Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 53, Issue 13, pp 9742–9754 | Cite as

Air–water interface solar heating using titanium gauze coated with reduced TiO2 nanotubes

  • Chaorui Xue
  • Shengliang Hu
  • Qing Chang
  • Ning Li
  • Yanzhong Wang
  • Wei Liu
  • Jinlong Yang
Energy materials


Using method of electrochemical anodization and subsequent reduction, titanium gauze with reduced TiO2 nanotubes on the surface (reduced TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze) was prepared and used for air–water interface solar heating. The electrochemical reduction method can generate Ti3+ and causes the narrowing of optical band gap of TiO2 (ca. 2.91 eV). Combining with the nanotubular structure, reduced TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze demonstrated higher absorption ability of visible light than other types of titanium gauzes (reduced P25 TiO2 nanoparticles/Ti gauze, TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze and P25 TiO2 nanoparticles/Ti gauze). For evaluating the property of air–water interface solar heating, solar water evaporation test was conducted. The results demonstrated that the reduced TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze can efficiently accelerate water evaporation. The water evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency were 1.41 kg m−2 h−1 and 44.2%, respectively, under solar light irradiation with intensity of 2 kW m−2, which are higher than that of reduced P25 TiO2 nanoparticles/Ti gauze, TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze, P25 TiO2 nanoparticles/Ti gauze and pristine Ti gauze. It was further found that the solar thermal conversion efficiency of reduced TiO2 nanotubes/Ti gauze attained 84.2% when solar light intensity increased to 5.6 kW m−2. This work may provide a new route to design more advanced photothermal materials for industrial applications such as waste water treatment, salt production and solar desalination.


Because of the population growth, climate change, industrial expansion and water pollution around the world, many countries, especially in Africa and the Middle East, are suffering from serious fresh water scarcity. In response to this issue, solar water evaporation is one of the most common solar energy-harvesting technologies that can be developed to satisfy the increasing global requirements on fresh water [1]. Naturally, solar water evaporation can provide 90% of moisture in the atmosphere, produce rain, and attain global water cycling [2]. This approach of water evaporation has also been utilized for seawater desalination using solar energy to mitigate the fresh water shortage [3, 4]. In general, water evaporation is a surface process, and only the water located in surface region can change from liquid phase to vapor phase. However, conventional solar water evaporation is bulk water heat behavior, which employs volumetric solar energy absorbers to heat the bulk water directly. Therefore, a significant portion of non-evaporative water beneath surface region will be concurrently heated, and optical and systematic heat loss will occur and cause a low solar thermal conversion efficiency [5]. In view of this shortcoming for conventional solar water evaporation, a new and rational concept, named “Air–Water Interface Solar Heating,” has attracted increasing interest for the minimized heat loss from heating spot to bulk water.

The concept of “Air–Water Interface Solar Heating” is enhancing only the local temperature of surface water using floating and photothermal materials. With photothermal materials floating on top surface, solar energy can be maximally gathered and utilized in surface water region, generating a localized high temperature. The localized high temperature of surface water can thus diminish the heat loss caused by the non-evaporative lower part of bulk water [6, 7]. Recent efforts on the “Air–Water Interface Solar Heating” technology have focused on exploring materials with high photothermal conversion efficiency. The criteria for designing ideal photothermal materials include three aspects: (1) ability to effectively capture or concentrate solar irradiance at the air–water interface; (2) high efficiency of converting solar energy to heat energy; (3) inexpensive and technological demanding for large-scale expansion [8, 9]. Based on these criteria, to date, carbon materials, semiconductor materials and plasmonic metal nanoparticulate materials have all been reported to function as efficient solar energy absorbers, and high photothermal performance can be achieved [10, 11, 12]. Combining with meticulous membrane-construction technique, these materials can be efficiently used for air–water interface solar water evaporation. For example, Liu et al. [13] coated carbon black on cotton gauzes through dip-coating method, and achieved water evaporation rate 2–3 times higher than that of traditional process for solar water evaporation application. Through pulsed-laser deposition method, Yao et al. [14] deposited SnSe onto nickel foam for solar-driven water evaporation, and the maximum water evaporation rate was 0.85 kg m−2 h−1 under solar light irradiation at 100 mW cm−2.

Since black TiO2 nanocrystals were firstly prepared through hydrogenation method in 2011, colorful reduced TiO2 nanomaterials have got continual research interests [15]. Very recently, reduced titanium oxide (TiO2) has stimulated further interests in the area of solar light utilization due to the narrow band gap. For the narrow band gap, the typical character of reduced TiO2 compared to pristine TiO2 is the optical response from ultraviolet light to visible and/or infrared light region [16]. It has been extensively reported that, compared to pristine TiO2, reduced TiO2 possess improved photocatalytic properties under solar light for the enhanced solar light absorption property [17, 18]. So reduced TiO2 has the potential to find efficient applications in solar thermal conversion system through meticulous research on its photothermic capability. Until now, some reduced TiO2 materials, which include TiO x (x < 2) nanoparticles, Ti2O3 nanoparticles and black TiO2 nanocages, have been prepared and used for the light to heat conversion system [19, 20, 21]. However, most of the reported materials need to be firstly synthesized and then integrated into porous supports (such as meshes, gauzes and films) for excellent self-floating ability. This fabrication process is always complex, low level of control and high cost. The porous supports are often breakable air-laid paper and polymeric membrane, which cannot bear severe external environment during water evaporation [22, 23]. It is therefore desirable to explore new avenue for the fabrication of photothermal materials with not only high solar thermal conversion efficiency but also simple manufacturing process, porous supports with more robust architecture are also in demand.

