| Literature DB >> 25246877 |
Safi Asim Bin Asif1, Sher Bahadar Khan2, Abdullah M Asiri2.
Abstract
A Co3O4/Fe2O3 composite nanofiber-based solar photocatalyst has been prepared, and its catalytic performance was evaluated by degrading acridine orange (AO) and brilliant cresyl blue (BCB) beneath solar light. The morphological and physiochemical structure of the synthesized solar photocatalyst was characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). FESEM indicates that the Co3O4/Fe2O3 composite has fiber-like nanostructures with an average diameter of approximately 20 nm. These nanofibers are made of aggregated nanoparticles having approximately 8.0 nm of average diameter. The optical properties were examined by UV-visible spectrophotometry, and the band gap of the solar photocatalyst was found to be 2.12 eV. The as-grown solar photocatalyst exhibited high catalytic degradation in a short time by applying to degrade AO and BCB. The pH had an effect on the catalytic performance of the as-grown solar photocatalyst, and it was found that the synthesized solar photocatalyst is more efficient at high pH. The kinetics study of both AO and BCB degradation indicates that the as-grown nanocatalyst would be a talented and efficient solar photocatalyst for the removal of hazardous and toxic organic materials.Entities:
Keywords: Acridine orange; Brilliant cresyl blue; Co3O4/Fe2O3; Nanofiber; Organic pollutant; Solar photocatalyst
Year: 2014 PMID: 25246877 PMCID: PMC4169707 DOI: 10.1186/1556-276X-9-510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Figure 1FESEM images of the composite nanofibers (a-d).
Figure 2Powder XRD patterns (a) and FTIR spectrum (b) of the composite nanofibers.
Figure 3XPS spectrum of the composite nanofibers.
Figure 4UV-visible spectrum (a) and ( ) vs. plot (b) of the composite nanofibers.
Figure 5Typical plots. (a) Change in the absorption spectrum. (b) Comparison of change in absorbance vs. irradiation time. (c) Comparison of percentage of degradation vs. irradiation time. (d) Pseudo-first-order kinetics for AO at pH 7.0 and 10.0 in the presence of the composite nanofibers.
Figure 6Composite nanofibers. (a) Comparison of change in absorbance vs. irradiation time. (b) Comparison of percentage of degradation vs. irradiation time. (c) Pseudo-first-order kinetics for AO and BCB at pH 7.0 in the presence of the composite nanofibers.
Figure 7Schematic view of photodegradation using the composite nanofibers.
Pseudo-first-order rate constant and for AO and BCB in the presence of the composite nanofibers
| AO | 7.0 | 0.0150 | 1.5000E − 06 | 0.9928 | 0.9857 | 46.1107 | 0.00009 |
| 10.0 | 0.0176 | 1.7700E − 06 | 0.9715 | 0.9439 | 39.2558 | 0.00007 | |
| BCB | 7.0 | 0.0067 | 0.6720E − 06 | 0.9720 | 0.9448 | 103.1198 | 0.00020 |
Pseudo-first-order rate constant and for AO and BCB in the absence of the composite nanofibers
| AO | 5.0 | 0.0027 | 0.2710E − 06 | 0.9643 | 0.9299 | 255.6364 | 0.00049 |
| BCB | 5.0 | 0.0006 | 0.0552E − 06 | 0.9681 | 0.9372 | 1254.3642 | 0.00239 |