Science China Materials

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 325–340 | Cite as

Recent advances in TiO2 nanoarrays/graphene for water treatment and energy conversion/storage

  • Yanhua Fan (范艳华)Email author
  • Guangwu Hu (胡光武)
  • Shuaiqin Yu (于帅芹)
  • Liqiang Mai (麦立强)Email author
  • Lin Xu (徐林)


Although TiO2-based nanostructures with unique chemical and physical properties exhibit great promise in water treatment and energy conversion/storage, there still exist some limitations. In order to further improve the photochemical properties, one-dimension (1D) TiO2 nanoarrays on the substrate are primarily combined with graphene by various preparation technologies. The composite coating has exhibited extraordinary photocatalytic abilities in the degradation of organic pollutants into less toxic compounds, antimicrobial activity and adsorption capacity in water treatment. Especially, it is easy to recycle after photocatalytic reaction. Additionally, TiO2 nanoarrays/graphene on the substrate (especially flexible substrate) could provide potential opportunities for flexible-device fabrication with excellent photovoltaic conversion efficiency and electrochemical performance in energy conversion/storage devices. As far as we know, the relevant reviews have rarely been reported. Here, we present a comprehensive review on the preparation of TiO2 nanoarrays or TiO2 nanoarrays/graphene, and their application and mechanism in water treatment and energy conversion/storage.


TiO2 nanoarrays graphene photocatalysis water treatment energy conversion/storage 



虽然TiO2基纳米材料具有独特的化学物理特性, 在水处理和能量转换与储存中展现出广阔的前景, 但仍然存在一些局限性. 为了进一步提高其光化学特性, 基于各种合成技术在基体表面制备一维的TiO2纳米阵列通常与石墨烯进行复合. 这种复合涂层具有优异的光催化性能以及优异的杀菌和吸附性能. 尤其是这种复合材料经过光催化处理后, 很容易回收再利用. 另外, 基体(尤其是柔性基体)表面的TiO2纳米阵列∕石墨烯复合涂层可以制备具有优异光电转化效率和光化学特性的柔性设备, 在能量转化和存储中具有潜在的应用价值.



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (51425204).


  1. 1.
    Chen J, Qiu F, Xu W, et al. Recent progress in enhancing photocatalytic efficiency of TiO2-based materials. Appl Catal AGeneral, 2015, 495: 131–140Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fotiou T, Triantis TM, Kaloudis T, et al. Photocatalytic degradation of microcystin-LR and off-odor compounds in water under UV-A and solar light with a nanostructured photocatalyst based on reduced graphene oxide–TiO2 composite. identification of intermediate products. Ind Eng Chem Res, 2013, 52: 13991–14000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tahir MS, Saleem M, Malik SR, et al. An innovative and advanced oxidation process for effluent treatment through wet tube-type electrostatic precipitation. Chem Eng Proc-Proc Intensif, 2012, 52: 16–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Mello Ferreira A, Marchesiello M, Thivel PX. Removal of copper, zinc and nickel present in natural water containing Ca2+ and ions by electrocoagulation. Sep Purif Tech, 2013, 107: 109–117Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centi G, Perathoner S, Torre T, et al. Catalytic wet oxidation with H2O2 of carboxylic acids on homogeneous and heterogeneous Fenton-type catalysts. Catal Today, 2000, 55: 61–69Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghosh P, Samanta AN, Ray S. Reduction of COD and removal of Zn2+ from rayon industry wastewater by combined electro-Fenton treatment and chemical precipitation. Desalination, 2011, 266: 213–217Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayodele OB, Hameed BH. Synthesis of copper pillared bentonite ferrioxalate catalyst for degradation of 4-nitrophenol in visible light assisted Fenton process. J Ind Eng Chem, 2013, 19: 966–974Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee SY, Park SJ. TiO2 photocatalyst for water treatment applications. J Industrial Eng Chem, 2013, 19: 1761–1769Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu H, Chen S, Quan X, Zhang Z. The mechanism. materials and reactors of photocatalytic disinfection in water and wastewater treatment. Prog Chem, 2017, 29(9): 1030–1041Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu WQ, Feng HL, Chen HY, et al. Recent advances in hierarchical three-dimensional titanium dioxide nanotree arrays for high-performance solar cells. J Mater Chem A, 2017, 5: 12699–12717Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou L, Zhang K, Hu Z, et al. Recent developments on and prospects for electrode materials with hierarchical structures for lithium-ion batteries. Adv Energy Mater, 2018, 8: 1701415Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar SG, Devi LG. Review on modified TiO2 photocatalysis under UV/visible light: selected results and related mechanisms on interfacial charge carrier transfer dynamics. J Phys Chem A, 2011, 115: 13211–13241Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inoue T, Fujishima A, Konishi S, et al. Photoelectrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide in aqueous suspensions of semiconductor powders. Nature, 1979, 277: 637–638Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park H, Park Y, Kim W, et al. Surface modification of TiO2 photocatalyst for environmental applications. J PhotoChem PhotoBiol C-PhotoChem Rev, 2013, 15: 1–20Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu X, Zhao X, Zhu Y, et al. Experimental and theoretical investigation into the elimination of organic pollutants from solution by layered double hydroxides. