4.7 Article

The effect of TiO2 nanotube morphological engineering and ZnS quantum dots on the water splitting reaction: A theoretical and experimental study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 43, 期 14, 页码 6838-6850

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.113

关键词

TiO2 nanotubes; Morphology control; Water splitting; Rietveld refinement; Materials modelling

资金

  1. Brazilian research funding institution CNPq [427161/2016-9]
  2. Brazilian research funding institution CAPES
  3. Brazilian research funding institution FAPESP [2010/05555-2, 2012/06778-0, 2012/22823-6]
  4. Brazilian research funding institution FAPEMAT [214599/2015]
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/05555-2] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ordered arrays of TiO2 nanotubes with smooth and rippled morphologies were prepared by one-step titanium oxidation in NH4F and ethylene glycol solution. The samples were then decorated with ZnS using a microwave-assisted solvothermal method. The experiments under constant or pulsed applied voltage resulted in smooth and rippled TiO2 material morphologies, respectively. Field emission scanning electron microscopy, incident photon-to-current efficiency, linear sweep voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy were used to investigate the structure and morphology of the TiO2 nanotubes, along with their photoelectrochemical activity in the water splitting reaction. An envelope function was proposed to correlate the anisotropic morphologies and broad distribution of mobility due to the random nature of charge carrier transport. The smooth and rippled morphologies were evaluated using the transmission line model. First-principles quantum mechanical calculations based on the density functional theory at the B3LYP level are conducted to obtain a better understanding of optical properties of TiO2. (C) 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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