| Literature DB >> 32290411 |
Hesham Hamad1,2, Esther Bailón-García1, Sergio Morales-Torres1, Francisco Carrasco-Marín1, Agustín F Pérez-Cadenas1, Francisco J Maldonado-Hódar1.
Abstract
Carbon-Ti nanoEntities:
Keywords: Orange G; TiP2O7 crystals; carbon–Ti nanocomposites; cellulose decrystallization; phosphorus functionalities; photocatalysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32290411 PMCID: PMC7221653 DOI: 10.3390/nano10040729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1(a) Thermogravimetric (TG) profiles under N2 flow for microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) and acid-treated cellulose samples before (solid lines) and after Ti impregnation (dash lines); (b) Differential thermogravimetric (DTG) profiles under N2 flow for MCC, CN and CP.
Surface composition of Ti-impregnated cellulose and its carbon derivatives determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and measurements of pHPZC.
| Sample | pHPZC (±0.2) | Atomic Content (±0.1 wt. %) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | N | P | Ti | ||
| CPTi | n.d. | 8.5 | 47.3 | - | 26.8 | 17.4 |
| CPTi1 | 2.7 | 22.0 | 42.7 | - | 21.9 | 13.4 |
| CPTi2 | 2.8 | 27.3 | 36.4 | - | 22.8 | 13.5 |
| CNTi | n.d. | 18.7 | 36.2 | 1.2 | - | 43.9 |
| CNTi2 | 6.5 | 16.4 | 35.4 | - | - | 48.2 |
n.d. = not determined.
Figure 2High-resolution XPS spectra of the C1s (a,d), O1s (b,e) and Ti2p (c,f) regions for Ti-impregnated cellulose derivatives and their corresponding carbonized composites.
Figure 3X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the carbon–Ti composites (R = rutile, P = TiP2O7).
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the carbon–Ti composites prepared by cellulose treatment with phosphoric acid (a,b), or nitric acid (c,d).
Figure 5High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) characterization of CPTi composites: (a) energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, (b,d,e) micrographs and (c) Ti-mapping.
Figure 6N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms of (a) the pure carbon materials and (b) the carbon–Ti composites.
Textural characteristics of the carbon–Ti composites.
| Sample | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP1 | 17 | 20 | 2.2 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| CP2 | 552 | 624 | 1.5 | 0.22 | 0.07 |
| CN1 | 226 | 253 | 1.5 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
| CN2 | 115 | 122 | 1.7 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| CPTi1 | 28 | 35 | 1.4 | 0.01 | 0.27 |
| CPTi2 | 30 | 48 | 1.8 | 0.02 | 0.35 |
| CNTi1 | 124 | 141 | 1.6 | 0.05 | 0.13 |
| CNTi2 | 319 | 360 | 1.5 | 0.13 | 0.34 |
Figure 7(a) UV/Vis diffuse reflectance spectra (DRUV) of P25 and different carbon–Ti composites. (b) Plot of transformed Kubelka–Munk units as a function of the energy of light (inset: determination of the band gap).
Figure 8Removal of Orange G (OG) from water solution by (a) adsorption using pure carbon materials and (b) adsorption and (c) photocatalysis using carbon–Ti composites.
Removal of OG obtained by photocatalysis using different TiO2-based materials.
| Material | OG Concentration | Irradiation Source | Removal (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2
| 84.2 μM, | UV high-pressure mercury lamp | 100%, | [ |
| Sn(IV)/TiO2/AC | 110.5 μM, | UV high-pressure mercury light | 99.1%, | [ |
| TiO2 (99% anatase) on glass plates | 66.3 μM | UV lamp | 100%, | [ |
| Au–TiO2 | 25 μM | UV low-pressure mercury lamp | 100%, | [ |
| 10%CNT–TiO2 | 110.5 μM, | Metal halide lamp + cut-off filter (λ > 400 nm) | 100%, | [ |
| CX–TiO2 | 55.3 μM, | Vis TeptoLux 2.0 lamp | 90%, | [ |
| g-C3N4–TiO2 | 200 μM, 0.5 g/L | Simulated solar light | 82%, | [ |
| rGO–TiO2 | 10 μM | Microwave irradiation | 88%, | [ |
| CNTi1 | 22 μM, 1.0 g/L | UV low-pressure mercury lamp | 99%, | This work |
| CPTi1 | 22 μM, 1.0 g/L | UV low-pressure mercury lamp | 100%, | This work |
| TiO2
| 22 μM, 1.0 g/L | UV low-pressure mercury lamp | 79%, | This work |
AC = activated carbon; CNT = carbon nanotubes; CX = carbon xerogel; rGO = reduced graphene oxide.