Table 2. Information from the Comparison of Contours Resulting from SE-DRS and RDB-PAS.
| titaniaa | crystalb | bandgap energy (eV) | SE-DRS (V vs SHE) | ΔEc (V vs SHE) | correction (1)d | correction (2)e | correction (3)f | ΔEcorr (V vs SHE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TIO-3 | R | 2.98 | –0.88 | 2.10 | –0.15 | 0 | 1.95 | |
| (T)TR | R | 2.96 | –0.92 | 2.04 | –0.15 | 0 | 1.89 | |
| MT-150A | R | 3.02 | –0.85 | 2.17 | –0.15 | 0 | –0.10 | 1.92 |
| TIO-6 | R | 3.02 | –0.60 | 2.42 | –0.15 | 0 | –0.10 | 2.17 |
| TIO-13 | A | 3.19 | –0.91 | 2.28 | –0.15 | 0 | 2.13 | |
| TIO-1 | A | 3.20 | –0.62 | 2.58 | –0.15 | 0 | 2.43 | |
| TIO-2 | A | 3.14 | –0.90 | 2.24 | –0.15 | 0 | 2.09 | |
| ST-01 | A | 3.17 | –0.68 | 2.49 | –0.15 | 0 | –0.20 | 2.14 |
| (T)AK-1 | A | 3.17 | –0.81 | 2.36 | –0.15 | 0 | –0.10 | 2.11 |
| CR-EL | R/a | 2.97 | –1.15 | 1.82 | –0.15 | 0.20 | 1.87 | |
| ST-G2 | R/a | 2.95 | –1.04 | 1.91 | –0.15 | 0.20 | 1.96 | |
| TIO-5 | R/a | 2.96 | –1.06 | 1.90 | –0.15 | 0.20 | 1.95 | |
| ST-F1 | A/r | 3.02 | –1.08 | 1.94 | –0.15 | 0.20 | 1.99 | |
| TIO-11 | A/r | 3.14 | –1.00 | 2.14 | –0.15 | 0.20 | –0.10 | 2.09 |
| P25 | A/r | 3.05 | –1.46 | 1.59 | –0.15 | 0.20 | 1.64 | |
| ST-F5 | A/r | 3.17 | –0.75 | 2.42 | –0.15 | 0.20 | –0.10 | 2.37 |
| 2.02h |
a
(T), Tronox.
b
R, rutile (major); A, anatase (major); r, rutile (minor); and a, anatase (minor).
c
Potential of VBT calculated as (bandgap energy) + (SE-DRS).
d
Correction for overestimation of CBB position by VBT and high DOS part (= –0.15 eV) in RDB-PAS measurement.
e
Correction for underestimation of CBB position by interfacial charge-transfer excitation (ICTE) in anatase-rutile mixture (= 0.20 eV) in RDB-PAS measurement.
f
Correction for widened band gap due to surface amorphasization (= ∼–0.10 eV) in RDB-PAS measurement.
g
Average of ΔEcorr values.