Influence of Measurement Conditions on Electron Diffusion in Nanoporous TiO2 Films: Effects of Bias Light and Dye Adsorption

Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Volumn 107, Issue 51, 2003, Pages 14244-14248

  Nakade, S ^a   Kubo, W ^b   Saito, Y ^b   Kanzaki, T ^b   Kitamura, T ^b   Wada, Y ^b   Yanagida, S ^b  

^a Nokia Japan   (Japan)

^b OSAKA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTION; DIFFUSION; DYES; ELECTROLYTES; ELECTRONS; IRRADIATION; NEODYMIUM LASERS; POROSITY; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION;

ELECTRON DIFFUSION; SURFACE ADSORPTION;

THIN FILMS;

EID: 0345803811     PISSN: 15206106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp035483i     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Södergren, S.; Hagfeldt, A.; Olsson, J.; Lindquist, S.-E. J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, 5552.
2. Cao, F.; Oskam, G.; Meyer, G. J.; Searson, P. C. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 17021.
3. van de Lagemaat, J.; Park, N.-G.; Frank, A. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 2044.
4. Solbrand, A.; Lindström, H.; Rensmo, H.; Hagfeldt, A.; Lindquist, S.-E. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 2514.
5. Solbrand, A.; Henningsson, A.; Södergren, S.; Lindström, H.; Hagfeldt, A.; Lindquist, S.-E. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 1078.
6. Dlocik, L.; Ileperuma, O.; Lauermann, I.; Peter, L. M.; Ponomarev, E. A. ; Redmond, G.; Shaw, N. J.; Uhlendorf, I. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 10281.
7. Nelson, J. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 15374, Nelson, J.; Haque, S. A.; Klug, R. D.; Durant, J. R. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 205321.
8. Nelson, J. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 15374, Nelson, J.; Haque, S. A.; Klug, R. D.; Durant, J. R. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 205321.
9. Vanmaekelbergh, D.; de Jongh, P. E. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 747.
10. van de Lagemaat, J.; Frank, A. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 11194.
11. Anta. J. A.; Nelson, J.; Quirke, N. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 65, 125324.
12. Schwarzburg, K.; Willing, F. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 5743.
13. van der Zanden, B.; Goossens, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 7171.
14. Kopidakis, N.; Schiff, E. A.; Park, N.-G.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Frank, A. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 3930.
15. Duffy, N. W.; Peter, L. M.; Wijayantha, K. G. U. Electrochem. Commun. 2000, 2, 262.
16. Nakade, S.; Kambe, S.; Kitamura, T.; Wada, Y.; Yanagida, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 9150.
17. Nakade, S.; Matsuda, M.; Kambe, S.; Saito, Y.; Kitamura, T.; Sakata, T.; Wada, Y.; Mori, H.; Yanagida, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 10004.
18. Nakade, S.; Saito, Y.; Kubo, W.; Kitamura, T.; Wada, Y.; Yanagida, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 8607.
19. 2/6t. However, uncertainty still remains how the potential drop at the interface influences the concentration gradient and current transients.
20. sc for optical bias measurement.
21. Diffusion coefficients in the electrolyte filled nanoporous films can be interpreted with ambipolar diffusion, where the measured diffusion coefficients are related with diffusion coefficients and concentrations of negative and positive charges (see refs 13, 15, and 30). For the condition of the large concentration difference between the charges, the measured diffusion coefficient is approximated to the diffusion coefficients of minority carriers. Since the electron density examined here is a few orders of magnitude lower than that of cations, we assume the measured diffusion coefficients represents the electron diffusion coefficients.
22. Ferber, J.; Luther, J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 4895.
23. Park, N.-G.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Frank, A. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 8989.
24. To remedy this, using thicker films would be better because it would provide the condition that electrons could spend more time in similar environments during the travel to the TCO.
25. Cass, M. J.; Qiu, F. L.; Walker, A. B.; Fisher, A. C.; Peter, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 113.
26. We would like to note that the fitting results in Figure 1 do not guarantee that measurements without bias light can always provide comparable results with that with bias light. For example, if a UV pulse were applied on very thick films, the spatial distribution of electron density would be too large to be approximated by a constant D. Another nonapplicable case would be when the electron density in the film is too high comparing with cation concentration. For the case, D is more sensitive to the electron density so that rather small spatial distribution of electron density can disturb the current transients largely from simple diffusion limited transients. Distorted transients found in refs 4, 5, and 15 are probably explained by the reasons noted above.
27. Zubavichus, Y. Z.; Slovokhotov, Y. L.; Nazzruddin, M. K.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Grätzel, M.; Shklover, V. Chem. Mater. 2002, 14, 3556.
28. Wang, H.; He, J.; Boschloo, G.; Lindström, H.; Hagfeldt, A.; Lindquist, S.-E. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 2529.
29. Westermark, K.; Henningsson, A.; Rensmo, H.; Södergren, S.; Siegbahn, H.; Hagfeldt, A. Chem. Phys. 2002, 285, 157.
30. Nakade, S.; Saito, Y.; Kubo, W.; Kanzaki, T.; Kitamura, T.; Wada, Y.; Yanagida, S. Electrochem. Commun. 2003, 5, 804.
31. Kambe, S.; Nakade, S.; Kitamura, T.; Wada, Y.; Yanagida, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 2967.
32. 2 film assessments in comparison but not for accurate values in DSC.