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2013, 140–141: 241–248Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang H, Lim CK, Tse MS, et al. SnO2 nanorod arrays: low temperature growth, surface modification and field emission properties. Nanoscale, 2012, 4: 1491–1496Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalanur SS, Hwang YJ, Chae SY, et al. Facile growth of aligned WO3 nanorods on FTO substrate for enhanced photoanodic water oxidation activity. J Mater Chem A, 2013, 1: 3479–3488Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang JH, Myung Y, Choi JW, et al. Nb2O5 nanowire photoanode sensitized by a composition-tuned CdSxSe1−x shell. J Mater Chem, 2012, 22: 8413–8419Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang J, Du N, Zhang H, et al. Large-scale synthesis of SnO2 nanotube arrays as high-performance anode materials of Li-Ion batteries. J Phys Chem C, 2011, 115: 11302–11305Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang P, Wang K, Liang Z, et al. Enhanced wettability performance of ultrathin ZnO nanotubes by coupling morphology and size effects. Nanoscale, 2012, 4: 5755–5760Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh P, Mondal K, Sharma A. Reusable electrospun mesoporous ZnO nanofiber mats for photocatalytic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon dyes in wastewater. J Colloid Interface Sci, 2013, 394: 208–215Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Y, Zhang HJ, Lim WX, et al. Designed strategy to fabricate a patterned V2O5 nanobelt array as a superior electrode for Li-ion batteries. J Mater Chem, 2011, 21: 2362–2368Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wei Q, Xiong F, Tan S, et al. Porous one-dimensional nanomaterials: design, fabrication and applications in electrochemical energy storage. Adv Mater, 2017, 29: 1602300Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhong P, Chen X, Xi H, et al. Freeze drying as a novel approach to improve charge transport in titanium dioxide nanorod arrays. ChemElectroChem, 2017, 4: 2783–2787Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou W, Liu H, Boughton RI, et al. One-dimensional singlecrystalline Ti–O based nanostructures: properties, synthesis, modifications and applications. J Mater Chem, 2010, 20: 5993Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joshi RK, Schneider JJ. Assembly of one dimensional inorganic nanostructures into functional 2D and 3D architectures. Synthesis, arrangement and functionality. Chem Soc Rev, 2012, 41: 5285Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang Q, Yodyingyong S, Xi J, et al. Oxidenanowires for solar cell applications. Nanoscale, 2012, 4: 1436–1445Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cai J, Ye J, Chen S, et al. Self-cleaning, broadband and quasiomnidirectional antireflective structures based on mesocrystalline rutile TiO2 nanorod arrays. Energy Environ Sci, 2012, 5: 7575–7581Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hochbaum AI, Yang P. Semiconductor nanowires for energy conversion. Chem Rev, 2010, 110: 527–546Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang H, Guo Z, Wang S, et al. One-dimensional titania nanostructures: Synthesis and applications in dye-sensitized solar cells. Thin Solid Films, 2014, 558: 1–19Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu L, Ruan S, Xu X, et al. One-dimensional nanomaterial-assembled macroscopic membranes for water treatment. Nano Today, 2017, 17: 79–95Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang G, Jiang Z, Shi H, et al. Preparation of highly visible-light active N-doped TiO2 photocatalyst. J Mater Chem, 2010, 20: 5301–5309Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ryu J, Choi W. Substrate-specific photocatalytic activities of TiO2 and multiactivity test for water treatment application. Environ Sci Technol, 2008, 42: 294–300Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martyanov IN, Uma S, Rodrigues S, et al. Structural defects cause