| Literature DB >> 30987003 |
Julie J Murcia1, Elsa G Ávila-Martínez2, Hugo Rojas3, Jairo Cubillos4, Svetlana Ivanova5, Anna Penkova6, Oscar H Laguna7.
Abstract
In this study, titanium dioxide powder obtained by the sol-gel method and TiO₂ nanotubes, were prepared. In order to increase the TiO₂ photoactivity, the powders and nanotubes obtained were modified by dye sensitization treatment during the oxide synthesis. The sensitizers applied were Quinizarin (Q) and Zinc protoporphyrin (P). The materials synthesized were extensively characterized and it was found that the dye sensitization treatment leads to modify the optical and surface properties of Titania. It was also found that the effectiveness of the dye-sensitized catalysts in the phenol and methyl orange (MO) photodegradation strongly depends on the dye sensitizer employed. Thus, the highest degradation rate for MO was obtained over the conventional Q-TiO₂ photocatalyst. In the case of the nanotubes series, the most effective photocatalyst in the MO degradation was based on TiO₂-nanotubes sensitized with the dye protoporfirin (ZnP). Selected catalysts were also tested in the phenol and MO photodegradation under visible light and it was observed that these samples are also active under this radiation.Entities:
Keywords: TiO2 nanotubes; TiO2 powders; dye-sensitized TiO2; photocatalysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 30987003 PMCID: PMC6523326 DOI: 10.3390/nano9040517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1The molecular structure of organic dyes used in the present work as photocatalysts sensitizers. (a) Quinizarin and (b) Zinc protoporphyrin.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction patterns of the photocatalysts analyzed. (a) TiO2 powders and nanotubes without sensitizers; (b) TiO2 powders sensitized and (c) TiO2 nanotubes sensitized.
Bandgap values and SBET of the analyzed photocatalysts.
| Sample | SBET (m2/g) | Band gap, eV |
|---|---|---|
| LT | 153 | 3.4 |
| Q | 213.6 | 3.2 |
| ZnP | 172.6 | 3.2 |
| TNT | 73 | 3.5 |
| Qa | 50.3 | 3.3 |
| ZnPa | 80.6 | 3.3 |
Figure 3UV-Vis diffuse reflection spectra of the analyzed photocatalysts. (a) TiO2 powders and nanotubes without sensitizers; (b) TiO2 sensitized with Quinizarin and (c) TiO2 sensitized with Zinc protoporphyrin.
Figure 4Absorption spectra for the evaluation of band gap energy for photocatalysts analyzed.
Figure 5Selected transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs of the TNT sample.
Figure 6Photocatalytic degradation of methyl orange over commercial TiO2 (Aeroxide® TiO2 P25 Evonik) as a function of the reaction time.
Figure 7Methyl orange degradation rate obtained by photolysis and photocatalytic treatment by using all the photocatalysts analyzed.
Figure 8Evolution of the methyl orange concentration during its photodegradation over each one of the photocatalysts evaluated at different reaction time.
Phenol and methyl orange (MO) degradation rate under different light radiation.
| Photocatalysts | Irradiation | Degradation rate (mg L−1·s−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MO | Phenol | ||
| Q | UV-Vis | 1.33 × 10−3 | 1.09 × 10−4 |
| Q | Vis | 1.10 × 10−3 | 1.80 × 10−4 |
| ZnP | UV-Vis | 4.31 × 10−4 | 1.05 × 10−4 |
| ZnP | Vis | 4.14 × 10−4 | — |
| Qa | Vis | 1.0 × 10−3 | — |