| Literature DB >> 29316667 |
Izabela Wysocka1, Ewa Kowalska2, Konrad Trzciński3, Marcin Łapiński4, Grzegorz Nowaczyk5, Anna Zielińska-Jurek6.
Abstract
The combination ofEntities:
Keywords: heterogeneous photocatalysis; magnetic photocatalysts; mechanism of degradation; modification of titanium(IV) oxide; noble metal nanoparticles; phenol
Year: 2018 PMID: 29316667 PMCID: PMC5791115 DOI: 10.3390/nano8010028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of Me-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 nanocomposites.
Characteristic of physicochemical properties of TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 and Me-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 photocatalysts.
| Photocatalyst | Crystalline Size | Magnetization (emu·g−1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2 | Magnetite | ||||||
| Anatase | Rutile | ||||||
| Size (nm) | Phase Content wt % | Size (nm) | Phase Content wt % | Size (nm) | Phase Content wt % | ||
| TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 20 | 57 ± 0.5 | 30 | 8 ± 1 | 44.5 | 34 ± 1 | 11 |
| Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 19.5 | 63 ± 2.5 | 28 | 6.5 ± 0.2 | 44 | 29 ± 2 | 12 |
| Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 19 | 64 ± 3 | 31 | 8 ± 1.4 | 43 | 29 ± 2.5 | 9.5 |
| Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 20 | 61 ± 3 | 30 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 44 | 30 ± 3 | 10 |
| Au-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 20 | 60 ± 1 | 31 | 7 ± 0.8 | 42 | 32 ± 2 | 11 |
Figure 2Magnetic hysteresis for (a) Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4; (b) Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4; (c) Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4; (d) all obtained Me-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 nanocomposites and magnification at hysteresis loop start point.
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis of oxygen, titanium, carbon and metal for Me-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 photocatalysts, and fraction of oxidation states from deconvolution of XPS peaks of Ti 2p and C 1s.
| Photocatalyst | Content (at.%) | Ti 2p3/2 (%) | C 1s (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ti 2p | O 1s | Si 2p | C 1s | Metal | Ti4+ | Ti3+ | C-C | C-O | C=C | C=O | COOH | |
| TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 8.7 | 60.0 | 20.4 | 10.9 | 0 | 97.0 | 3.0 | 34.0 | 24.5 | 12.8 | 18.1 | 10.5 |
| Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 8.3 | 59.4 | 20.5 | 11.6 | 0.2 | 96.0 | 4.0 | 33.9 | 21.5 | 22.0 | 11.5 | 9.0 |
| Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 6.7 | 56.5 | 22.6 | 13.4 | 0.8 | 96.0 | 4.0 | 43.1 | 41.2 | 8.4 | 2.9 | 4.4 |
| Au-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 9.8 | 57.6 | 19.1 | 13.3 | 0.2 | 97.0 | 3.0 | 31.5 | 43.4 | 18.8 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 8.5 | 59.6 | 22.3 | 9.5 | 0.1 | 97.0 | 3.0 | 41.1 | 35.5 | 7.4 | 15.4 | 0.6 |
XPS and scanning electron microscopy/ energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) results of the noble metal content in the magnetic photocatalysts.
| Photocatalyst | Amount of Metal | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Used for Deposition (mol %) | Deposited | ||
| EDS (wt %) | XPS (at.%) | ||
| TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Au-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.2 |
| Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.5 | 0.58 | 0.1 |
Figure 3Dark-field scanning transmission (DF-STEM) microscopy images for (a) Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4; (b) Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 and (c) Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 nanocomposites. Inserts for (a,c): magnification of metal nanoparticles deposited on TiO2.
Figure 4(a) Mott-Schottky plot of unmodified photocatalyst (space charge region capacitance calculated for 3 different frequencies); (b) Exemplary impedance spectrum and fitted data of unmodified TiO2 (recorded at 0 V vs. Ag/AgCl (0.1 M KCl). Insert: equivalent circuit used to model spectrum, and (c) comparison of Mott-Schottky plots recorded for TiO2, Cu-TiO2, Pd-TiO2, Au-TiO2, and Pt-TiO2 (capacitances calculated for 1000 Hz).
Figure 5Photodegradation of phenol (a) and total organic carbon (TOC) reduction (b) under ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) light the presence of Pt-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4, Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4, Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 and Au-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 nanocomposites. Experimental conditions: phenol initial concentration Co. = 0.2 × 10−3 M, content of photocatalyst 2 g·dm−3, 300 W xenon lamp.
Iron leaching to reaction medium.
| Photocatalysts | Iron Concentration (mg·L−l) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.55 ± 0.08 | <LOQ |
| Cu-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.53 ± 0.07 | <LOQ |
| Pd-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.50 ± 0.08 | <LOQ |
| Pt–TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.53 ± 0.08 | <LOQ |
| Au–TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 | 0.55 ± 0.10 | <LOQ |
Figure 6Variation of benzoquinone (a); hydroquinone (b); catechol (c) and oxalic acid (d) formation during phenol photodegradation.
Figure 7Fluorescence spectra changes observed during irradiation of Me-TiO2/SiO2@Fe3O4 photocatalysts under UV-Vis irradiation.
Figure 8Photocatalytic degradation of phenol for Me-TiO2@SiO2/Fe3O4 photocatalysts in the presence of e−, h+, ˙O2− and ˙OH scavengers and N2 purging.
Figure 9Schematic illustration of the phenol photocatalytic degradation mechanism for magnetic photocatalysts modified with: (a) copper; (b) gold; (c) palladium and (d) platinum nanoparticles.