The intragap states are found in the same spin state in each case, which indicates that no spin exchange energy is involved in the bandgap. The calculated plots of the density of states indicate that these intragap states are lying deeper below the conduction band edge of anatase TiO2 in the case of Cu, as compared to the case of vanadate. In order to obtain a more quantitative picture of the energetic position of the intragap states, we modelled the local electrostatic potential at the surface of our materials. We note that, in general, the position of the conduction band edge (CBE) of anatase TiO2 in all our materials is determined by the net surface charge, which, in turn, is chiefly governed by the adsorption of protons and hydroxyl ions at the TiO2 surface. The position of band edges therefore strongly depends on the pH value of the aqueous solution. Herein we assume that, due to the relatively low surface concentration of Cu(II) or vanadate ions, the CBE position of all our materials will coincide with the typical position of the CBE of pristine anatase TiO2, which is ca. -0.6 V vs. NHE at pH 7. The relative position of the intragap states with respect to the CBE is then estimated from the plots of the local electrostatic potential by taking the difference between the highest occupied state and the CBE. Based on this analysis, we estimate the vanadate-induced electronic states to be positioned right below (by 0.13 eV) the CBE of anatase TiO2. In contrast, the Cu(II)induced intragap states are lying much deeper, centered ~0.73 eV below the CBE of anatase TiO2.