Abstract
The photoelectrochemical behaviour of donor-doped BaTiO 3 ceramic anodes has been investigated in comparison with that of H 2-reduced BaTiO 3 and SrTiO 3. Donor-doped BaTiO 3 has response to visible light without mechanical polishing and is unaffected by chemical etching or etching followed by polishing. H 2BaTiO 3 also has photoresponse in the visible; it is, however, modulated by mechanical polishing. Whereas, H 2SrTiO 3 has response in visible light, only on mechanical polishing. The visible photoresponse of BaTiO 3 is due to the mid-band gap states arising from lattice defects such as Ti 3+V O and Ba-vacancies. The differences between BaTiO 3 and SrTiO 3 is explained in terms of the changed characteristics of V Ba(Sr)-energy states.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
