4.6 Article

Reduced and n-Type Doped TiO2: Nature of Ti3+ Species

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 113, 期 48, 页码 20543-20552

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp9061797

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-05ER15702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defect states in reduced and n-type doped titania are of fundamental importance in several technologically important applications. Still, the exact nature of these states, often referred to as Ti3+ centers, is largely unclear and a matter of debate. The problem is complicated by the fact that electronic structure calculations based on density functional theory (DFT) in the local density approximation (LDA) or semilocal generalized gradient approximation (GGA) provide results that do not account for many of the experimentally observed fingerprints of the formation of Ti3+ centers in reduced TiO2. Here, we investigate the properties of at least four different types of Ti3+ centers in bulk anatase, (1) 6-fold-coordinated Ti-6c(3+) ions introduced by F- or Nb-doping, (2) Ti-6c(3+)-OH species associated with H-doping, (3) undercoordinated Ti-5c(3+) species associated with oxygen vacancies, and (4) interstitial Ti-5c(3+) species. The characterization of these different kinds of Ti3+ centers is based on DFr+U and/or hybrid functional calculations, which are known to (partially) correct the self-interaction error of local and semilocal DFr functionals. We found that strongly localized solutions where an excess electron is on a single Ti3+ ion are very close in energy and sometimes degenerate with partly or highly delocalizcd Solutions where the extra charge is distributed over several Ti ions. The defect states corresponding to these different Solutions lie at different energies in the band gap of the material. This has important implications for the conductivity mechanism in reduced or n-type doped titania and suggests a significant role of' temperature in determining the degree of localization of the trapped charge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据