Titanium is an abundant element on the earth; many titanium products, such as titanium sheet, titanium foil, titanium mesh, titanium gauze and titanium foam, can be manufactured with high purity and various sizes. These titanium products can work as important raw material for the fabrication of titanium oxides. In 1999, Zwilling et al. [24] firstly reported the preparation of TiO2 nanotubes on the surface of titanium foil through anodization in fluoride-containing solution. The anodized TiO2 nanotubes have find various applications in the area of photocatalysis, fuel cells and biomedical coating [25]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the usage of reduced TiO2 nanotubes as photothermal material for the “Air–Water Interface Solar Heating” technology has yet to be investigated. Therefore, in this paper, we reported for the first time that titanium gauze with reduced TiO2 nanotubes on the surface can be used for the “Air–Water Interface solar Heating” technology. The reduced TiO2 nanotubes were formed through direct anodization of titanium gauze and subsequent electrochemical reduction method. The reduced TiO2 nanotubes showed enhanced total absorption of solar light due to the co-doping of Ti3+ and nanotubular structure. Under solar light irradiation with light intensity of 2 kW m−2, titanium gauze with reduced TiO2 nanotubes delivered water evaporation rate of 1.41 kg m−2 h−1 and solar thermal conversion efficiency of 44.3%, which is higher than that of titanium gauzes with TiO2 nanotubes, P25 TiO2 nanoparticles and reduced P25 TiO2 nanoparticles. It is also demonstrated that the solar thermal conversion efficiency can be as high as 81.3% when light intensity reaches 5.6 kW m−2.

Experimental section

Materials preparation

Titanium gauze with TiO2 nanotubes

Anodization method was chosen to prepare TiO2 nanotubes on the surface of titanium gauze. Before anodization, titanium gauze (purity: 99.6%; 100 meshes) was firstly cut into small circular pieces with diameter of 20 mm, and then ultrasonic washed with acetone, ethanol and purified water for about 3 min, respectively. The anodization experiment was conducted in a two electrodes system with titanium gauze and platinum foil as working and counter electrodes, respectively, following a two-step process. In the first step, the electrolyte was composed of 57.7 g ethylene glycol, 1.2 g H2O and 0.18 g NH4F. Anodization voltage was 50 V. Time was 25 min. After anodization, the as-anodized titanium gauze was ultrasonic treated in purified water to remove the anodic TiO2 nanotubes on the surface. In the second step, the titanium gauze obtained in the first step was anodized again in the electrolyte containing 57.9 g glycerol, 1.8 g H2O and 0.3 g NH4F. Anodization voltage was 60 V. Time was 1 h. After anodization, titanium gauze was washed with purified water for several times and dried under ambient condition. The calcination of obtained titanium gauzes was conducted in air condition at 150 °C for 3 h, then up to 450 °C for 5 h with a heating and cooling rate of 5 °C min−1.

Titanium gauze with P25 TiO2 nanoparticles

Dip-coating method was chosen to prepare titanium gauze with P25 TiO2 nanoparticles [26, 27]. 5 wt% P25 TiO2 aqueous slurry with pH value of 6.14 was prepared for dip coating. Since surface charge of titanium gauze is negative, the positive charged P25 TiO2 nanoparticles can be deposited on the surface of titanium gauze for the electrostatic attraction [28, 29]. After preparation of TiO2 aqueous slurry, the as-obtained titanium gauze was dipped in the slurry for 1 min and then dried in air dry oven at 70 °C for 30 min. Deposition of P25 TiO2 nanoparticles on the surface of titanium gauze can be achieved for different surface charges. This process was repeated eight times to get 3.5 µm thick P25 TiO2 nanoparticulate film coated on titanium gauze.

Electrochemical reduction

Electrochemical reduction was carried out in a two electrodes system. Titanium gauzes with TiO2 nanotubes or P25 TiO2 nanoparticles on the surface were employed as cathode electrode. Platinum foil was employed as anode electrode. The electrolyte was 0.5 mol L−1 Na2SO4 aqueous solution. The applied voltage was 5 V. Time was 90 s. After electrochemical reduction experiment, the cathode electrode of titanium gauze was taken out, washed with purified water and dried under air condition for further use and characterization. Here, titanium gauzes with reduced TiO2 nanotubes and reduced P25 TiO2 nanoparticles are denoted as RTNT-Ti gauze and RP25-Ti gauze, respectively. Titanium gauzes with TiO2 nanotubes and P25 TiO2 nanoparticles are denoted as TNT-Ti gauze and P25-Ti gauze, respectively.


Titanium gauzes were immersed in methanolic solution containing 1.0 wt% 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (CF3(CF2)5CH2CH2 Si(OCH2CH3)3, PTES, Aladdin) for hydrophobization. The solvent of methanolic solution is a mixture of pure water and methanol (molar ratio: 3:1). After immersion in methanolic solution for 1 h, the samples were taken out, washed with methanol, and subsequently heated at 140 °C for 1 h.


