| Literature DB >> 28773386 |
István Székely1, Gábor Kovács2,3,4, Lucian Baia5,6, Virginia Danciu7, Zsolt Pap8,9,10,11.
Abstract
A traditional semiconductor (WO₃) was synthesized from different precursors via hydrothermal crystallization targeting the achievement of three different crystal shapes (nanoplates, nanorods and nanostars). The obtained WO₃ microcrystals were analyzed by the means of X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS). These methods contributed to the detailed analysis of the crystal morphology and structural features. The synthesized bare WO₃ photocatalysts were totally inactive, while the P25/WO₃ composites were efficient under UV light radiation. Furthermore, the maximum achieved activity was even higher than the bare P25's photocatalytic performance. A correlation was established between the shape of the WO₃ crystallites and the observed photocatalytic activity registered during the degradation of different substrates by using P25/WO₃ composites.Entities:
Keywords: WO3 nanocrystallites; WO3/TiO2 nanocomposites; hydrothermal crystallization; photocatalytic activity; shape tuning/tailoring
Year: 2016 PMID: 28773386 PMCID: PMC5502922 DOI: 10.3390/ma9040258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Photodegradation of oxalic acid under UV light using bare WO3.
Figure 2Photode gradation of phenol under visible light with WO3 microcrystallites.
Figure 3Degradation curves of phenol using WO3-P25 composites under UV light, after 2 h (a); and 1 h (b).
Figure 4Degradation curves of methyl-orange using WO3-P25 composites under UV light, after 2 h.
The obtained materials’ photocatalytic activity and structural properties.
| Sample Name | Structure WO3 | Band-gap (eV) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *MC | #HY | ||||||
| P25 | – | – | 3.11 | 86.8 | 8.90 × 10−3 | 82.8 | 2.26 |
| WO3-HW5 | 36.3 | 63.6 | 2.69 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| WO3-HW | 9.3 | 90.6 | 2.75 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| WO3-NWH | 0 | 100 | 2.69 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| WO3-AMT | 100 | 0 | 2.25 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| WO3-COM | 100 | 0 | 2.61 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| P25 + WO3-HW5 | – | – | 3.04 | 66.7 | 8.86 × 10−3 | 76.3 | 1.06 |
| P25 + WO3-HW | – | – | 3.00 | 87.2 | 6.53 × 10−3 | 67.3 | 1.01 |
| P25 + WO3-NWH | – | – | 2.97 | 44.4 | 5.31 × 10−3 | 57.7 | 0.35 |
| P25 + WO3-AMT | – | – | 3.10 | 58.7 | 6.69 × 10−3 | 84.6 | 1.66 |
| P25 + WO3-COM | – | – | 2.94 | 49.1 | 11.18 × 10−3 | 59.5 | 5.02 |
*MC—monoclinic WO3; #HY—WO3·0.33H2O.
Figure 5SEM micrographs of WO3-HW, WO3-HW5 (a;b); WO3-NWH (c;d;g); and WO3-AMT (e;f;h)—the yellow dotted arrows are marking the wire boundaries.
Figure 6XRD patterns of the obtained WO3.
Figure 7The reflectance spectra of the commercial and synthesized WO3.
Figure 8The reflectance spectra of the commercial and synthesized WO3-TiO2 composites.
Figure 9Degradation efficiencies vs. crystal phase composition/morphology.