| Literature DB >> 26304806 |
Bożena Czech1, Patryk Oleszczuk2, Agnieszka Ewa Wiącek3, Mariusz Barczak4.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to estimate how water treatment (stimulation of real conditions) by H2O2 and/or UV affects carbon nanotube (CNT) properties and fate (stability/aggregation) in water and tannic acid solution. The processes studied had only a slight effect on SBET, porosity, and surface composition of CNTs. There was a change in the morphology of CNTs. After H2O2 and/or UV treatment, CNTs underwent shortening, opening up of their ends, and exfoliation. Treatment with H2O2 increased the content of oxygen in CNTs. A decrease was observed in the surface charge and in the mobility of CNTs, which caused an increase in their stability. UV irradiation of CNTs led to an increased incidence of defects that were manifested by both an increase of zeta potential and an increased mobility of CNT, whereas the presence of H2O2 during UV irradiation had only a slight effect on the parameters of the porous structure of nanotubes.Entities:
Keywords: CNTs; Properties; Stability; Water treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26304806 PMCID: PMC4679106 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-5208-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1TEM images of studied CNTs. a, b CNT, c CNT-H2O2, d CNT-UV, e CNT-H2O2-UV
The characteristic of multi-walled carbon nanotubes before (CNTs) and after treatment with H2O2 (CNT-H2O2), UV (CNT–UV) and UV, and H2O2 (CNT–UV+ H2O2)
| CNTs | BET surface (m2/g) | Pore volume (cm3/g) | Pore radius (Å) | ID/IG (-) | Bulk C (%) | Bulk H (%) | Bulk N (%) | Bulk O (%) | O/C (-) | H/C (-) | (N + O)/C (-) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNT | 165.6 | 0.90 | 109.0 | 1.23 | 96.26 | 0.14 | 0.49 | 3.11 | 0.032 | 0.0015 | 0.037 |
| CNT- H2O2 | 162.5 | 1.28 | 157.7 | 1.10 | 96.13 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 3.39 | 0.035 | – | 0.040 |
| CNT -UV | 166.3 | 1.29 | 155.0 | 1.48 | 96.48 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 3.04 | 0.032 | – | 0.037 |
| CNT – UV+ H2O2 | 169.6 | 0.94 | 110.9 | 1.28 | 96.17 | 0.00 | 0.43 | 3.41 | 0.035 | – | 0.040 |
Mean aggregates diameter and zeta potential of multi-walled carbon nanotubes studied
| CNTs | Mean aggregates diameter (nm) | Size distribution (nm) | Dispersity (−) | Zeta potential (mV) | Mobility (m2/s*V) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNT | 2968.7 ± 240.9 | 125.1 (87.6 %) 3146.6 (1.26 %) | 0.306 | 9.54 ± 5.12 | 0.68 ± 0.36 |
| CNT-H2O2 | 6687.5 ± 3734.4 | 449.3 (87.7 %) 8985.4 (≤1 %) | 0.507 | 2.71 ± 10.01 | 0.19 ± 0.71 |
| CNT-UV | 2630.1 ± 164.9 | 781.57 (90.3 %) 9030.6 (≤1 %) | 0.365 | 12.91 ± 2.03 | 0.92 ± 0.14 |
| CNT-H2O2-UV | 9154.2 ± 3644.5 | 556.5 (83.9 %) 8985.4 (≤1 %) | 0.378 | −1.36 ± 6.8 | −0.1 ± 0.49 |
Fig. 2The relationship between zeta potential and oxygen content of studied CNT
Fig. 3Raman spectrum of studied CNTs before (CNT) and after treatment with H2O2 and/or UV
Fig. 4The stability of CNTs in a water and b tannic acid solution