Interfacial band alignment for photocatalytic charge separation in TiO<sub>2</sub>nanotube arrays coated with CuPt nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n-Type anatase-phase one-dimensional TiO2 nanostructure arrays coated with nanoparticles of Cu or CuPt have emerged as high performance photocatalysts for both photooxidation and photoreduction. The properties of the catalyst-promoter interface are recognized to be critical to this high performance but are largely unknown. Using X-ray and ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopies (XPS/UPS), we probed the electronic properties of the CuPt-TiO2 interface in transparent TiO2 nanotube arrays (TTNTAs) coated with photodeposited CuPt nanoparticles (CuPt-TTNTA hybrids) as well as those coated with sputtered CuPt (Sput-CuPt-TTNTA hybrids). XPS and UPS spectra provided the evidence of a Schottky barrier with a band-bending of 0.49-0.67 eV at the CuPt-TiO2 interface in CuPt-TTNTA hybrids due to which photoexcited electrons are expected to be retained in the TiO2 while photoexcited holes will be collected by the CuPt nanoparticles. For Sput-CuPt-TTNTA hybrids, no such band-bending was observed. These results point to the importance of the metal nanoparticle preparation technique on interfacial band-alignments and challenge the conventional understanding of the promoting action of noble metal nanoparticles on TiO2 photocatalysts as sinks for photoexcited electrons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".