TiO2-based photocatalysts to be active in visible light. Chem Commun, 2004, 21: 2476Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Etacheri V, Seery MK, Hinder SJ, et al. Oxygen rich titania: a dopant free, high temperature stable, and visible-light active anatase photocatalyst. Adv Funct Mater, 2011, 21: 3744–3752Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li K, Chen T, Yan L, et al. Design of graphene and silica co-doped titania composites with ordered mesostructure and their simulated sunlight photocatalytic performance towards atrazine degradation. Colloids Surfs A-Physicochem Eng Aspects, 2013, 422: 90–99Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jiang T, Zhang L, Ji M, et al. Carbon nanotubes/TiO2 nanotubes composite photocatalysts for efficient degradation of methyl orange dye. Particuology, 2013, 11: 737–742Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Woan K, Pyrgiotakis G, Sigmund W. Photocatalytic carbon-nanotube-TiO2 composites. Adv Mater, 2009, 21: 2233–2239Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, et al. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science, 2004, 306: 666–669Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Low FW, Lai CW. Recent developments of graphene-TiO2 composite nanomaterials as efficient photoelectrodes in dye-sensitized solar cells: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2018, 82: 103–125Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Karaolia P, Michael-Kordatou I, Hapeshi E, et al. Removal of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and their associated genes by graphene-based TiO2 composite photocatalysts under solar radiation in urban wastewaters. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2018, 224: 810–824Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ye T, Chen W, Xu H, et al. Preparation of TiO2/graphene composite with appropriate N-doping ratio for humic acid removal. J Mater Sci, 2018, 53: 613–625Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Formo E, Lee E, Campbell D, et al. Functionalization of electrospun TiO2 nanofibers with Pt nanoparticles and nanowires for catalytic applications. Nano Lett, 2008, 8: 668–672Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu H, Irie H, Shimodaira Y, et al. An efficient visible-light-sensitive Fe(III)-grafted TiO2 photocatalyst. J Phys Chem C, 2010, 114: 16481–16487Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ali Z, Aslam M, Ismail IMI, et al. Synthesis, characterization and photocatalytic activity of Al2O3-TiO2 based composites. J Environ Sci Health Part A, 2014, 49: 125–134Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duan M, Li J, Mele G, et al. Photocatalytic activity of novel tin porphyrin/TiO2 based composites. J Phys Chem C, 2010, 114: 7857–7862Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang P, Zhang X, Zhang S, et al. One-pot green synthesis, characterizations, and biosensor application of self-assembled reduced graphene oxide–gold nanoparticle hybrid membranes. J Mater Chem B, 2013, 1: 6525–6531Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang J, Ouyang Z, Ren Z, et al. Self-assembled peptide nanofibers on graphene oxide as a novel nanohybrid for biomimetic mineralization of hydroxyapatite. Carbon, 2015, 89: 20–30Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang H, Xu P, Du G, et al. A facile one-step synthesis of TiO2/ graphene composites for photodegradation of methyl orange. Nano Res, 2011, 4: 274–283Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang N, Zhang Y, Xu YJ. Recent progress on graphene-based photocatalysts: current status and future perspectives. Nanoscale, 2012, 4: 5792Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang W, Yu J, Xiang Q, et al. Enhanced photocatalytic activity of hierarchical macro/mesoporous TiO2–graphene composites for photodegradation of acetone in air. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2012, 119–120: 109–116Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bukowski B, Deskins NA. The interactions between TiO2 and graphene with surface inhomogeneity determined using density functional theory. Phys Chem Chem Phys, 2015, 17: 29734–29746Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Luo Y, Heng Y, Dai X, et al. Preparation and photocatalytic ability of highly defective carbon nanotubes. J Solid State Chem, 2009, 182: 2521–2525Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Xiang Q, Yu J, Jaroniec M. Graphene-based semiconductor photocatalysts. Chem Soc Rev, 2012, 41: 782–796Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shiraishi Y, Shiota S, Hirakawa H, et al. Titanium dioxide/reduced graphene oxide hybrid photocatalysts for efficient and selective partial oxidation of cyclohexane. ACS Catal, 2017, 7: 293–300Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cheng P, Yang Z, Wang H, et al. TiO2–graphene nanocomposites for photocatalytic hydrogen production from splitting water. Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37: 2224–2230Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yu H, Xiao P, Tian J, et al. Phenylamine-functionalized rGO/TiO2 photocatalysts: spatially separated adsorption sites and tunable photocatalytic selectivity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016, 8: 29470–29477Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang CW, Chen JB, Wang LQ, et al. Single crystal TiO2 nanorods: Large-scale synthesis and field emission. Thin Solid Films, 2012, 520: 5036–5041Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Miao Z, Xu D, Ouyang J, et al. Electrochemically induced sol−gel preparation of single-crystalline TiO2 nanowires. Nano Lett, 2002, 2: 717–720Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dong S, Wang H, Gu L, et al. Rutile TiO2 nanorod arrays directly grown on Ti foil substrates towards lithium-ion micro-batteries. Thin Solid Films, 2011, 519: 5978–5982Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Iraj M, Nayeri FD, Asl-Soleimani E, et al. Controlled growth of vertically aligned TiO2 nanorod arrays using the improved hydrothermal method and their application to dye-sensitized solar cells. J Alloys Compd, 2016, 659: 44–50Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xu Z, Yin M, Sun J, et al. 3D periodic multiscale TiO2 architecture: a platform decorated with graphene quantum dots for enhanced photoelectrochemical water splitting. Nanotechnology, 2016, 27: 115401Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Patel SKS, Gajbhiye NS, Date SK. Ferromagnetism of Mn-doped TiO2 nanorods synthesized by hydrothermal method. J Alloys Compd, 2011, 509: S427–S430Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lv M, Zheng D, Ye M, et al. Densely aligned rutile TiO2 nanorod arrays with high surface area for efficient dye-sensitized solar cells. Nanoscale, 2012, 4: 5872–5879Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Liu B, Aydil ES. Growth of oriented single-crystalline rutile TiO2 nanorods on transparent conducting substrates for dye-sensitized solar cells. J Am Chem Soc, 2009, 131: 3985–3990Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dubal DP, Dhawale DS, More AM, et al. Synthesis and characterization of photosensitive TiO2 nanorods by controlled precipitation route. J Mater Sci, 2011, 46: 2288–2293Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang Y, Shi R, Lin J, et al. Significant photocatalytic enhancement in methylene blue degradation of TiO2 photocatalysts via graphene-like carbon in situ hybridization. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2010, 100: 179–183Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Liang Y, Wang H, Sanchez Casalongue H, et al. TiO2 nanocrystals grown on graphene as advanced photocatalytic hybrid materials. Nano Res, 2010, 3: 701–705Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zou R, Zhang Z, Yu L, et al. A general approach for the growth of metal oxide nanorod arrays on graphene sheets and their applications. Chem Eur J, 2011, 17: 13912–13917Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Xiao G, Shi C, Li L, et al. A 200-nm length TiO2 nanorod array with a diameter of 13 nm and areal density of 1100 μm−2 for efficient perovskite solar cells. Ceramics Int, 2017, 43: 12534–12539Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kim HS, Lee JW, Yantara N, et al. High efficiency solid-state sensitized solar cell-based on submicrometer rutile TiO2 nanorod and CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite sensitizer. Nano Lett, 2013, 13: 2412–2417Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yuan L, Meng S, Zhou Y, et al. Controlled synthesis of anatase TiO2 nanotube and nanowire arrays via AAO template-based hydrolysis. J Mater Chem A, 2013, 1: 2552–2557Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Attar AS, Ghamsari MS, Hajiesmaeilbaigi F, et al. Sol–gel template synthesis and characterization of aligned anatase-TiO2 nanorod arrays with different diameter. Mater Chem Phys, 2009, 113: 856–860Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Shao Z, Zhu W, Li Z, et al. One-step fabrication of CdS nanoparticle- sensitized TiO2 nanotube arrays via electrodeposition. J Phys Chem C, 2012, 116: 2438–2442Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tan W, Yin X, Zhou X, et al. Electrophoretic deposition of nanocrystalline TiO2 films on Ti substrates