A compendium and meta-analysis of flatband potentials for TiO2, ZnO, and SnO2 semiconductors in aqueous media
Semiconductor/electrolyte interfaces are of great interest to numerous scientific fields including renewable energy, (photo)electrochemistry, and energy storage. The semiconductor flatband potential is a key parameter in locating the conduction band minimum or valence band maximum of the semiconductor material in electrolyte. Despite its importance for quantifying the energetic location of the semiconductor bands, literature reports for the same material demonstrate significant variability in the flatband potential. In this compendium and meta-analysis, reported flatband potentials of the common semiconductor materials TiO2, SnO2, and ZnO in aqueous electrolyte were compiled and assessed to quantify the spread in literature flatband potentials as well as determine the factors that lead to the significant spread. For TiO2, SnO2, and ZnO, literature flatband potentials referenced to the reversible hydrogen electrode span a range of nearly 2 V each. Flatband potential tabulations were separated by variables such as the solution pH, the crystalline polymorph, the crystal facet, the morphology, and the dimensions or combinations of these variables to assess the factors that contribute to the observed spread. Important and surprising findings from these categorizations are summarized: (1) Even for the narrowest categorizations, the spread in flatband potential is still large. (2) Flatband potentials of TiO2 and SnO2 follow the expected Nernstian dependence with solution pH. ZnO materials deviate from this Nernstian dependence. (3) In the aggregate, there is no statistically significant difference in the reported flatband potentials of anatase and rutile TiO2. Single crystal tabulations were the only distributions to have statistically significant differences in the flatband potential between anatase and rutile TiO2. (4) Anatase TiO2 materials with a nanotube morphology appear to have a +400 mV difference in mean flatband potential compared to all other morphologies, but we argue that this is likely due to widespread misuse of the Mott–Schottky analysis. Other interesting findings are revealed within the spread of literature flatband potentials, and possible explanations are provided to generate discussion. We also briefly review and discuss common techniques that were used to determine the flatband potential and the pitfalls/criticisms of these techniques. Last, we discuss some ways in which future research on the determination of the flatband potential can be performed to improve the reliability of reported values and the quality of the work. In total, the results from this meta-analysis suggest multiple factors can affect the measured flatband potential and that an abundance of caution should be applied when attempting to quantify the flatband potential of complex or nanostructured systems.