Is there any Real Effect of Low Dimensional Morphologies towards Light Harvesting? A Case Study of Au–rGO‐TiO 2 Nanocomposites

Nanotube and nanosheet morphologies have been celebrated for their electron transport properties. Present work has been explored to exploit the same by combining 1D TiO 2 nanotube (1D‐TN) with 2D reduced graphene oxide (rGO) along with nano gold for visible light sensitization for photocatalytic H 2 generation under one sun condition and visible light (λ≥ 400 nm). Vertical and horizontal electron transport in 1D‐TN and rGO, respectively, is combined with the visible light absorption capability of Au nanoparticle. H 2 yield (HY) varies between 100 and 655 µmol/g.h with an apparent quantum yield between 0.45 and 3.2 %, respectively, depending on Au/rGO/1D‐TN preparation method and reaction conditions. It has been demonstrated that interfacial contact between rGO/1D‐TN and Au is crucial for high photocatalytic HY. Preparation method influences charge utilization, and hence HY, to a large extent. Nonetheless, the maximum HY reported in the present work is just comparable to HY reported in literature with the most commonly found spherical morphology, and this leads to a question of, is there any real influence of 1D and/or 2D materials, particularly, towards light harvesting applications?