for use in flexible dyesensitized solar cells. Electrochim Acta, 2009, 54: 4467–4472Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Limmer SJ, Chou TP, Cao GZ. A study on the growth of TiO2 nanorods using sol electrophoresis. J Mater Sci, 2004, 39: 895–901Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gong D, Grimes CA, Varghese OK, et al. Titanium oxide nanotube arrays prepared by anodic oxidation. J Mater Res, 2011, 16: 3331–3334Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ozkan S, Mazare A, Schmuki P. Critical parameters and factors in the formation of spaced TiO2 nanotubes by self-organizing anodization. Electrochim Acta, 2018, 268: 435–447Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Wang D, Liu Y, Yu B, et al. TiO2 nanotubes with tunable morphology, diameter, and length: synthesis and photo-electrical/ catalytic performance. Chem Mater, 2009, 21: 1198–1206Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wang W, Li G, Xia D, et al. Photocatalytic nanomaterials for solar-driven bacterial inactivation: recent progress and challenges. Environ Sci-Nano, 2017, 4: 782–799Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee E, Hong JY, Kang H, et al. Synthesis of TiO2 nanorod-decorated graphene sheets and their highly efficient photocatalytic activities under visible-light irradiation. J Hazard Mater, 2012, 219–220: 13–18Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Liu S, Zeng TH, Hofmann M, et al. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano, 2011, 5: 6971–6980Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Toxicity of graphene and graphene oxide nanowalls against bacteria. ACS Nano, 2010, 4: 5731–5736Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Liu S, Hu M, Zeng TH, et al. Lateral dimension-dependent antibacterial activity of graphene oxide sheets. Langmuir, 2012, 28: 12364–12372Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Escherichia coli bacteria reduce graphene oxide to bactericidal graphene in a self-limiting manner. Carbon, 2012, 50: 1853–1860Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Upadhyay RK, Soin N, Roy SS. Role of graphene/metal oxide composites as photocatalysts, adsorbents and disinfectants in water treatment: a review. RSC Adv, 2014, 4: 3823–3851Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Xu C, Xu Y, Zhu J. Photocatalytic antifouling graphene oxidemediated hierarchical filtration membranes with potential applications on water purification. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2014, 6: 16117–16123Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zeng X, Wang G, Liu Y, et al. Graphene-based antimicrobial nanomaterials: rational design and applications for water disinfection and microbial control. Environ Sci-Nano, 2017, 4: 2248–2266Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Photocatalytic reduction of graphene oxide nanosheets on TiO2 thin film for photoinactivation of bacteria in solar light irradiation. J Phys Chem C, 2009, 113: 20214–20220Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Thakur S, Karak N. Tuning of sunlight-induced self-cleaning and self-healing attributes of an elastomeric nanocomposite by judicious compositional variation of the TiO2–reduced graphene oxide nanohybrid. J Mater Chem A, 2015, 3: 12334–12342Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Santhosh C, Velmurugan V, Jacob G, et al. Role of nanomaterials in water treatment applications: A review. Chem Eng J, 2016, 306: 1116–1137Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Feng Y, Liu L, Zhang J, et al. Photoactive antimicrobial nanomaterials. J Mater Chem B, 2017, 5: 8631–8652Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Liu J, Liu L, Bai H, et al. Gram-scale production of graphene oxide–TiO2 nanorod composites: Towards high-activity photocatalytic materials. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2011, 106: 76–82Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wang S, Sun H, Ang HM, et al. Adsorptive remediation of environmental pollutants using novel graphene-based nanomaterials. Chem Eng J, 2013, 226: 336–347Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Dreyer DR, Todd AD, Bielawski CW. Harnessing the chemistry of graphene oxide. Chem Soc Rev, 2014, 43: 5288Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zhang D, Fu L, Liao L, et al. Electrochemically functional graphene nanostructure and layer-by-layer nanocomposite incorporating adsorption of electroactive methylene blue. Electrochim Acta, 2012, 75: 71–79Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Madadrang CJ, Kim HY, Gao G, et al. Adsorption behavior of EDTA-graphene oxide for Pb (II) removal. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2012, 4: 1186–1193Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Li Y, Du Q, Liu T, et al. Equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic studies on the adsorption of phenol onto graphene. Mater Res Bull, 2012, 47: 1898–1904Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wang R, Zhang H, Wang W, et al. Improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells with TiO2 nanoarray-TiO2/graphene nanocrystal composite film as photoanode. Acta Optica Sinica, 2013, 33: 1216001Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Williams G, Seger B, Kamat PV. TiO2-graphene nanocomposites. UV-assisted photocatalytic reduction of graphene oxide. ACS Nano, 2008, 2: 1487–1491Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Mor GK, Shankar K, Paulose M, et al. Use of highly-ordered TiO2 nanotube arrays in dye-sensitized solar cells. Nano Lett, 2006, 6: 215–218Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sun WT, Yu Y, Pan HY, et al. CdS quantum dots sensitized TiO2 nanotube-array photoelectrodes. J Am Chem Soc, 2008, 130: 1124–1125Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Carnie MJ, Charbonneau C, Davies ML, et al. A one-step low temperature processing route for organolead halide perovskite solar cells. Chem Commun, 2013, 49: 7893Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zhang Z, Shi C, Lv K, et al. 200-nm long TiO2 nanorod arrays for efficient solid-state PbS quantum dot-sensitized solar cells. J Energy Chem, 2018, 27: 1214–1218Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Jiang Q, Sheng X, Li Y, et al. Rutile TiO2 nanowire-based perovskite solar cells. Chem Commun, 2014, 50: 14720–14723Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Feng X, Zhu K, Frank AJ, et al. Rapid charge transport in dyesensitized solar cells made from vertically aligned single-crystal rutile TiO2 nanowires. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2012, 51: 2727–2730Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Mai L, Sheng J, Xu L, et al. One-dimensional hetero-nanostructures for rechargeable batteries. Acc Chem Res, 2018, 51: 950–959Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Wei Q, An Q, Chen D, et al. One-pot synthesized bicontinuous hierarchical Li3V2(PO4)3/C mesoporous nanowires for high-rate and ultralong-life lithium-ion batteries. Nano Lett, 2014, 14: 1042–1048Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Mai L, Tian X, Xu X, et al. Nanowire electrodes for electrochemical energy storage devices. Chem Rev, 2014, 114: 11828–11862Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Zhao Y, Han C, Yang J, et al. Stable alkali metal ion intercalation compounds as optimized metal oxide nanowire cathodes for lithium batteries. Nano Lett, 2015, 15: 2180–2185Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Yan M, He P, Chen Y, et al. Water-lubricated intercalation in V2O5·nH2O for high-capacity and high-rate aqueous rechargeable zinc batteries. Adv Mater, 2018, 30: 1703725Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    An Q, Li Y, Deog Yoo H, et al. Graphene decorated vanadium oxide nanowire aerogel for long-cycle-life magnesium battery cathodes. Nano Energy, 2015, 18: 265–272Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Zhang F, Qi L. Recent progress in self-supported metal oxide nanoarray electrodes for advanced lithium-ion batteries. Adv Sci, 2016, 3: 1600049Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kim H, Cho MY, Kim MH, et al. A novel high-energy hybrid supercapacitor with an anatase TiO2-reduced graphene oxide anode and an activated carbon cathode. Adv Energy Mater, 2013, 3: 1500–1506Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ramadoss A, Kim GS, Kim SJ. Fabrication of reduced graphene oxide/TiO2 nanorod/reduced graphene oxide hybrid nanostructures as electrode materials for supercapacitor applications. CrystEngComm, 2013, 15: 10222–10229Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yu X, Lin D, Li P, et al. Recent advances in the synthesis and energy applications of TiO2-graphene nanohybrids. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells, 2017, 172: 252–269Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanhua Fan (范艳华)
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Guangwu Hu (胡光武)
    • 2
  • Shuaiqin Yu (于帅芹)
    • 1
  • Liqiang Mai (麦立强)
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lin Xu (徐林)
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Ocean Science and EngineeringShanghai Maritime UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Materials Synthesis and ProcessingWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations