ArticleACS measurement science au2025
Improving Bandgap Determination by Optical Spectroscopy: Comparative Evaluation of ISARS, UV-vis, and Diffuse Reflectance.
Article in ACS measurement science au, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- UV-visible spectrophotometry in modern research: applications in adsorption, photocatalysis, catalytic reduction, sensing nanomaterials, and drug delivery.RSC advances · 2026Review
- High-performance zinc tungstate photocatalyst: tailoring crystallinity, bandgap, and charge separation via controlled calcination.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Overcoming Subjectivity in Bandgap Evaluation through On-Resonance Fluorescence: Establishing a Robust and Objective Optical Metric for Fluorescent Materials.ACS measurement science au · 2026Article
- Strain effect on photocatalytic oxygen evolution activity in SrRSC advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of the Tauc plot method for estimating a material's optical bandgap critically depends on the accurate quantification of its absorption coefficient (α), defined as the path length-normalized absorbance. This study systematically evaluates and compares three spectroscopic techniques, ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) spectroscopy, diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS), and integrating sphere-assisted resonance synchronous spectroscopy (ISARS), for their effectiveness in determining the absorption coefficient spectrum used in Tauc plot-based bandgap analysis. For each technique, a generalized mathematical model is developed by parametrizing the measured spectral signal as a functional expression of the sample's optical properties and experimental conditions. These models provide a conceptual framework under which the measured spectra can reliably approximate the true absorption coefficient spectrum, particularly for materials with diverse optical behaviors. UV-vis spectroscopy is found to have highly limited applicability and is suitable only in rare cases where samples are free from scattering and fluorescence interference. While DRS and ISARS yield comparable accuracy for nonfluorescent solids, DRS is constrained by its sensitivity to fluorescence artifacts and its restriction to solid-state samples. In contrast, ISARS consistently outperforms both methods: it is effective for both solid- and solution-phase samples, demonstrates strong resilience against scattering and fluorescence interference, and requires minimal sample preparation. Importantly, ISARS can be readily implemented by using a standard commercial spectrofluorometer equipped with an integrating sphere, making it both practical and accessible. Given its superior accuracy, broad applicability, and ease of use, ISARS stands out as a robust and versatile technique for precise bandgap characterization, offering significant promise for accelerating the discovery and development of photoactive materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.