| Literature DB >> 32224943 |
Agnieszka Sulowska1, Izabela Wysocka1, Daniel Pelczarski2, Jakub Karczewski3, Anna Zielińska-Jurek1.
Abstract
Hybrid materials of conjugated polymer andEntities:
Keywords: hybrid nanocomposites; phenol; photocatalytic gypsum plaster; polyaniline; titanium(IV) oxide
Year: 2020 PMID: 32224943 PMCID: PMC7177723 DOI: 10.3390/ma13071516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Fast-Fourier transformation spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra of TiO2, polyaniline (PANI), and PANI–TiO2.
Figure 2XRD patterns of PANI, TiO2, and PANI–TiO2.
Crystalline structure and BET surface area of TiO2, PANI, and PANI–TiO2.
| Sample Label | BET Surface Area | Average Crystallite Size (nm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anatase | Rutile | ||||
| Size (nm) | Phase Content (%) | Size (nm) | Phase Content (%) | ||
| PANI | 11 | - | - | - | - |
| TiO2 | 55 | 18.2 ± 0.9 | 86.3 ± 0.3 | 25.4 ± 0.7 | 13.7 ± 0.2 |
| PANI–TiO2 | 55 | 19.4 ± 0.9 | 81.3 ± 0.9 | 28.1 ± 0.7 | 12.9 ± 0.2 |
Figure 3(a) Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DR/UV-Vis) absorption spectra and (b) photoluminescence spectra of pure TiO2, PANI, and PANI–TiO2 nanoparticles.
Figure 4(a) TEM image of PANI–TiO2; (b) FFT analysis of PANI–TiO2 nanocomposite; (c) magnification on PANI–TiO2 structure.
Figure 5(a) TEM images with marked EDS-line area, (b–d): Results of energy-dispersive spectrometer (EDS)-line measurements and element composition for the PANI–TiO2 composite.
Figure 6Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) curve of TiO2, PANI, and PANI–TiO2 nanocomposite.
Figure 7Cyclic voltammograms of polyaniline.
Photocatalytic activity in a reaction of phenol degradation (Irradiation time: 60 min; photocatalysts loading: 2 g·dm−3; phenol initial concentration: 500 mg·dm−3; Irradiation source: UV-Vis, Vis > 400 nm, Vis > 420 nm).
| Sample Label | Average Phenol Degradation Rate (µmol·h−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UV-Vis | Vis | Vis | Scavenger (UV-Vis) | ||||
| BQ | t-BuOH | AgNO3 | AO | ||||
| PANI | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.54 ± 0.03 |
| TiO2 | 4.63 ± 0.23 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 2.96 ± 0.15 | 1.16± 0.06 | 3.36 ± 0.17 | 4.92 ± 0.25 |
| PANI–TiO2 | 2.01 ± 0.10 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 2.33 ± 0.12 | 2.02 ± 0.10 | 2.30 ± 0.11 | 1.40 ± 0.07 |
Figure 8Phenol degradation of pure TiO2, PANI, and PANI–TiO2 nanocomposite under UV-Vis, Vis (>400 nm) and Vis (>420 nm). Irradiation time: 60 min; photocatalysts loading: 2 g·dm−3; phenol initial concentration: 20 mg·dm−3; irradiation source: xenon lamp with cut-off filters.
Figure 9Photocatalytic activity of pure TiO2 and the PANI–TiO2 nanocomposite in the gas phase. Irradiation time: 3 h, toluene initial concentration: 200 ppm, photocatalyst loading: 15 mg.
Figure 10XRD patterns of gypsum and gypsum loaded with TiO2 or PANI–TiO2.
The contact angle analysis for gypsum and gypsum modified with TiO2 or PANI–TiO2.
|
|
|
|
| Gypsum | 42.1 ± 1.9 | |
| Gypsum + 10 wt % TiO2 | 20.6 ± 2.7 | |
| Gypsum + 10 wt % PANI–TiO2 | 28.9 ± 0.6 |
Figure 11(a) SEM image of gypsum loaded with PANI–TiO2; (b) SEM image magnification of gypsum loaded with PANI–TiO2.
Figure 12(a) SEM images of gypsum with PANI–TiO2; (b) EDS analysis for Ti (turquoise color).
Figure 13Toluene degradation in the presence of gypsum, gypsum loaded with TiO2, and gypsum modified with PANI–TiO2. Irradiation time: 3 h, toluene initial concentration: 200 pm; photocatalyst mass: 15 mg.
Figure 14Mechanism of PANI–TiO2 nanocomposite excitation under visible light.
Figure 15Mechanism of PANI–TIO2 nanocomposite excitation under UV light.