The morphological details of samples were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM, JSM-7001F) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEM-2100F, 200 kV). The crystal structure of samples was examined on an X-ray diffractometer (XRD, DX2700B) at scan rate of 0.08° s−1. Chemical composition of samples was measured on an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy with ESCALAB 250Xi XPS system using Al anode. Optical characterization of samples with circular diameter of 2 cm was conducted using a UV–Vis spectrometer (UV-2550) equipped with an integrating sphere; the reflected beam including both specular and diffuse reflections from the gauze was scattered and collected in the integrating sphere and measured using a photomultiplier tube detector, and fine BaSO4 powder was used as reference material. The contact angle was measured using an OCAH-230 contact angle measuring device (Dataphysics, Germany). Electron paramagnetic resonance spectra (EPR) were collected at 93 K on a Bruker EMX-8/EPR spectrometer. The concentrations of ions in the water were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (PerkinElmer Nexion 300, USA).

Water evaporation

The water evaporation test was conducted using a cylinder container with internal diameter of 2.3 cm and depth of 4 cm. In order to minimize the heat exchange with ambient air, the cylinder container was wrapped with polystyrene foam. For each run, the cylinder container was filled with 10 g of purified water, and located under solar light source with distance of 16 cm (Fig. 1). The as-prepared titanium gauzes floated on the surface of purified water. Solar light irradiation was provided using a solar light simulator (CEL-HXUV300, CEAULIGHT, China) with an AM1.5 filter. The light intensity can be adjusted from 2 to 5.6 kW m−2 through regulating operating current and was measured by an optical power meter (CEL-NP2000-2, CEAULIGHT, China). The area of light spots on Ti gauzes was set as ~ 3.14 cm2 for local heating. In order to real-time monitor the weight of evaporated water, the cylinder container was placed on an electronic analytical balance (EX223ZH, OHAUS). The weight of evaporated water was recorded every minute for 1 h. The temperature at the top and bottom water region was measured using a dual-channel thermocouple for calculating the temperature difference. All infrared images were captured using a UNT-T UTi80 infrared camera.
Figure 1

Schematic illustration of solar water evaporation experiment (left) and preparation of light to heat conversion gauze for the “Air–Water Interface Solar Heating” technology (right)

Results and discussion

During anodization in glycerol solution, under appropriate voltage, competition between field-assisted anodic oxidation of titanium and chemical-/field-assisted dissolution of formed titanium oxide will occur [30]. This ongoing competition allows the creation of nanochannels inside the initial formed anodic oxide layer. TiO2 nanotubes will thus be finally formed on the surface of titanium gauze. As shown in Fig. 2, textural wire of titanium gauze did not break off after anodization and was uniformly covered with TiO2 nanotubes (Fig. 2d, e). The thickness of oxide film is about 3.5 µm, and the diameter of nanotube varies from 120 to 150 nm (Fig. 2f). Herein, compared to anodic TiO2 nanotubes formed on planar titanium foil as reported previously [31], regularity of the nanotubes formed on titanium gauze is lower. Many “crevasses” can be observed in the film (Fig. 2e). These “crevasses” are formed for the different circumferences at the attachment point on nanotube wall, bundling of nanotube by van der Waals attraction and capillary forces during drying [32]. Moreover, growth of TiO2 nanotube also depends upon the underlying titanium substrate. In Fig. 2c, it is indicated that the titanium substrate contains grains with various sizes in the range of 1–10 µm. According to Ref. [33], the formation rate of oxide layer will change significantly for the different planar atomic density in each grain and lower the regularity of TiO2 nanotubes. In TEM image of reduced TiO2 nanotube (Fig. 2g), many “knots” exist on the tube wall (indicated by the red arrow). These “knots” could be formed for the chemical dissolution of tube boundaries, which possess fluoride-rich nature [34]. The tube boundary dissolution process compete with the tube formation process, and leads to transient formation of “knots” on external tube wall. In high-resolution TEM image of Fig. 2h, lattice image with spacing of 0.352 nm can be resolved and determined to belong to anatase TiO2. This provides the evidence for the crystallinity of reduced TiO2 nanotube, which is necessary for photothermal effect.
Figure 2

SEM images of ac pristine titanium gauze, df titanium gauze coated with electrochemical reduced TiO2 nanotubes. g, h TEM images of electrochemical reduced TiO2 nanotubes, h is the enlarged image of rectangle area in (g)

The crystallization of TiO2 nanotube was also confirmed by XRD measurements. In Fig. S2, for the as-annealed titanium gauze with TiO2 nanotubes, except for diffraction peaks of titanium, the peaks at 25.4° and 48.2° can be readily indexed to anatase TiO2. After subsequent electrochemical reduction, TiO2 nanotubes maintained anatase phase, and no deterioration of crystallinity and impure peak can be observed. Nevertheless, further XPS measurement demonstrated detectable differences in the chemical states of TiO2 nanotubes before and after electrochemical reduction. In Fig. 3a, upon fitting, compared to TNT-Ti gauze, Ti2p spectra of RTNT-Ti gauze includes another two peaks centered at 463.8 and 457.9 eV, which can be attributed to Ti3+ 2p1/2 and Ti3+ 2p3/2, respectively [35]. This indicates that Ti3+ defects are formed inside TiO2 during electrochemical reduction process. There are also differences in low-field O1s spectra of Fig. 3b. One new shoulder peak at 532.5 eV can be observed for RTNT-Ti gauze; this peak corresponds to the acidic hydroxyl group (–OH2). Ti3+ defects could be accountable for the formation of –OH2 according to Eqs. 1 and 2 [17, 36]:
Figure 3

