| Literature DB >> 28509883 |
Rachan Klaysri1, Marina Ratova2, Piyasan Praserthdam3, Peter J Kelly4.
Abstract
Doping of titanium dioxide with p-block elements is typically described as an efficient pathway for the enhancement of photocatalytic activity. However, the properties of the doped titania films depend greatly on the production method, source of doping, type of substrate, etc. The present work describes the use of pulsed direct current (pDC) magnetron sputtering for the deposition of carbon-doped titania coatings, using CO₂ as the source of carbon; ratios of O₂/CO₂ were varied through variations of CO₂ flow rates and oxygen flow control setpoints. Additionally, undoped Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) coatings were prepared under identical deposition conditions for comparison purposes. Coatings were post-deposition annealed at 873 K and analysed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffreaction (XRD), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The photocatalytic properties of the thin films were evaluated under ultraviolet (UV) and visible light irradiation using methylene blue and stearic acid decomposition tests. Photoinduced hydrophilicity was assessed through measurements of the water contact angle under UV and visible light irradiation. It was found that, though C-doping resulted in improved dye degradation compared to undoped TiO₂, the UV-induced photoactivity of Carbon-doped (C-doped) photocatalysts was lower for both model pollutants used.Entities:
Keywords: carbon dioxide; carbon doping; magnetron sputtering; methylene blue; photocatalysis; stearic acid; titanium dioxide; visible light
Year: 2017 PMID: 28509883 PMCID: PMC5449994 DOI: 10.3390/nano7050113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Schematic representation of the Teer UDP350 sputtering rig.
Summary of the deposition conditions and compositional properties of undoped and C-doped titanium dioxide films on glass substrate.
| Sample ID | Optical Emission Monitoring (OEM) Setpoint, % FMS | CO2 Flow, sccm | Thickness, nm a | Ti, at. % b | O, at. % b | C, at. % b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T25 | - | - | 490 | 34.9 | 65.1 | - |
| T25C2.5 | 25 | 2.5 | 820 | 32.9 | 62.5 | 4.5 |
| T25C5 | 25 | 5 | 860 | 32.9 | 61.6 | 5.0 |
| T25C7 | 25 | 7 | 870 | 35.2 | 59.4 | 5.5 |
| T30 | 30 | - | 510 | 40.9 | 59.1 | - |
| T30C2.5 | 30 | 2.5 | 820 | 33.9 | 62.0 | 4.1 |
| T30C5 | 30 | 5 | 870 | 33.5 | 60.8 | 5.3 |
| T30C7 | 30 | 7 | 910 | 35.8 | 58.6 | 5.6 |
| T35 | 35 | - | 600 | 40.2 | 59.8 | - |
| T35C2.5 | 35 | 2.5 | 840 | 33.6 | 60.7 | 4.7 |
| T35C5 | 35 | 5 | 1300 | 34.1 | 59.8 | 6.1 |
| T35C7 | 35 | 7 | 1500 | 36.7 | 56.9 | 6.4 |
a Stylus profilometry results; b energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) results.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of selected titania and C-doped titania coatings deposited on glass substrate (a) T35; (b) T35C2.5; (c) T35C5; (d) T35C7.
Summary of the deposition conditions and surface properties of undoped and C-doped titanium dioxide films on glass substrate.
| Sample ID | Surface Roughness, nm a | Surface Area, µm2 a | Ti3+/Ti4+ b | Ti–C, at. % b | C–O, at. % b | Ti–C–O, at. % b | Band Gap, eV c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T25 | 5.7 | 902 | - | - | - | - | 3.22 |
| T25C2.5 | 6.0 | 901 | - | 0.06 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 3.13 |
| T25C5 | 4.2 | 901 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 3.15 |
| T25C7 | 13.0 | 902 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.48 | 3.08 |
| T30 | 6.0 | 901 | - | - | - | - | 3.20 |
| T30C2.5 | 5.8 | 901 | - | 0.08 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 3.04 |
| T30C5 | 5.8 | 901 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 3.05 |
| T30C7 | 10.0 | 902 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 2.63 |
| T35 | 6.2 | 911 | - | - | - | - | 3.18 |
| T35C2.5 | 12.8 | 902 | - | 0.11 | 0.37 | 0.51 | 3.00 |
| T35C5 | 11.0 | 902 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.74 | 0.32 | 2.02 |
| T35C7 | 12.4 | 902 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 2.17 |
a Atomic force microscopy (AFM) results; b Calculation based on the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results; c Calculation based on transmittance data.
Figure 3AFM images of selected C-doped coatings deposited on glass substrate (a) T35C2.5; (b) T35C5; (c) T35C7.
Figure 4X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of selected C-doped and undoped TiO2 coatings (25% optical emission monitoring (OEM) setpoint) deposited on glass substrates and annealed at 873 K.
Figure 5X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results of selected C-doped samples: (a) Survey spectrum (sample T25C2.5); (b) Ti 2p spectrum (sample T25C7); (c) O 1s spectrum (sample T25C7); (d) C 1s spectrum (sample T25C7).
Figure 6Examples of band gap calculations for selected C-doped and undoped titania samples (deposited at 35% OEM setpoint).
Results of wettability measurements and photocatalytic tests of C-doped and undoped Titanium dioxide (TiO2) coatings annealed at 873 K.
| Sample ID | Initial CA, deg. | CA after 1 h UV, deg. | CA after 1 h vis, deg. | Kinetic Constant, k | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MB UV, k × 105, s−1 a | MB vis, k × 105, s−1 a | SA UV, k × 102, A cm−1 h−1 b | SA vis, k × 102, A cm−1 h−1 b | ||||
| T25 | 92 | 18 | 55 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 0.4 |
| T25C2.5 | 60 | 10 | 15 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| T25C5 | 11 | ~0 | ~0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.3 |
| T25C7 | 11 | ~0 | ~0 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 |
| T30 | 53 | 13 | 20 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 0.7 |
| T30C2.5 | 58 | 13 | 16 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.1 |
| T30C5 | 11 | ~0 | ~0 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 |
| T30C7 | 10 | ~0 | ~0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| T35 | 54 | 10 | 22 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 2.3 | 0.9 |
| T35C2.5 | 63 | 12 | 14 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
| T35C5 | 10 | ~0 | ~0 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
| T35C7 | 10 | ~0 | ~0 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.6 |
a MB UV/Vis—Methylene blue degradation under UV or visible light, respectively; b SA UV/Vis—Stearic acid degradation under UV or visible light, respectively.
Figure 7Kinetics plot of selected thin films of methylene blue degradation under (a) UV and (b) visible light irradiation.
Figure 8Plots of the integrated area changes of the FTIR spectra of the stearic acid peaks (3000–2700 cm−1) for selected C-doped and undoped TiO2 samples under: (a) UV light irradiation; (b) visible light irradiation.