4.6 Article

Where Do Photogenerated Holes Go in Anatase:Rutile TiO2? A Transient Absorption Spectroscopy Study of Charge Transfer and Lifetime

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 715-723

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b11567

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ramsay Memorial Fellowships Trust [291482]
  2. ERC [291482]
  3. EPSRC [EP/J002305/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J002305/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anatase:rutile TiO2 junctions are often shown to be more photocatalytically active than anatase or rutile alone, but the underlying cause of this improvement is not fully understood. Herein, we employ transient absorption spectroscopy to study hole transfer across the anatase:rutile heterojunction in films as a function of phase composition. By exploiting the different signatures in the photoinduced absorption of trapped charges in anatase and rutile, we were able to separately track the yield and lifetime of holes in anatase and rutile sites within phase composites. Photogenerated holes transfer from rutile to anatase on submicrosecond time scales. This hole transfer can significantly increase the anatase hole yield, with a 20:80 anatase:rutile composite showing a 5-fold increase in anatase holes observed from the microsecond. Hole transfer does not result in an increase in charge-carrier lifetime, where an intermediate recombination dynamic between that of pure anatase (t(1/2) approximate to 0.5 ms) and rutile (t(1/2) approximate to 20 ms) is found in the anatase:rutile junction (412 approximate to 4 ms). Irrespective of what the formal band energy alignment may be, we demonstrate the importance of trap-state energetics for determining the direction of photogenerated charge separation across heterojunctions and how transient absorption spectroscopy, a method that can specifically track the migration of trapped charges, is a useful tool for understanding this behavior.

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