a Ti2p XPS spectra, b O1s XPS spectra and c EPR spectra of TNT-Ti gauze and RTNT-Ti gauze

$$ \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{IV}} {-} {\text{O}} {-} {\text{Ti}}^{\text{IV}} \equiv \, + {\text{ H}}_{3} {\text{O}}^{ + } + {\text{ e}}^{ - } \to \, \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{III}} {-} {\text{OH}}_{2} + \, \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{IV}} {-} {\text{OH}} $$
$$ \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{IV}} {-} {\text{OH }} + {\text{ H}}_{3} {\text{O}}^{ + } + {\text{ e}}^{ - } \to \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{III}} {-} {\text{OH}}_{2} + {\text{ H}}_{2} {\text{O}} $$
$$ \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{IV}} {-} {\text{OH }} + {\text{ e}}^{ - } \to \, \equiv {\text{Ti}}^{\text{III}} {-} {\text{OH}} $$

According to Eqs. 1 and 3, doping of Ti3+ can also generate larger amount of –OH groups. This is confirmed in Fig. 3b, where a more defined –OH peak emerges for RTNT-Ti gauze. The presence of Ti3+ defects was further verified by EPR measurement. In EPR spectra of Fig. 3c, there are three features: signals from Ti3+, oxygen vacancy and O2. The signals at g = 1.926, g = 1.956, g = 1.981 correspond to bulk Ti3+, the signal at g = 2.002 corresponds to oxygen vacancy, and the signal at g = 2.035 corresponds to O2 [37, 38]. By comparison, EPR signals belonging to Ti3+ and oxygen vacancy are more intense and discernable for RTNT-Ti gauze, indicating the doping of Ti3+ in bulk TiO2 through electrochemical reduction method. Moreover, Ti3+ may also exist on the surface of TiO2, reduces the adsorbed atmospheric O2, and produces O2 [39]. Therefore, Ti3+ could also increase the intensity of EPR signal of O2. This is confirmed in Fig. 3c, where EPR signal of O2 increased sharply after electrochemical reduction. In a word, the XPS and EPR spectra confirmed the co-doping of Ti3+ inside TiO2 nanotubes through electrochemical reduction method.

The electrochemical doped Ti3+ can introduce impurity level in the band gap of TiO2 in the form of [OvTi3+] [40]. Consequently, efficient absorption in the visible light region for RTNT-Ti gauze can be expected. This is confirmed in UV–visible absorption spectra of Fig. 4. In ultraviolet light region, absorption of all samples is strong for the electronic transition from valance band to conductive band. In visible light region with wavelength of 400-800 nm, pristine samples of P25-Ti gauze and TNT-Ti gauze are inactive, while electrochemical reduced samples of RP25-Ti gauze and RTNT-Ti gauze demonstrate efficient photoresponse. This can be attributed to the electronic transition from valence band to the Ti3+-induced interbands and/or from these interbands to conductive band [41]. For this reason, color change from light gray to dark black through electrochemical reduction appeared, this is consisted with the results of UV–visible absorption measurement (inset in Fig. 4). In addition, the interbands induced by Ti3+ also caused narrower band gap. In Fig. 4, for P25-Ti gauze and TNT-Ti gauze, the absorption edge can be estimated to be 402 and 405 nm, respectively, while the absorption edge of RP25-Ti gauze and RTNT-Ti gauze shifted toward longer wavelength (ca. 417 and 426 nm). The band gap energies can be calculated using formula of E g = 1240g, where E is the band gap energy, λ is the wavelength of absorption edge [42]. By calculation, the band gap energy for RP25-Ti gauze and RTNT-Ti gauze was found to be about 2.97 and 2.91 eV, which are smaller than that for samples without electrochemical reduction (ca. 3.08 and 3.06 eV).
Figure 4

UV–visible absorption spectra of P25-Ti gauze, TNT-Ti gauze, RP25-Ti gauze and RTNT-Ti gauze

In consideration of the improved light-harvesting capacities of electrochemical reduced samples, the photothermal application in water evaporation can be expected. Since floatable property is important for the air–water interface solar water evaporation, we initially modified the samples with PTFES for hydrophobic nature. After surface modification, all samples demonstrated contact angle of exceeding 130° (inset in Figs. 5a and S3) and acquired hydrophobic property. Arising from the water repellency nature of hydrophobic surface, titanium gauzes can thus spontaneously float on pure water surface (Fig. 5a). Herein, although the samples achieve high contact angle, adhesive force between water droplet and sample surface is strong. When titanium gauze was tilted vertically, water droplet could still resist against the force of gravity and remain on sample surface (inset in Fig. 5a). This high adhesive force could be generated by the van der Waal’s attraction between PTES molecules and water [43]. The contact between water and sample surface would be intimate for the high adhesive force, which is important for heat transfer between sample and surface water during air–water interface solar water evaporation process.
Figure 5

a Photograph of the hydrophobic sample of RTNT-Ti gauze floating on top surface of 10 mL pure water, inset is the photograph of contact angle, b temperature difference between top water region and bottom water region in the beaker under solar illumination for various samples, c IR thermal photographs of water beaker with various samples, without samples floating on pure water surface under solar light irradiation for 7 min

