| Literature DB >> 21961891 |
Wei Wu1, Xiangheng Xiao, Shaofeng Zhang, Feng Ren, Changzhong Jiang.
Abstract
Many methods have been reported to improving the photocatalytic efficiency of organic pollutant and their reliable applicaEntities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21961891 PMCID: PMC3212071 DOI: 10.1186/1556-276X-6-533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Figure 1Illustration of the synthetic chemistry and process of magnetic iron oxide/TiO.
Figure 2Illustration of the functionalization process of iron oxides NPs with amino group by APTES.
Figure 3Representative TEM images of naked iron oxides and iron oxides/TiO. The insert in (c) is the corresponding SEM image.
Figure 4XRD patterns. Patterns of the as-prepared spindle-like α-Fe2O3 NPs and FT-1 (a), as-prepared hollow and ultrafine Fe3O4 NPs, FT-2 and FT-3 (b).
Figure 5XPS spectra of the naked, amino-functionalized, and titania coating ultrafine Fe. XPS spectra for ultrafine Fe3O4 NPs (curve a), APTES-coated ultrafine Fe3O4 NPs (curve b) and ultrafine Fe3O4/TiO2 hybrid NPs (curve c) comparison (a), the regions for Fe 2p (b), Si 2p (c), O 1s (d), and C 1s (e), comparison respectively.
Standard binding energy values
| O 1 | Si 2 | N 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naked Fe3O4 nanoparticles | 710.9 | 531.5 | |||
| APTES-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles | 710.5 | 531.5 | 102.5 | 399.5 | |
| Hybrid nanoparticles (FT-3) | 710.0 | 530.0 | 101.4 | 400.7 | 458.3 |
| Standard value | 710.5b | 531.4c, 529.9d | 103.3e | 399.8f | 458.8g |
Standard binding energy values for Fe 2p, Si 2p, N 1s, O 1s, and Ti 2and those resolved in the naked, amino-functionalized, and titania coating ultrafine Fe3O4 nanoparticles. aUnit for binding energy: eV; bFe in Fe3O4; cO in Fe3O4; dO in TiO2; eSi in SiO2; fN in N-C group; g Ti in TiO2, Δ = 5.54 eV
Figure 6XPS spectra of the FT-1, FT-2, and FT-3. XPS spectra for FT-1 (curve a), FT-2 (curve b), and FT-3 (curve c) comparison (a), the regions for C 1s (b), O 1s (c), N 1s (d), Si 2p (e), Fe 2p (f), and Ti 2p (g), comparison respectively.
Surface elemental composition and XPS binding energies of FT-1, FT-2, and FT-3
| Chemical composition (%); in parentheses, binding energy (eV) | Atomic ratio | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | Ti 2 | Fe 2 | O 1 | N 1 | Si 2 | Ti/Fe | O/FeTi |
| FT-1 | 2.87 | 1.38 | 29.08 | 3.96 | 3.80 | 2.08 | 6.84 |
| FT-2 | 4.72 | 1.25 | 27.13 | 4.10 | 2.60 | 3.78 | 4.54 |
| FT-3 | 5.75 | 1.02 | 33.53 | 4.38 | 5.48 | 5.63 | 4.95 |
Figure 7Magnetization vs. filed dependence curves of iron oxides and hybrid NPs. Recorded at T = 300 K. Insert shows the M-H curve of FT-1 samples.
Figure 8Photographs showing the magnetic separation of the FT-2 and FT-3 in solid and solution state. At the presence of magnet (take from the MSS).
Figure 9UV-vis absorbance spectrum and bandgap energy. UV-vis absorbance spectrum (a) and bandgap energy (b) of FT-1 (curve a), FT-2 (curve b) and FT-3 (curve c) hybrid NPs.
Figure 10Changes of MB concentration photocatalytic degradation in the presence of samples. (a) Without samples, (b) pure TiO2 (5 nm), (c) FT-1, (d) FT-2, and (e) FT-3, and the insert is the correspondingly logarithmic coordinate versus time and liner fitting results.