4.8 Article

Enhancement of the Solar Water Splitting Efficiency Mediated by Surface Segregation in Ti-Doped Hematite Nanorods

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 15, 期 22, 页码 26593-26605

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.3c02131

关键词

hematite photoanodes; solar water splitting; surface states; oxygen vacancies; spectromicroscopy; soft X-ray ptychography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By annealing Ti-doped hematite photoanodes under nitrogen, a strongly enhanced photocurrent of more than 200% was achieved, which can be attributed to the oxidized surface states and increased density of charge carriers.
Band engineering is employed thoroughly and targets technologicallyscalable photoanodes for solar water splitting applications. Complexand costly recipes are necessary, often for average performances.Here, we report simple photoanode growth and thermal annealing witheffective band engineering results. By comparing Ti-doped hematitephotoanodes annealed under nitrogen to photoanodes annealed in air,we found a strongly enhanced photocurrent of more than 200% in thefirst case. Using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and synchrotronX-ray spectromicroscopy, we demonstrate that oxidized surface statesand increased density of charge carriers are responsible for the enhancedphotoelectrochemical (PEC) activity. Surface states are found to berelated to the formation of pseudo-brookite clusters by surface Tisegregation. Spectro-ptychography is used for the first time at theTi L-3 absorption edge to isolate Ti chemical coordinationarising from pseudo-brookite cluster contribution. Correlated withelectron microscopy investigation and density functional theory calculations,the synchrotron spectromicroscopy data unambiguously prove the originof enhanced PEC activity of N-2-annealed Ti-doped hematitenanorods. Finally, we present here a handy and cheap surface engineeringmethod beyond the known oxygen vacancy doping, allowing a net gainin the PEC activity for the hematite-based photoanodes.

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

4.8
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