The temperature test was also conducted before water evaporation experiment. Under solar light irradiation, the air–water interface region could be heated up to a maximum temperature when the heat generated by gauzes equals the heat dissipated to surrounding. Figures 5b and S4 demonstrate the time dependent curve of temperature difference between top and bottom water region for various samples with irradiation time of 10 min. Within illumination of 7 min, the temperature difference for all samples reached steady state. After irradiation of 9 min, the temperature difference reached to only ~ 1.8 °C for water only system. However, when titanium gauzes are floating on water surface, the temperature difference increased significantly. For RTNT-Ti gauze, the temperature difference can be as high as 14.1 °C after 9 min irradiation. This sufficiently justifies our strategy of air–water interface heating using titanium gauzes, which is different from conventional bulk heating nature of water only system. With titanium gauzes floating on the surface, its internal pores with length of side of 180–200 nm can not only work as evaporation chamber but also help to capture the incident light, so the air–water interface heating scheme emerge [44].

With different types of titanium gauzes floating on the surface, the water also demonstrated various temperature differences under the same illumination condition. As shown in Figs. 5b and S4, within 7 min, the temperature difference rises to 14.1 and 11.2 °C, respectively, for RTNT-Ti gauze and RP25-Ti gauze. This is significantly higher than that of TNT-Ti gauze, P25-Ti gauze and Ti gauze, for which the temperature differences are only 7.7, 6.9 and 6.8 °C, respectively. This indicates that the localized heating property has been increased for electrochemical reduced samples. We reason that the improved localized heating effect was induced by the co-doping of Ti3+ inside TiO2. From above discussion, since Ti3+ was generated inside, band gap of TiO2 was narrowed. For the narrowed band gap, a larger portion of photographs from solar light will bring more above band gap electron–hole pairs, which will cause thermalization process through relaxing to band edges [45]. The narrowed band gap also caused improved visible light absorption capacity (Fig. 4). It has also been reported that excitations of electrons in shallow trap states could be enhanced for the co-doping of Ti3+ inside TiO2, improved light absorption in the range of 800–2500 nm can also be expected [46, 47, 48]. Therefore, electrochemical reduced samples of RTNT-Ti gauze and RP25-Ti gauze can more effectively harvest solar energy and generate heat; the surface water temperature increases faster than the underneath water temperature. This is also confirmed in the infrared thermal images shown in Figs. 5c and S4. In the presence of TNT-Ti gauze, P25-Ti gauze and Ti gauze, the top surface temperature reached to 31.3, 30.2 and 29.5 °C, respectively. In contrast, the top surface temperature for RTNT-Ti gauze and RP25-Ti gauze rose to 37.5 and 33.6 °C, indicating improved photothermal performance of TiO2 nanotubes and P25 TiO2 nanoparticles by the electrochemical reduction method.

Herein, it is worth to note that the temperature difference for RTNT-Ti gauze is higher than that for RP25-Ti gauze. This could be ascribed to the convolution of several factors, which include size of nanocrystals, grain boundary contacts of nanocrystals and structural geometry. On the one hand, different from the P25 TiO2 nanoparticulate film (Fig. S1), the anodic TiO2 nanotubular film is integrated with many “crevasses” inside. The integrated structure can effectively inhibit the formation of interface boundaries between nanocrystals, where the trapping and direct recombination of photogenerated electron–hole pairs is available [49]. It has also been reported that the “crevasses” structure is benefit for broadband absorption in the visible to near infrared light region due to the nanofocusing effect [50]. On the other hand, the nanotubular structure may also increase the total light absorption capacity due to the light trapping effect of nanotubes [51]. In Fig. 1g, it can also be observed that “knots” were formed on tube wall. The “knots” on tube wall could enhance the light scattering inside nanotube array, and further improve the light absorption capacity [52, 53, 54]. For above reasons, anodic TiO2 nanotubes could be typically an optimal material for solar thermal conversion applications when compared to P25 TiO2 nanoparticles. The photothermal conversion efficiency can be efficiently improved through the anodic fabrication of TiO2 nanotubes on titanium gauze and subsequent electrochemical reduction method.

