| Literature DB >> 35889735 |
Andrei Cristian Kuncser1, Arpad Mihai Rostas1, Rodica Zavoianu2, Octavian Dumitru Pavel2, Ioana Dorina Vlaicu1, Mihaela Badea3, Daniela Cristina Culita4, Alina Tirsoaga5, Rodica Olar3.
Abstract
The hematite-based nanomaterials are involved in several catalytic organic and inorganic processes, including water decontamination from organic pollutants. In order to develop such species, a series of bimetallic hematite-based nanocomposites were obtained by some goethite composites-controlled calcination. Their composition consists of various phases such as α-FeOOH, α-Fe2O3 or γ-Fe2O3 combined with amorphous (Mn2O3, Co3O4, NiO, ZnO) or crystalline (CuO) oxides of the second transition ion from the structure. The component dimensions, either in the 10-30 or in the 100-200 nm range, together with the quasi-spherical or nanorod-like shapes, were provided by Mössbauer spectroscopy and powder X-ray diffraction as well as transmission electron microscopy data. The textural characterization showed a decrease in the specific area of the hematite-based nanocomposites compared with corresponding goethites, with the pore volume ranging between 0.219 and 0.278 cm3g-1. The best catalytic activity concerning indigo carmine removal from water in hydrogen peroxide presence was exhibited by a copper-containing hematite-based nanocomposite sample that reached a dye removal extent of over 99%, which correlates with both the base/acid site ratio and pore size. Moreover, Cu-hbnc preserves its catalytic activity even after four recyclings, when it still reached a dye removal extent higher than 90%.Entities:
Keywords: catalysis; hematite; indigo carmine; morphology; nanocomposite
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889735 PMCID: PMC9324592 DOI: 10.3390/nano12142511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1The chemical structure of indigo carmine.
Absorption maxima (cm−1) in the IR spectra of samples.
| Fe-hbnc | Mn-hbnc | Co-hbnc | Ni-hbnc | Cu-hbnc | Zn-hbnc | Assignment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3400 s, br | 3390 s, br | 3390 s, br | - | - | 3410 s, br | ν(OH) |
| 1630 w | 1630 w | 1630 w | - | - | 1625 w | δ(OH) |
| 1130 w | 1120 w | 1130 w | - | - | 1110 w | δ(M-OH) |
| 550 vs | 550 vs | 560 vs | 575 vs | 550 vs | 550 vs | ν(Fe-O) |
| 460 vs | 460 vs | 460 vs | 460 vs | 460 vs | 450 vs | |
| 405 s | 405 s | 405 s | 405 s | 405 s | 405 s |
vs—very strong, s—strong, m—medium, w—weak, br—broad.
Figure 2Temperature dependence of the Fe-hbnc (a), Mn-hbnc (b), Co-hbnc (c), Ni-hbnc (d), Cu-hbnc (e), and Zn-hbnc (f) EPR signals.
Figure 3Temperature dependence of the EPR signal peak-to-peak linewidth (ΔLWPP) for all species.
Mössbauer hyperfine parameters (ISO-isomer shift (mm/s), QUA-quadrupolar shift (mm/s), HF-hyperfine field (T)) and relative area (%) of the Mössbauer spectral components. In the case of HF distribution, the two values provided for HF max correspond to the two most probable hyperfine fields.
| HF Distribution | Sextet/Doublet 1 | Sextet/Doublet 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ISO = 0.19, QUA = −0.2, | ISO = 0.27, QUA = −0.11, | |
|
|
| ||
|
| ISO = 0.2, QUA = −0.18, | ISO = 0.29, QUA = −0.02, | |
|
|
| ||
|
| ISO = 0.20, QUA = −0.2, | ISO = 0.06, QUA = 0.39, | |
|
|
| ||
|
| ISO = 0.13, QUA = −0.04 | ISO = 0.21, QUA = −0.17 | |
|
|
| ||
|
| ISO = 0.14, QUA = −0.17, | Small paramagnetic phase (5%) with ISO = 0.22, QUA = 0.41 | |
|
| |||
|
| ISO = 0.21, QUA = −0.18, | ISO = 0.39, QUA = −0.17, | |
|
|
|
Results of Rietveld analysis performed with MAUD software on XRD spectra.
