| Literature DB >> 31546990 |
Mateusz A Baluk1, Marek P Kobylański2, Wojciech Lisowski3, Grzegorz Trykowski4, Tomasz Klimczuk5, Paweł Mazierski6, Adriana Zaleska-Medynska7.
Abstract
One of the most important challenges in the fabrication of ordered tantalum pentaoxide (Ta2O5) nanotube arrays (NTs) via the electrochemical method is the formation of nanotubes that adhere well to the Ta substrate. In this paper, we propose a new protocol that allows tight-fitting Ta2O5 nanotubes to be obtained through the anodic oxidation of tantalum foil. Moreover, to enhance their activity in the photocatalytic reaction, in this study, they have been decorated by nontoxic bismuth sulfide (Bi2S3) quantum dots (QDs) via a simple successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction (SILAR) method. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis revealed that quantum dots with a size in the range of 6-11 nm were located both inside and on the external surfaces of the Ta2O5 NTs. The effect of the anodization time and annealing conditions, as well as the effect of cycle numbers in the SILAR method, on the surface properties and photoactivity of Ta2O5 nanotubes and Bi2S3/Ta2O5 composites have been investigated. The Ta2O5 nanotubes decorated with Bi2S3 QDs exhibit high photocatalytic activity in the toluene degradation reaction, i.e., 99% of toluene (C0 = 200 ppm) was degraded after 5 min of UV-Vis irradiation. Therefore, the proposed anodic oxidation of tantalum (Ta) foil followed by SILAR decorating allows a photocatalytic surface, ready to use for pollutant degradation in the gas phase, to be obtained.Entities:
Keywords: Bi2S3 quantum dots; heterogeneous photocatalysis; ordered Ta2O5 nanotubes
Year: 2019 PMID: 31546990 PMCID: PMC6835939 DOI: 10.3390/nano9101347
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of nanotube arrays (NTs): the effect of (a) applied voltage, (b) annealing temperature, (c) anodization time, and (d) annealing duration, (e) annealing atmosphere on the morphology and adhesive properties of tantalum pentaoxide (Ta2O5) nanotubes.
Sample labels, synthesis conditions, morphology, and photoactivity of bare and quantum dot (QD)-decorated nanotube arrays (NTs).
| Sample Label | Preparation Conditions During Anodic Oxidation (AO) | External Diameter | Internal Diameter | Thickness | Length | Ta2O5 NTs Adhesion to Ta Foil | Toluene Decomposition (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 min of Irradiation | 15 min of Irradiation | |||||||
| NTs_10 V_10 min_no_cleaned_Air_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 10 V, t = 10 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in air (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 44 ± 3 | 27 ± 2 | 9 ± 1 | 1.00 ± 0.13 | High | 64.22 ± 3.27 | 90.51 ± 3.27 |
| NTs_15 V_10 min_ no_cleaned Air_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 10 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in air (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 46 ± 6 | 24 ± 2 | 11 ± 2 | 3.18 ± 0.09 | High | 93.55 ± 2.38 | 97.83 ± 1.29 |
| NTs_20 V_10 min_ no_cleaned Air_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 20 V, t = 10 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in air (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 48 ± 3 | 28 ± 3 | 10 ± 1 | 6.00 ± 0.19 | Weak | 91.05 ± 3.35 | 96.82 ± 2.45 |
| NTs_10 V_10 min_N2_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 10 V, t = 10 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 45 ± 5 | 20 ± 3 | 11 ± 2 | 1.74 ± 0.02 | Weak | 68.38 ± 0.35 | 94.65 ± 1.91 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 41 ± 4 | 19 ± 3 | 10 ± 2 | 1.27 ± 0.05 | High | 95.36 ± 1.22 | 98.73 ± 0.47 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_3 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 3 h) | 48 ± 2 | 25 ± 4 | 10 ± 1 | 1.78 ± 0.11 | High | 91.03 ± 0.47 | 98.98 ± 0.06 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_600 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 600 °C; t = 1 h) | 39 ± 2 | 23 ± 3 | 10 ± 2 | 1.21 ± 0.03 | Very weak | Sample was unstable | |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_750 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 750 °C; t = 1 h) | 40 ± 3 | 21 ± 2 | 10 ± 1 | 1.43 ± 0.02 | Very weak | Sample was unstable | |
