Oxynitride from Oxide versus Nitride: Manifesting Competitive and Synergistic Properties in Titanium Oxynitride for Solar‐Driven Water Splitting and Nitrogen Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the phase formation of the titanium oxynitride (TiO x N y ) system using the “oxide‐to‐oxynitride” and “nitride‐to‐oxynitride” synthesis strategies. The XRD patterns of both the materials show peaks corresponding to Ti–N and Ti–O lattices, confirming the formation of Ti–oxynitride system. Accordingly, the presence of Ti 3+ –N 3− and Ti 4+ –2O 2− signals is also confirmed by XPS analysis. The TiO x N y derived from oxide (TO‐TON) exhibits wide visible light absorption with a narrow‐bandgap energy of ≈2.30 eV, while the nitride‐derived–TiO x N y (TN‐TON) exhibits relatively a wide‐bandgap energy (≈2.92 eV) along with the plasmonic band of TiN. In line with this, an enhanced recombination resistance and charge carriers with extended lifetime are observed for TN‐TON (4.47 ns) and TO‐TON (4.33 ns) systems via photoluminescence and time‐resolved photoluminescence analysis. Consequently, the TN‐TON system demonstrates a superior H 2 /NH 3 production at a rate of ≈1432/646 μmol g −1 h −1 under solar irradiation, while it is ≈1136/553 μmol g −1 h −1 for the TO‐TON system. These efficiencies are ≈20× and 3× times higher than the bare TiN and TiO 2 , respectively, toward H 2 /NH 3 production. The insights from this study demonstrate that the nitride‐ and oxide‐based precursors likely manifest synergistic and competitive properties, respectively, in the resulting oxynitride system.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".