Response to the Comments by Ernesto Paparazzo
- PDF / 142,801 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 54 Downloads / 195 Views
RESPONSE
Response to the Comments by Ernesto Paparazzo Xiaojun Sun • Hui Liu
Received: 7 October 2010 / Accepted: 12 October 2010 / Published online: 26 October 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract A response to the comment on our work ‘‘Preparation and Characterization of Ce/N-Codoped TiO2 Particles for Production of H2 by Photocatalytic Splitting Water Under Visible Light’’ presented by Ernesto Paparazzo has been made, in which we agree with the points about the XPS analysis and interpretation of Ce3d spectra. Based on these points, we have corrected the section on XPS analysis in our paper. Keywords
XPS Ce3d spectra Cerium oxides
In the comment on ‘‘Preparation and Characterization of Ce/N-Codoped TiO2 Particles for Production of H2 by Photocatalytic SplittingWater Under Visible Light’’, Paparazzo mainly focuses on our interpretation of the Ce3d XPS spectra of the Ce–N–TiO2 sample and suggests that we give new possible explanations. In our published paper [1], we used common XPS software for peak fittings and neglected the complicated chemical nature of the cerium compound(s) involved. Regrettably, this led us to make unreasonable claims that both Ce3d XPS spectra contained two spin–orbit-split (5/2;3/2) peak pairs, deriving from tetravalent and trivalent cerium oxidic species [1]. Based on the theoretical calculations and experimental results, it is confirmed that the Ce3d XPS spectra are complicated [2, 3], as was discussed by Paparazzo in the comment. The Ce3d XPS spectra of
X. Sun (&) H. Liu School of Chemistry & Environmental Engineering, Harbin University of Science and Technology, No. 52, Xuefu Road, Nangang District, Harbin 150040, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China e-mail: [email protected]
Ce2O3 and CeO2 can display four and six peaks, respectively. The XPS peak at about 916.5 eV is characteristic of Ce4? and the peaks at about 885 and 904 eV are attributed to Ce3? oxide [4]. Thus, it is concluded that there should be only Ce3? present. The phenomenon that the DSO(0) values of the as-prepared sample were more than 2 eV smaller than those of DSO(0) measured in the reference compounds (which involve trivalent cerium and tetravalent cerium) [5] possibly results from the fact that the O2p and N2p affect the chemical surrounding of Ce ions at the same time. In addition, since fluorine-bearing compounds were not at all involved in our experiments, it is expected that the ‘‘inverted’’ XPS spectra in Fig. 7b with respect to that in Fig. 7a [1] is attributed to the irradiation treatment by which the surface morphology of the material is changed, further producing surface charging phenomena so severe that they ‘‘distort’’ the Ce3d spectral profile [6] and further affect corresponding binding energy positions. For the above reasons, we are correcting the section of XPS analysis in our paper published in Catal Lett [1]. The correction is as follows. Figure 7a [1] is re-drawn and the corrected version shown in Fig. 1. Four Ce3d peaks at about 882.1, 885.0, 898.2 and 904.1 e
Data Loading...