| NTs_15 V_10 min_N2_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 42 ± 3 | 21 ± 2 | 10 ± 2 | 3.31 ± 0.08 | High | 92.74 ± 1.09 | 96.81 ± 0.35 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_Air_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in air (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 49 ± 7 | 23 ± 4 | 10 ± 2 | 1.46 ± 0.20 | High | 91.86 ± 2.16 | 97.50 ± 2.40 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N H3_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in NH3 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 47 ± 5 | 19 ± 3 | 13 ± 1 | 2.19 ± 0.07 | High | 93.37 ± 0.42 | 98.90 ± 0.00 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_ H2_450 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in H2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 44 ± 6 | 21 ± 3 | 10 ± 1 | 1.68 ± 0.03 | High | 94.20 ± 3.43 | 98.09 ± 0.03 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_300 °C_1 h | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 300 °C; t = 1 h) | 47 ± 5 | 24 ± 3 | 11 ± 1 | 2.25 ± 0.06 | High | 94.08 ± 0.42 | 97.36 ± 0.25 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_two_step | AO (I step: U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), removing of NTs layer, AO (II step, U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h) | 46 ± 5 | 24 ± 4 | 10 ± 1 | 1.15 ± 0.05 | Weak | 89.28 ± 0.14 | 96.53 ± 0.30 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 1x | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h), 1 cycle of SILAR | 50 ± 4 | 31 ± 3 | 10 ± 1 | 1.42 ± 0.03 | High | 99.17 ± 0.14 | 100 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 2x | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h), 2 cycles of SILAR | 41 ± 4 | 28 ± 3 | 8 ± 1 | 1.61 ± 0.11 | High | 71.56 ± 1.12 | 100 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 3x | AO (U = 15 V, t = 5 min.), ultrasonically cleaned (1 min.), dried (T = 80 °C, t = 24 h), and annealed in N2 (T = 450 °C; t = 1 h), 3 cycles of SILAR | Coated with Bi2S3 layer | 1.40 ± 0.05 | High | Inactive | |||
Elemental composition (in at. %) of the surface layer of NTs_15V_5min_N2_450 °C samples before and after subsequent SILAR cycles. The chemical states of Bi and Ta (in %) were evaluated after deconvolution of the Bi 4f and Ta 4f X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectra, respectively.
| Sample Label | Elemental Composition (at. %) | Bi 4f7/2 Fractions (%) | Ta 4f7/2 Fractions (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ta | O | C | S | Bi | Residue | Bi0 | Bi2S3 | Bi2O3 | Ta2O5_Surf | Ta2O5 | Ta1+ | Ta0 | |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h | 22.44 | 46.00 | 24.31 | 3.10 | - | 4.15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 96.84 | 1.72 | 1.44 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 1x | 15.79 | 58.20 | 11.02 | 6.26 | 2.37 | 6.36 | 2.28 | 46.50 | 51.22 | 23.55 | 73.42 | 1.86 | 1.17 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 2x | 16.24 | 57.47 | 12.13 | 5.66 | 2.63 | 5.87 | 3.21 | 53.10 | 43.69 | 24.81 | 72.51 | 1.91 | 0.77 |
| NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 3x | 0.63 | 29.47 | 26.72 | 15.14 | 22.60 | 5.44 | 1.24 | 76.58 | 22.18 | 19.61 | 80.39 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 2X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectra of nanotube array (NT)-modified bismuth sulfide (Bi2S3) quantum dots (QDs).
Figure 3X-ray diffraction patterns for the Management Information Base (MIB) sample before (top) and after (bottom) the anodization process. Open circles represent experimental data, whereas the solid red line is a LeBail profile fit with two models used: Ta (Im-3m) and Ta4O (Pmmm) shown by black and blue vertical bars, respectively.
Figure 4Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images and schematic representation of the surface of nanotube arrays (NTs) modified by quantum dots (QDs).
Figure 5Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) images for nanotube arrays (NTs) modified by bismuth sulfide (Bi2S3) quantum dots (QDs).
Figure 6Photocatalytic activity of selected samples, shown as toluene degradation: (a) photocatalyst stability during three irradiation cycles for NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h and NTs_15 V_5 min_N2_450 °C_1 h_QDs_SILAR 1x. (b) Efficiency of toluene removal over Ta2O5 nanotube arrays (NTs) and bismuth sulfide (Bi2S3) quantum dots (QDs)/Tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) NTs samples and in the blank tests (toluene photolysis in the absence of a photocatalyst) under monochromatic light—318 nm and 730 nm.
Figure 7Proposed photodegradation mechanism for (a) nanotube arrays (NTs) and (b) NTs modified by quantum dots (QDs).