In the context of aforementioned photothermal ability of titanium gauze, we further conducted solar water evaporation experiments using various titanium gauzes. The photothermal properties were evaluated by comparing the water evaporation rates and solar thermal conversion efficiencies. Since water evaporation follows zero-order kinetics, the water evaporation rate can be calculated using the formula of m0− m = kt, where m0 is the initial weight of water, m is the real-time weight of water, and k is the water evaporation rate [55]. The solar to thermal energy conversion efficiency (η) can be calculated as:
$$ \eta = Q_{\text{e}} /Q_{\text{s}} $$
where Qs is the incident light power (2 kW m−2), Qe is the power of evaporation of water. Qe can be estimated using equation below:
$$ Q_{\text{e}} = {\text{d}}m \times H_{\text{e}} /{\text{d}}t = v \times H_{\text{e}} $$
where m is the mass of evaporated water, t is the time, v is the evaporation rate of water and He is the heat of evaporation of water (~ 2260 kJ kg−1) [55]. Figure 6a, b shows the real-time mass of evaporated water under continuous solar light irradiation at 2 kW m−2. The calculated water evaporation rates and solar thermal conversion efficiencies are shown in Fig. 6c, detailed results are summarized in Table S1. Clearly, water evaporation rates and solar thermal conversion efficiencies for all types of titanium gauzes are higher than that of water itself. For water only system, because of poor light absorbance and bulk water heating strategy, the water evaporation rate is only 0.29 kg m−2 h−1, the solar thermal conversion efficiency is only 9.1%. When titanium gauzes are floating on top surface, heat confinement will occur within the top surface water for the air–water interface heating effect, so the water evaporation performance is enhanced.
Figure 6

a Evaporation water weights versus time with and without various titanium gauzes under solar illumination at 2 kW m−2. b Evaporation water weights versus time with RTNT-Ti gauze at the surface and bottom of bulk water. c Water evaporation rate and thermal conversion efficiency of various titanium gauzes calculated from (a) and (b). d Cycle performance of RTNT-Ti gauze under solar illumination at 2 kW m−2

We also conducted water evaporation test with RTNT-Ti gauze at the bottom rather than at the top surface of pure water. By contrast, the evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency both declined to 0.51 kg m−2 h−1 and 16.8% (Fig. 6c), indicating the significant contribution of air–water interface heating scheme to solar vapor generation. More importantly, it can be observed that the evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency are 1.41 kg m−2 h−1 and 44.3%, respectively; for RTNT-Ti gauze, these are the highest among all types of prepared titanium gauzes. Based on the temperature monitoring results shown in Fig. 5, the factors, such as doping of Ti3+, “crevasses” architecture and unique nanotubular array structure, can all promote the light absorption and heat generation performance at the air–water interface region and accelerate water evaporation. The cycle performance for RTNT-Ti gauze was also tested. Figure 6d presents the results. It is demonstrated that the evaporation rate remains stable after 10 cycles of evaporation experiments, with each cycle being 6 h. Figure S5 shows the high-resolution Ti2p spectrum for RTNT-Ti gauze subjected to cycling test; peaks corresponding to Ti3+ can also be observed clearly at 463.8 and 457.9 eV after deconvolution. The concentration of titanium ions in water after cycling test was also measured to be merely 2 ng L−1, indicating the negligible leakage of titanium ions during water evaporation test. The above results indicate the stability of photothermal property and chemical composition for RTNT-Ti gauze during light illumination. The water evaporation performance of RTNT-Ti gauze was further evaluated under different solar light densities. The results are shown in Fig. 7. With increasing solar light intensity (1.0–5.6 kW m−2), the water evaporation rate increased from 0.65 to 7.25 kg m−2 h−1, and the solar thermal conversion efficiency increased from 40.8 to 81.3%. Both water evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency increased with solar light intensity. This is consistent with results reported in the previously reported literature [56], which shows that the water evaporation rate is closely related to solar light irradiation intensity. This result further demonstrates the potential of RTNT-Ti gauze in terms of improving water evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency through modulating solar light intensity.
Figure 7

a Evaporated water weight versus time for RTNT-Ti gauze under solar irradiation at distinct light densities, b water evaporation rates and solar thermal conversion efficiencies calculated from a


In summary, we have fabricated titanium gauze with reduced TiO2 nanotubes on the surface through anodization and subsequent electrochemical reduction method. The electrochemical reduction process caused the visible light absorption capacity due to the narrowed band gap for the formation of Ti3+ inside TiO2. Compared with P25 TiO2 nanoparticulate film, TiO2 nanotubular film can further enhance the solar light utilization efficiency for the unique features of nanotube and “crevasses.” After hydrophobization by PTES modification, titanium gauzes can spontaneously float on water surface. For water evaporation tests, air–water interface solar heating can be achieved efficiently for titanium gauze with reduced TiO2 nanotubes. The water evaporation rate and solar thermal conversion efficiency could reach to 1.41 kg m−2 h−1 and 44.3% under solar light intensity of 2 kW m−2, which are higher than that of P25 TiO2 nanoparticles modified titanium gauze and bare titanium gauze. The solar thermal conversion efficiency can be as high as 81.3% when solar light intensity achieves 5.6 kW m−2. Considering the great demand of solar energy usage, we believe that our work can provide an attractive alternative for the design of advanced solar evaporation materials in addressing increasing serious world water and energy issues.



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51602292), Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths (Grant No. 201701D221087) and the starting fund for scientific research of North University of China (Grant No. 130082).

