| Literature DB >> 29977679 |
Rashmi Acharya1, Brundabana Naik1, Kulamani Parida1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Cr(VI) reduction; charge transfer; heterojunction; modified TiO2; photocatalysis; spinel oxides
Year: 2018 PMID: 29977679 PMCID: PMC6009310 DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.9.137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol ISSN: 2190-4286 Impact factor: 3.649
Figure 1Speciation diagram of Cr(VI). Reprinted from [6], copyright 2016 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Figure 2The band edge potentials and band gaps of different semiconductors that combine with TiO2 for enhanced photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI).
Figure 3Mechanism of photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI) over neat TiO2. (D = donor, D+ = oxidized product).
Figure 4Photoluminescence spectra of bare TiO2 and Cu2O–TiO2 samples. Reprinted from [96], copyright 2016 Springer Science+Business Media.
Figure 5I–V (current intensity–applied voltage) curve. Reprinted from [97], an article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ copyright the authors of [97].
Figure 6Comparison of arc radius of Nyquist plot between bare TiO2 and modified TiO2 (MFe2O4/ TiO2) samples (M = Ni2+, Co2+, Zn2+, Sr2+). Reprinted from [97], an article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, copyright the authors of [97].
Preparation methods of modified photocatalysts, experimental conditions for photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI), source of illumination, percentage of Cr(VI) reduction and comparison of the composite modified-photocatalyst performance with TiO2. Reduced graphene oxide (RGO), carbon nanotubes (CNTs), carbon dots (CDs), nanorod arrays (NRAs), reduced graphene oxide hydrogel (rGH), TiO2 hollow-core–shell microspheres (TGHMs), visible light spectrum (vis), ultraviolet light spectrum (UV).
| Photocatalyst | Preparation method | pH | Initial Cr(VI) concentration (mg/L) | Dose (g/L) | Irradiation time (min) | Irradiation source | Cr(VI) reduction (%) | Comparison of performance | Ref. |
| Carbon-based advanced materials for TiO2 modification | |||||||||
| TiO2–RGO | microwave assisted | – | 10.0 | 1.0 | – | UV | 91 | 1.09 times more than pure TiO2; 1.3 times more than P25 | [ |
| TiO2–RGO | sol–gel combustion | 2.6 | 12.0 | 0.2 | 240 | vis | 86.5 | 1.6 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| TiO2–rGH | vitamin C assisited sol–gel | 5.5 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 30 | UV | 100 | 1.6 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| TGHMs | hydrothermal etching reaction | – | 50.0 | 1.0 | 150 | vis | 50 | ≈5 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| TiO2–xRGO | one-step solvothermal | 2.0 | 20.0 | 0.8 | 210 | vis | 96 | – | [ |
| TiO2/CNTs | hydrothermal method | 3.0 | 20.0 | 1.0 | 180 | UV | 67.5 | – | [ |
| CDs–TNs | hydrothermal method | 3.0 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 150 | vis | 100 | ≈7 times more than P25 | [ |
| Semiconductor-oxide-modified TiO2 | |||||||||
| ZnO–TiO2 | precipitation | 3.0 | 20.0 | 1.0 | 120 | UV | 99.99 | 1.16 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| ZnO–TiO2 | wetness | 5.5 | 20.0 | 1.0 | – | UV | – | – | [ |
| TiO2–Fe3O4 | polymerizable sol–gel approach | 3.0 | 7.0 | 0.3 | 30 | UV | 100 | – | [ |
| WO3–TiO2 NTs | electrochemical synthesis | 2.0 | 20.0 | – | 130 | vis | 100 | 1.58 times more than TiO2 NTs | [ |
| Bi2O3–TiO2 | sol–gel and hydrothermal methods | 3.0 | 20.0 | 1.0 | 180 | vis | 73.9 | reduction by TiO2 was negligible | [ |
| TiO2–Cu2O | sol–gel | – | 5.0 | 0.2 | 90 | vis | 100 | 1.8 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| NiO–TiO2 | sol–gel | 3.5 | 9.6 | 1.0 | 120 | vis | 95 | 1.5 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| CuBi2O4–TiO2 | nitrate route | 4.0 | 30.0 | 1.0 | <240 | sunlight | 98 | – | [ |
| ZnFe2O4–TiO2 | nitrate route | 3.0 | – | 1.0 | – | vis | – | – | [ |
| NiFe2O4–TiO2 NRAs | hydrothermal | – | 12.5 | – | 180 | vis | 94.18 | 2.0 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| ZnFe2O4 –TiO2 NRAs | hydrothermal | – | 12.5 | – | 180 | vis | 94.086 | 2.0 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| SrFe2O4–TiO2 NRAs | hydrothermal | – | 12.5 | – | 180 | vis | 92.39 | 2.0 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| Semiconductor sulfide-modified TiO2 | |||||||||
| CdS@TiO2 | two-step solvothermal method | – | – | – | 30 | vis | 100 | – | [ |
| CdS NSPs@TiO2 | facile interfacial self-assembly strategy | – | 20.0 | 0.333 | 40 | vis | – | – | [ |
| TiO2–CdS films | one-step microwave | – | 10.0 | – | 240 | vis | 93 | 3 times more than TiO2 film | [ |
| SnS2–TiO2 | solvothermal | – | – | – | – | vis | 100 | 6.6 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| Noble-metal-modified TiO2 | |||||||||
| Ag–TiO2 | sol–gel method | 2.0 | 10.0 | 0.2 | 240 | vis | 99.8 | – | [ |
| Ag–Ag2S/TiO2 | hydrothermal | 3.0 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 360 | vis | 100 | 3 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| Au/N–TiO2 | modified sol–gel method | – | 10.0 | 1.0 | 240 | vis | 90 | 2.6 times more than pure TiO2 | [ |
| Au/TiO2−Pt | – | 2.0 | 103.99 | 10.0 | 1440 | vis | 99 | – | [ |
| TiO2–Au/Pt | – | ≈2.5 | 5.0 | 0.25 | 25 | UV–vis LED | 100 | – | [ |
| TiO2@Au@CeO2 | hydrothermal route | 4.03 | 5.0 | 0.3 | 300 | vis | 95 | 2.96 times more than Degussa P25 TiO2 | [ |
| TiO2@Pt@CeO2 | sacrificial template route | – | 2.49 | 0.3 | 150 | vis | 99 | 1.66 times more than TiO2 | [ |
| Dye-sensitized TiO2 | |||||||||
| (Cu) PP-TiO2 | – | – | 7.06 | 1.0 | 400 | vis | 99 | – | [ |
| N719 dye–TiO2 films | – | 2.0 | 7.06 | – | 60 | vis | 99.5 | – | [ |
Figure 7Transport of photoinduced electrons from the conduction band of TiO2 through an RGO sheet, resulting in suppression of the recombination of charge carriers, which facilitates enhanced photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI).
Figure 8RGO–TiO2 core–shell Z scheme for photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI). Reprinted from [134], an article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, copyright the authors of [134].
Figure 9Mechanism for photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI) by TiO2–MO under irradiation of visible light.
Figure 10Mechanism of reduction of Cr(VI) using a Au/TiO2−Pt plasmonic photocatalyst under visible-light irradiation. Reprinted with permission from [221], copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.
Figure 11Mechanism for the photocatalytic Cr(VI) reduction by a dye-sensitized TiO2 nanocatalyst.
Figure 12(a) Recyclability of TiO2/Fe3O4 towards photoreduction of Cr(VI) up to 4 cycles, and (b) images of the magnetic separation of TiO2/Fe3O4. Reprinted with permission from [158], copyright 2016 American Chemical Society.
Figure 13Summary of narrow band gap semiconductors that can be combined with TiO2 for effective photocatalytic reduction of Cr(VI) through solar energy conversion.