| Literature DB >> 35808005 |
Sahar A El-Gharbawy1,2, Mawaheb Al-Dossari3, Mohamed Zayed4, Heba A Saudi1, Mohamed Y Hassaan1, Nada Alfryyan5, Mohamed Shaban4,6.
Abstract
Rock wool (RW) nanostructures of various sizes and morphologies were prepared using a combination of ball-mill and hydrothermal techniques, followed by an annealing process. Different tools were used to explore the morphologies, structures, chemical compositions and optical characteristics of the samples. The effect of initial particle size on the characteristics and photoelectrochemical performance of RW samples generated hydrothermally was investigated. As the starting particle size of ball-milled natural RW rises, the crystallite size of hydrothermally formed samples drops from 70.1 to 31.7 nm. Starting with larger ball-milled particle sizes, the nanoparticles consolidate and seamlessly combine to form a continuous surface with scattered spherical nanopores. Water splitting was used to generate photoelectrochemical hydrogen using the samples as photocatalysts. The number of hydrogen moles and conversion efficiencies were determined using amperometry and voltammetry experiments. When the monochromatic wavelength of light was increased from 307 to 460 nm for the manufactured RW>0.3 photocatalyst, the photocurrent density values decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 mA/mg. At 307 nm and +1 V, the value of the incoming photon-to-current efficiency was ~9.77%. Due to the stimulation of the H+ ion rate under the temperature impact, the Jph value increased by a factor of 5 when the temperature rose from 40 to 75 °C. As a result of this research, for the first time, a low-cost photoelectrochemical catalytic material is highlighted for effective hydrogen production from water splitting.Entities:
Keywords: ball mill; hydrothermal technique; nanostructures; rock wool; water splitting
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808005 PMCID: PMC9267974 DOI: 10.3390/nano12132169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1(A) Standard XRD patterns for fabricated nanostructure RW at different particle sizes, (B) XRD patterns of bulk RW and RW>0.3 after ball milling, hydrothermal technique and annealing; and (C) particle size for all RW samples.
Figure 2EDX patterns for nanostructured (a) RW0.03 and (b) RW>0.3.
Figure 3HR-TEM of the RW0.03 after (A) ball mill, (B) hydrothermal technique at 140 °C, and (C,D) annealing at 700 °C; (E,F) selective-area electron diffraction (SAED) after annealing.
Figure 4SEM images of top view for RW nanostructured; (a) RWmix, (b) RW0.03 and (c) RW>0.3. The insets show magnified SEM images.
Figure 5Optical spectra of RW nanostructured (a) absorbance, (b) transmittance, (c) ln(α)-E to determine Urbach energy (EU); and (d) the extinction coefficient for the fabricated RW as a function of the wavelength.
The calculated parameters for RW as crystallite size (D), texture coefficient (TC), energy gap (Eg), Urbach energy (EU) and extinction coefficient (K).
| Samples | D (nm) | TC | Eg (eV) | EU (meV) | K | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (hkl) | Value | λ = 287 nm | λ = 500 nm | ||||
|
| 70.1 | (200) | 2.36 | 1.39 | 195.75 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
|
| 50.8 | (200) | 1.13 | 3.62 | 213.47 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
|
| 34.5 | (200) | 1.07 | 2.08 | 377.69 | 0.02 | 0.019 |
|
| 31.7 | (200) | 1.06 | 2.7 | 348.18 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
|
| 50.2 | (021) | 1.17 | 1.55 | 358.72 | 0.025 | 0.03 |
Figure 6(a) (αhν)2 versus hν and (b) variation of Eg for all RW samples.
Figure 7(a) Photocurrent density versus the applied voltage (Jph–V) for all RW samples; (b) variation of Jph @1 V for RW samples of different sizes; (c) reproducible study of Jph–V curves for RW>0.3; and (d) Jph–Time Stability for RW>0.3.
Figure 8(a) Effect of (a) temperature and (b) wavelength of the monochromatic illumination on the Jph–V curves; conversion efficiencies (c) IPCE% versus the monochromatic wavelength and (d) ABPE% versus the applied bias at different wavelengths for RW>0.3 sample.
Figure 9The number of H2 moles produced as a function of time.
Comparison between the present photocatalyst and the recently reported literature in terms of composition, electrolyte, light power or source, main performance indicators (H2 moles, Jph, or IPCE% values).
| Photocatalyst | Electrolyte | Light Power | Performance | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pt-loaded yolk–shell TiO2@SiO2 nanoreactors (50 mg) | 80 mL mixture of methanol (40 mL) and water (40 mL) | 300 mW/cm–2 | H2 moles = 24.56 mmol·g−1·h−1 | [ |
| ZnO (5 mg) | 80 mL aqueous solution containing 10% of glycerol | 300 W Xe light source | H2 moles = 10.2 mmol/h | [ |
| V and La co-doped ZnO/CNTs nanocomposite (10 mg) | 100 mL water and methanol | 300 W Xe lamp | H2 moles = 267 μmol·h−1·g−1 | [ |
| Ultra-fine Cu (6 wt%) decorated hydrangea-like TiO2
| 100 mL 10 vol% aqueous solution methanol | 300 W Xe lamp | H2 moles = 3.7 mmol·h−1·g−1 | [ |
| Hierarchical porous NiO anchored on graphitic carbon nitride with nitrogen vacancies | 10 mL sacrificial reagent triethanolamine and 90 mL H2O | 420-nm (3 W) LED light illumination | H2 moles = 170.60 μmol·g−1·h−1 | [ |
| Hierarchical e 0.75% SiO2@ZnIn2S4 marigold flower like nano heterostructure (0.5 g) | 700 mL 0.5 M aqueous KOH and purged with Argon for 30 min | - | H2 moles = 6730 μmol/h·g | [ |
| -Fe2TiO5/ZnO Nanodendrite Heterojunction Array | 0.3 M Na2SO4 in K3PO4 buffer solution at pH 7.5 | 500 W xenon lamp | Jph = 1.04 mA cm–2 at 1.23 V vs. RHE | [ |
| Cu/CuO Nanoporous photoelectrode | Sewage water | 400 W Newport Xenon lamp | IPCE = 14.6% | [ |
| Au/Poly M-Toluidine | Na2S2O3 and sewage water | 400 W Newport Xenon lamp | IPCE = 2.3 and 3.6% at 390 nm | [ |
| SnO2:Ni,Ir Nanoparticulate photoelectrode | 0.5 M HCl | 400 W Newport Xenon lamp | Jph = 46.38 mA/cm2 | [ |
| Polyaniline/PbI2 nanocomposite | Sewage water | 400 W Newport Xenon lamp | Jph= 0.077 mA.cm−2 at 390 nm | [ |
| Nanostructured Rock Wool (5 mg) | 0.3 M Na2SO4 (pH = 7) aqueous solution | 400 W Newport Xenon lamp | H2 moles = 1040.423 μmol/h·mg | This work |