4.4 Article

XPS Characterization of TiO2 Nanotubes Growth on the Surface of the Ti15Zr15Mo Alloy for Biomedical Applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL BIOMATERIALS
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jfb14070353

关键词

titanium alloy; anodization; TiO2 nanotubes; XPS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the possibility of using anodization to obtain TiO2 nanotubes was evaluated, and the surface chemical composition was determined using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The results showed that the anodization process resulted in nanotubes with larger diameters and thicknesses, and the oxide layer contained different oxidation states of Ti, Zr, and Mo elements.
Ti15Zr15Mo (TMZ alloy) has been studied in recent years for biomedical applications, mainly due to phase beta formation. From the surface modification, it is possible to associate the volume and surface properties with a better biomedical response. This study aimed to evaluate the possibility of using anodization to obtain TiO2 nanotubes due to the presence of valve-type metal (Zr) in their composition. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed to determine the surface chemical composition in both after-processing conditions (passive layer) and after-processing plus anodization (TiO2 nanotube growth). The anodization resulted in nanotubes with diameters and thicknesses of 126 & PLUSMN; 35 and 1294 & PLUSMN; 193 nm, respectively, and predominated anatase phase. Compared to the passive layer of titanium, which is less than similar to 10 nm, the oxide layer formed was continuous and thicker. High-resolution spectra revealed that the oxide layer of the element alloys contained different oxidation states. The major phase in all depths for the nanotube samples was TiO2. While the stable form of each oxide was found to predominate on the surface, the inner part of the oxide layer consisted of suboxides and metallic forms. This composition included different oxidation states of the substrate elements Ti, Zr, and Mo.

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

4.4
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