Supplementary material

10853_2018_2293_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1477 kb)


  1. 1.
    Neumann O, Urban AS, Day J, Lal S, Nordlander P, Halas NJ (2013) Solar vapor generation enabled by nanoparticles. ACS Nano 7:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang Y, Zhang L, Wang P (2016) Self-floating carbon nanotube membrane on macroporous silica substrate for highly efficient solar-driven interfacial water evaporation. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xiao G, Wang X, Ni M, Wang F, Zhu W, Luo Z, Cen K (2013) A review on solar stills for brine desalination. Appl Energy 103:642–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharon H, Reddy KS (2015) A review of solar energy driven desalination technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1080–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li C, Goswami Y, Stefanakos E (2013) Solar assisted sea water desalination: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 19:136–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zeng Y, Yao JF, Horri BA, Wang K, Wu YZ, Li D, Wang HT (2011) Solar evaporation enhancement using floating light-absorbing magnetic particles. Energy Environ Sci 4:4074–4078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Z, Liu Y, Tao P, Shen Q, Yi N et al (2014) Bio-inspired evaporation through plasmonic film of nanoparitcles at the air–water interface. Small 10:3234–3239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang L, Tang B, Wu J, Li R, Wang P (2015) Hydrophobic light-to-heat conversion membranes with self-healing ability for interfacial solar heating. Adv Mater 27:4889–4894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu G, Xu J, Wang K (2017) Solar water evaporation by black photothermal sheets. Nano Energy 41:269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghasemi H, Ni G, Marconnet AM, Loomis J, Yerci S, Miljkovic N, Chen G (2014) Solar steam generation by heat localization. Nat Commun 5:4449 (1)–4449 (7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Y, Yu S, Feng R, Bernard A, Liu Y (2015) A bioinspired, reusable, paper-based system for high-performance large-scale evaporation. Adv Mater 27:2768–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou L, Tan Y, Wang J, Xu W, Yuan Y et al (2016) 3D self-assembly of aluminium nanoparticles for plasmon-enhanced solar desalination. Nat Photon 10:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu Y, Chen J, Guo D, Cao M, Jiang L (2015) Floatable, self-cleaning, and carbon-black-based superhydrophobic gauze for the solar evaporation enhancement at the air–water interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:13645–13652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao J, Zheng Z, Yang G (2018) Layered tin monoselenide as advanced photothermal conversion materials for efficient solar energy-driven water evaporation. Nanoscale 10:2876–2886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen X, Liu L, Yu PY, Mao SS (2011) Increasing solar absorption for photocatalysis with black hydrogenated titanium dioxide nanocrystals. Science 331:746–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen X, Liu L, Huang F (2015) Black titanium dioxide nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev 44:1861–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li H, Chen Z, Tsang CK, Li Z, Ran X et al (2014) Electrochemical doping of anatase TiO2 in organic electrolytes for high-performance supercapacitors and photocatalysts. J Mater Chem A 2:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang Z, Hedhili MN, Zhu H, Wang P (2013) Electrochemical reduction induced self-doping of Ti3+ for efficient water splitting performance on TiO2 based photoelectrodes. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15:15637–15644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ye M, Jia J, Wu Z, Qian C, Chen R et al (2017) Synthesis of black TiOx nanoparticles by Mg reduction of TiO2 nanocrystals and their application for solar water evaporation. Adv Energy Mater 7:1601811 (1)–1601811 (7)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu G, Xu J, Zhao W, Huang F (2016) Constructing black titania with unique nanocage structure for solar desalination. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:31716–31721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang J, Li Y, Deng L, Wei N, Weng Y et al (2017) High-performance photothermal conversion of narrow-bandgap Ti2O3 nanoparticles. Adv Mater 29:1603730 (1)–1603730 (6)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Z, Ye Q, Liang X, Xu J, Chang C et al (2017) Paper-based membranes on silicon floaters for efficient and fast solar-driven interfacial evaporation under one sun. J Mater Chem A 5:16359–16368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang Y, Zhao D, Yu F, Yang C, Lou J et al (2017) Floating RGO-based black membranes for solar driven sterilization. Nanoscale 9:19384–19389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zwilling V, Darque-Ceretti E, Boutry-Forveille A, David D, Perrin MY, Aucouturier M (1999) Structure and physicochemistry of anodic oxide films on titanium and TA6 V alloy. Surf Interface Anal 27:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paramasivam I, Jha H, Liu N, Schmuki P (2012) Review of photocatalysis using self-organized TiO2 nanotubes and other ordered oxide nanostructures. Small 20:3073–3103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mills A, Wang J, Crow M (2006) Photocatalytic oxidation of soot by P25 TiO2 films. Chemosphere 64:1032–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macak J, Zlamal M, Krysa J, Schmuki P (2007) Self-organized TiO2 nanotube layers as highly efficient photocatalysts. Small 3:300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sun J, Guo LH, Zhang H, Zhao L (2014) UV irradiation induced transformation of TiO2 nanoparticles in water: aggregation and photoreactivity. Environ Sci Technol 48:11962–11968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shibata Y, Miyazaki T (2002) Anode glow discharge plasma treatment enhances calcium phosphate adsorption onto Titanium plates. J Dent Res 81:841–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Valota A, LeClere DJ, Skeldon P, Curioni M, Hashimoto T et al (2009) Influence of water content on nanotubular anodic titania formed in fluoride/glycerol electrolytes. Electrochim Acta 54:4321–4327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xue C, Narushima T, Ishida Y, Tokunaga T, Yonezawa T (2014) Double-wall TiO2 nanotube arrays: enhanced photocatalytic activity and in situ TEM observations at high temperature. