Characterization of the Microstructure and Photoelectrical Properties of TiO2-SrTiO3 and TiO2-CeO2 Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microstructure, optical absorption and photocurrent response of TiO 2 -SrTiO 3 and TiO 2 -CeO 2 nanostructured composites based on the design of coating the surfaces of anodized TiO 2 nanotube arrays with large band gap SrTiO 3 or small band gap CeO 2 nanoparticles have been investigated in this study. The nanocomposites were fabricated by a combination of anodization, hydrothermal and post-annealing methods. The UV-visible and ultraviolet photoelectron spectra of the structural components were measured in order to determine the electronic band structures of the TiO 2 -SrTiO 3 and TiO 2 -CeO 2 heterojunctions. These heterojunctions are designed to promote the separation of photoinduced charge carriers when the nanocomposites are adopted in photocatalytic or photoelectrode applications. The TiO 2 -SrTiO 3 and TiO 2 -CeO 2 heterojunctions were confirmed to possess large conduction and valence band offsets, promoting the separation of photoinduced electron and hole (e – /h + ) pairs. The photocurrent densities of the TiO 2 -SrTiO 3 and TiO 2 -CeO 2 nanocomposites were about 15–40% larger than that of the anatase TiO 2 nanotube arrays. The size and crystallinity of the SrTiO 3 and CeO 2 nanoparticles, which could be controlled by the hydrothermal and annealing conditions, and the concentration of oxygen vacancies within the TiO 2 nanotube arrays were identified to be the key factors influencing the photocurrent response of the nanocomposites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".