for the reaction of holes. In the steady-state reactions, both electrons and holes should be consumed. Hence, the balance between the positive and negative effects of defects determines the distinctive photocatalytic activities of anatase, rutile, and brookite TiO2 powders. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available