Photoresponse of Visible Light Active CM-n-TiO₂, HM-n-TiO₂, CM-n-Fe₂O₃, and CM-p-WO₃ towards Water Splitting Reaction

Table 1

Maximum photoconversion efficiencies (%) under Xenon lamp light and actual natural sunlight illumination conditions for reference electric oven-made (n-TiO₂), flame-made, and spray-flame-made CM-n-TiO₂ samples and their bandgap and mid-gap Energies [21–23].

Titanium Oxide,TiO2 samples	%𝜀photo(total)				Bandgap energies
	Under white light illumination from Xenon lamp light	Under monochromatic light illuminations from Xenon lamp		Under monochromatic actual natural sunlight illuminations (integrated from 300 nm present in sunlight)	Bandgap energy (eV)	Mid-gap energy (eV)
		Integrated from 250 nm	Integrated from 300 nm
Oven-made (sample 1)	1.2%	0.94%	0.84%	0.67%	2.9	None
Flame made (sample 2)	9.08%	8.86%	7.62%	5.63%	2.65	1.6
Flame made on grooved Ti surface (sample 3)	11.31%	11.16%	8.41%	7.62%	2.65	1.6
Spray pyrolysis and Flame made (sample 4)	14.04%	13.79%	12.89%	12.26%	2.65	1.4