| Literature DB >> 29642626 |
Julien G Mahy1, Vincent Cerfontaine2, Dirk Poelman3, François Devred4, Eric M Gaigneaux5, Benoît Heinrichs6, Stéphanie D Lambert7.
Abstract
In this paper, TiO₂ prepared with an aqueous sol-gel synthesis by pepEntities:
Keywords: N-doped TiO2; aqueous sol-gel process; multiple crystalline phase catalyst; p-nitrophenol degradation; photocatalysis
Year: 2018 PMID: 29642626 PMCID: PMC5951468 DOI: 10.3390/ma11040584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of ethylenediamine-doped samples: (■) TiO2 pure B, (♦) TiO2/EtDN1, (▲) TiO2/EtDN2, (●) TiO2/EtDN4 and (⨯) TiO2/EtDN10. (A) reference pattern of anatase, (B) reference pattern of brookite and (R) reference pattern of rutile.
Textural and optical properties of TiO2-based photocatalysts.
| Sample | Phase Distribution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (nm) | (m2g−1) | (cm3g−1) | (nm) | (nm) | (eV) | (eV) | |
| ±5 | ±1 | ±5 | ±0.01 | ±1 | ±1 | ±0.01 | ±0.01 | |
| TiO2 pure A | Am[25%] + A[65%] + B[10%] | 4 | 205 | 0.11 | 8 | 5 | 3.35 | 3.06 |
| TiO2/U1 | Am[30%] + A[65% ]+ B[5%] | 5 | 235 | 0.15 | 7 | 6 | 3.25 | 2.97 |
| TiO2/U2 | Am[30%] + A[65%] + B[5%] | 4 | 255 | 0.16 | 6 | 6 | 3.24 | 2.97 |
| TiO2/U4 | Am[30%] + A[65%] + B[5%] | 4 | 260 | 0.16 | 6 | 7 | 3.27 | 3.04 |
| TiO2/U10 | Am[25%] + A[70%] + B[5%] | 4 | 270 | 0.16 | 6 | 5 | 3.36 | 3.05 |
| TiO2 pure B | Am[15%] + A[75%] + B[10%] | 4 | 195 | 0.10 | 8 | 5 | 3.42 | 3.12 |
| TiO2/EtDN1 | Am[20%] + A[65%] + B[5%] + R[10%] | 7 | 225 | 0.13 | 7 | 6 | 3.30 | 2.94 |
| TiO2/EtDN2 | Am[15%] + A[60%] + B[5%] + R[20%] | 4 | 240 | 0.13 | 6 | 6 | 3.39 | 2.99 |
| TiO2/EtDN4 | Am[15%] + A[45%] + B[5%] + R[35%] | 5 a–8 b | 195 | 0.11 | 8 | 7 | 3.30 | 2.94 |
| TiO2/EtDN10 | Am[35%] + A[20%] + B[5%] + R[40%] | 8 | 185 | 0.11 | 8 | 5 | 3.43 | 2.96 |
| TiO2/Et3N28 | Am[25%] + A[70%] + B[5%] | 4 | 230 | 0.13 | 7 | 5 | -c | -c |
| TiO2/Et3N42 | Am[20%] + A[75%] + B[5%] | 4 | 275 | 0.16 | 6 | 6 | -c | -c |
| TiO2/U2-LS | Am[30%] + A[65%] + B[5%] | 6 | 245 | 0.15 | 6 | 7 | -d | -d |
Am: amorphous TiO2 phase; A: anatase TiO2 phase; B: Brookite TiO2 phase; R: rutile TiO2 phase; dXRD: mean diameter of TiO2 crystallites measured by the Scherrer method; a measured from anatase peak; b measured from rutile peak; SBET: specific surface area determined by the BET method; VDR: specific micropore volume determined by Dubinin–Raduskevitch theory; dBET: mean diameter of TiO2 nanoparticles calculated from SBET values; dTEM: mean diameter of TiO2 nanoparticles measured by TEM; Eg,direct: direct optical band-gap values calculated using the transformed Kubelka–Munk function; Eg,indirect: indirect optical band-gap values calculated using the transformed Kubelka–Munk function; -c not applicable; -d not measured.
Figure 2TEM micrographs of samples: (A) TiO2 pur, (B) TiO2/U2, (C) TiO2/EtDN4 and (D) TiO2/Et3N42. Primary nanoparticles are highlighted by red lines.
Figure 3Nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherms of urea doped samples: (■) TiO2 pure A, (▲) TiO2/U1, (⨯) TiO2/U2, (●) TiO2/U4 and (♦) TiO2/U10.
Figure 4Nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherms of ethylenediamine doped samples: (■) TiO2 pure B, (▲) TiO2/EtDN1, (⨯) TiO2/EtDN2, (●) TiO2/EtDN4 and (♦) TiO2/EtDN10.
Figure 5Normalized Kubelka–Munk function F(R∞) calculated from DR-UV–Vis spectra for samples: (■) TiO2 pure A, (▲)TiO2/U2 samples, (♦) TiO2 pure B and (●)TiO2/EtDN4 samples.
Figure 6XPS general spectrum of TiO2 pure B sample.
Figure 7XPS spectra of TiO2 pure B sample: (A) C 1s region, (B) O 1s region, (C) Ti 2p region and (D) N 1s region.
Figure 8Estimated N/Ti molar ratio calculated from XPS measurements.
Photocatalytic properties and XPS results of TiO2-based samples.
| Sample | N/Ti | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (% g·m−2) | (%) | (% g·m−2) | (mol/mol) | |
| ±3 | ±0.02 | ±3 | ±0.02 | ||
| TiO2 pure A | 47 | 0.23 | 28 | 0.14 | 0.07 |
| TiO2/U1 | 43 | 0.18 | 42 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
| TiO2/U2 | 44 | 0.17 | 41 | 0.16 | 0.09 |
| TiO2/U4 | 45 | 0.17 | 41 | 0.16 | 0.08 |
| TiO2/U10 | 44 | 0.16 | 38 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| TiO2 pure B | 50 | 0.26 | 20 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
| TiO2/EtDN1 | 38 | 0.17 | 31 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| TiO2/EtDN2 | 39 | 0.16 | 31 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| TiO2/EtDN4 | 45 | 0.23 | 33 | 0.17 | 0.11 |
| TiO2/EtDN10 | 25 | 0.14 | 28 | 0.15 | 0.06 |
| TiO2/Et3N28 | 43 | 0.19 | 43 | 0.19 | 0.32 |
| TiO2/Et3N42 | 49 | 0.18 | 69 | 0.25 | 0.13 |
| TiO2/U2-LS | 46 | 0.19 | 43 | 0.18 | -a |
DPNP8: the degradation percentage of PNP after 8 h of illumination; DPNP24: the degradation percentage of PNP after 24 h of illumination, values in% g·m−2 are obtained by dividing values in% by SBET; N/Ti: molar ration between N and Ti measured by XPS; -a not measured.
Figure 9Comparison of normalized N 1s region XPS spectra of TiO2 pure B, TiO2/Et3N28 and TiO2/Et3N42 samples.
Figure 10PNP degradation (%) for all samples under UV/visible light after 8 h of irradiation (dark grey) and under low-energy light (with filter to remove λ lower than 390 nm) after 24 h of irradiation (light grey).
Figure 11PNP degradation (% g·m−2) calculated by dividing the PNP degradation in% by SBET for all the samples under UV/visible after 8 h of irradiation (dark grey) and under low-energy light (with filter to remove λ lower than 390 nm) after 24 h of irradiation (light grey).
Figure 12Effect of N-doping on TiO2 photocatalysis.