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:19924–19932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rustomji CS, Frandsen CJ, Jin S, Tauber MJ (2010) Dye-sensitized solar cell constructed with titanium mesh and 3D array of TiO2 nanotubes. J Phys Chem B 114:14537–14543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leonardi S, Russo V, Bassi AL, Fonzo FD, Murray TM et al (2015) TiO2 nanotubes: interdependence of substrate grain orientation and growth rate. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:1662–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wei W, Berger S, Hauser C, Meyer K, Yang M, Schmuki P (2010) Transition of TiO2 nanotubes to nanopores for electrolytes with very low water contents. Electrochem Commun 12:1184–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Song J, Zheng M, Yuan X, Li Q, Wang F et al (2017) Electrochemically induced Ti3+ self-doping of TiO2 nanotube arrays for improved photoelectrochemical water splitting. J Mater Sci 52:6976–6986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dalton JS, Janes PA, Jones NG, Nicholson JA, Hallam KR, Allen GC (2002) Photocatalytic oxidation of NOx gases using TiO2: a surface spectroscopic approach. Environ Pollut 120:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kang Q, Cao J, Zhang Y, Liu L, Xu H, Ye J (2013) Reduced TiO2 nanotube arrays for photoelectrochemical water splitting. J Mater Chem A 1:5766–5774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang Y, Liao J, Li Y, Cao X, Li N, Wang C, Lin S (2016) Electrochemically self-doped hierarchical TiO2 nanotube arrays for enhanced visible-light photoelectrochemical performance: an experimental and computational study. RSC Adv 6:46871–46878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anpo M, Che M, Fubini B, Garrone E, Giamello E, Paganini MC (1999) Generation of superoxide ions at oxide surfaces. Top Catal 8:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xing M, Zhang J, Chen F, Tian B (2011) An economic method to prepare vacuum activated photocatalysts with high photo-activities and photosensitivities. Chem Commun 47:4947–4949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zheng Z, Huang B, Meng X, Wang J, Wang S et al (2013) Metallic zinc-assisted synthesis of Ti3+ self-doped TiO2 with tunable phases composition and visible-light photocatalytic activity. Chem Commun 49:868–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carlson K, Elliott C, Walker S, Misra M, Mohanty S (2016) An effective, point-of-use water disinfection device using immobilized black TiO2 nanotubes as an electrolyst. J Electrochem Soc 163:H395–H401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hu Z, Zhang X, Liu Z, Huo K, Chu PK, Zhai J, Jiang L (2014) Regulating water adhesion on superhydrophobic TiO2 nanotube arrays. Adv Funct Mater 24:6381–6388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xue G, Liu K, Chen Q, Yang P, Li J et al (2017) Robust and low-cost flame-treated wood for high-performance solar steam generation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9:15052–15057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Umlauff M, Hoffmann J, Kalt H, Langbein WW, Hvam JM et al (1998) Direct observation of free-exciton thermalization in quantum-well structures. Phys Rev B 57:1390–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Elser MJ, Diwald O (2012) Facilitated lattice oxygen depletion in consolidated TiO2 nanocrystal ensembles: a quantitative spectroscopic O2 adsorption study. J Phys Chem C 116:2896–2903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tian L, Xu J, Just M, Green M, Liu L, Chen X (2017) Broad range energy absorption enabled by hydrogenated TiO2 nanosheets: from optical to infrared and microwave. J Mater Chem C 5:4645–4653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huo J, Hu Y, Jiang H, Li C (2014) In situ surface hydrogenation synthesis of Ti3+ self-doped TiO2 with enhanced visible light photoactivity. Nanoscale 6:9078–9084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee K, Mazare A, Schmuki P (2014) One-dimensional titanium dioxide nanomaterials: nanotubes. Chem Rev 114:9385–9454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bae K, Kang G, Cho SK, Park W, Kim K, Padilla WJ (2015) Flexible thin-film black gold membranes with ultrobroadband plasmonic nanofocusing for efficient solar vapour generation. Nat Commun 6:10103 (1)–10103 (9)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Macak JM, Zlamal M, Krysa J, Schmuki P (2007) Self-organized TiO2 nanotube arrays as highly efficient photocatalysts. Small 3:300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhu K, Neale NR, Miedaner A, Frank AJ (2007) Enhanced charge-collection efficiencies and light scattering in dye-sensitized solar cells using oriented TiO2 nanotubes arrays. Nano Lett 7:69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rambabu Y, Jaiswal M, Roy SC (2015) Enhanced photoelectrochemical performance of multi-leg TiO2 nanotubes through efficient light harvesting. J Phys D Appl Phys 48:295302 (1)–295302 (9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Song YY, Schmuki P (2010) Modulated TiO2 nanotube stacks and their use in interference sensors. Electrochem Commun 12:579–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hua Z, Li B, Li L, Yin X, Chen K, Wang W (2017) Designing a novel photothermal material of hierarchical microstructured copper phosphate for solar evpaoration enhancement. J Phys Chem C 121:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhou L, Tan Y, Ji D, Zhu B, Zhang P et al (2016) Self-assembly of highly efficient, broadband plasmonic absorbers for solar steam generation. Sci Adv 2:e1501227 (1)–e1501227 (8)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Materials Science and EngineeringNorth University of ChinaTaiyuanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Energy and Power EngineeringNorth University of ChinaTaiyuanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Materials Science and EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations