4.7 Article

Controllable One-Step Synthesis of Mixed-Phase TiO2 Nanocrystals with Equivalent Anatase/Rutile Ratio for Enhanced Photocatalytic Performance

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano11051347

关键词

TiO2 nanocrystals; photocatalytic degradation; mixed crystal phase; hybrid structure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51502092]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [JKD01211601,222201718002]
  3. Thousand Talents Program Young Project in China
  4. Program for Eastern Scholar at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning [TP2015028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, mixed-phase TiO2 nanocrystals with nearly equivalent anatase/rutile ratio were successfully fabricated at a relatively low temperature of 80 degrees C using a facile one-step condensing reflux method. The photocatalytic water splitting hydrogen production performance of these nanocrystals is comparable to that of commercial TiO2 (P25), while their photocatalytic degradation performance is about four times higher than P25, which is attributed to the energy-level staggered interfaces and surface bridged hydroxyl groups caused by the anatase/rutile mixed-phase crystal structure and high specific surface area.
In this study, the novel mixed-phase TiO2 nanocrystals (s-TiO2) with nearly equivalent anatase/rutile ratio were fabricated in the reagent of sec-butanol at the relatively low temperature of 80 degrees C by using a facile one-step condensing reflux method. The photocatalytic water splitting hydrogen production performance of s-TiO2 nanocrystals is close to that of commercial TiO2 (P25), and its photocatalytic degradation performance is about four times that of P25. The energy-level staggered interfaces and surface bridged hydroxyl groups significantly increased due to the anatase/rutile mixed-phase crystal structure and high specific surface area, which might generate the synergistic effect for the improvement of photocatalytic degradation.

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

4.7
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