| Sample | Phase | a (Å) | b (Å) | c (Å) | Size (nm) | Quant (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.030 ± 0.001 | 5.030 ± 0.001 | 13.763 ± 0.005 | 10.3 ± 0.1 | 83 |
| α-FeOOH | 4.552 ± 0.006 | 10.067 ± 0.008 | 3.0125 ± 0.002 | 99.8 ± 41.6 | 17 ± 3 | |
|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.021 ± 0.0001 | 5.021 ± 0.0001 | 13.757 ± 0.003 | 11.9 ± 0.19 | 66 |
| α-FeOOH | 4.619 ± 0.005 | 10.022 ± 0.009 | 2.989 ± 0.001 | 107 ± 62 | 34 ± 8 | |
|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.025 ± 0.001 | 5.025 ± 0.001 | 13.74 ± 0.004 | 10.8 ± 0.2 | 81 |
| α-FeOOH | 4.501 ± 0.002 | 10.152 ± 0.008 | 3.030 ± 0.001 | 94.5 ± 47.2 | 19 ± 2 | |
|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.032 ± 0.0001 | 5.032 ± 0.0001 | 13.74 ± 0.002 | 22.3 ± 0.19 | 33.3 ± 2 |
| γ-Fe2O3 | 8.324 ± 0.004 | 8.324 ± 0.004 | 25.024 ± 0.02 | 40.5 ± 2.8 | 66.7 | |
|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.034 ± 0.001 | 5.034 ± 0.001 | 13.71 ± 0.007 | 11.9 ± 0.14 | 72 ± 22 |
| γ-Fe2O3 | 8.335 ± 0.005 | 8.335 ± 0.005 | 25.051 ± 0.03 | 79 ± 31 | 12 | |
| CuO | 4.678 ± 0.002 | 3.419 ± 0.002 | 5.12 ± 0.004 | 81.8 ± 23.7 | 16 ± 6 | |
|
| γ-Fe2O3 | 8.383 ± 0.004 | 8.383 ± 0.004 | 25.194 ± 0.03 | 272 ± 841 | 81.5 |
| α-FeOOH | 4.604 ± 0.001 | 10.096 ± 0.010 | 2.915 ± 0.002 | 33.5 ± 3.7 | 18.5 ± 6 |
Table of reference lattice parameters.
| Phase (Reference) | a (Å) | b (Å) | c (Å) |
|---|---|---|---|
| α-Fe2O3 | 5.030 | 5.030 | 13.763 |
| γ-Fe2O3 | 8.324 | 8.324 | 25.024 |
| α-FeOOH | 4.552 | 10.067 | 3.012 |
Figure 4TEM results: CTEM, HRTEM, STEM, and EDS mappings for Fe-hbnc (a), Mn-hbnc (b), Co-hbnc (c), Ni-hbnc (d), Cu-hbnc (e), and Zn-hbnc (f).
Figure 5N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms and pore size distribution (inset) of the samples: Fe−hbnc (a), Mn−hbnc (b), Co−hbnc (c), Ni−hbnc (d), Cu−hbnc (e), and Zn−hbnc (f).
Textural parameters of the samples.
| Sample | SBET (m2g−1) | Pore Volume (cm3g−1) | Average Pore Size (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 94.8 | 0.269 | 9.84 |
|
| 88.6 | 0.229 | 9.88 |
|
| 84.0 | 0.239 | 9.70 |
|
| 42.3 | 0.267 | 21.00 |
|
| 72.9 | 0.278 | 13.27 |
|
| 71.8 | 0.219 | 9.67 |
Acid–base properties of the samples.
| Sample | Total Acid Sites | Acid Sites Distribution | Total Base Sites | Ratio Base/Acid Sites | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mmol Py/g) | % Lewis | % Brønsted | mmol AA/g | ||
|
| 0.352 | 22.1 | 77.9 | 0.459 | 1.3 |
|
| 0.305 | 39.0 | 61.0 | 0.483 | 1.5 |
|
| 0.285 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 0.411 | 1.4 |
|
| 0.207 | 31.4 | 68.6 | 0.393 | 1.9 |
|
| 0.183 | 28.2 | 71.8 | 0.512 | 2.8 |
|
| 0.250 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 0.375 | 1.5 |
The dye removal extent (DR) after the oxidative degradation of IC at different molar ratios H2O2/IC (initial concentration of IC 0.03 mM, catalyst concentration 1 g/L, 150 rpm, 2 h at 25 °C).
| Sample | Molar Ratios H2O2/IC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16.3 | 32.6 | 108.8 | 108.8 No Stirring | 1632.4 | 3264.7 | |
|
| 73.6 | 77.1 | 77.6 | 53.5 | 78.0 | 85.2 |
|
| 67.9 | 74.7 | 78.2 | 56.3 | 80.1 | 88.2 |
|
| 69.7 | 70.8 | 71.6 | 58.0 | 79.7 | 86.7 |
|
| 90.3 | 93.2 | 95.1 | 68.3 | 97.2 | 99.5 |
|
| 99.2 | 99.8 | 99.8 | 70.8 | 99.9 | 99.9 |
|
| 81.5 | 81.5 | 84.3 | 65.8 | 87.9 | 89.8 |
|
| 4.2 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 5.8 | 7.3 |
Oxidative degradation of IC at different molar ratios of the IC in water (H2O2/IC = 32.6; catalyst concentration 1 g/L, 150 rpm, 2 h at 25 °C).
| Catalyst | IC Initial Concentration (mM) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.090 | |
|
| 89.6 | 77.1 | 50.9 |
|
| 76.8 | 74.7 | 46.7 |
|
| 89.2 | 70.8 | 53.3 |
|
| 97.1 | 93.2 | 59.4 |
|
| 99.2 | 99.8 | 99.4 |
|
| 86.3 | 81.5 | 50.3 |
Figure 6Linear correlation of the DR % and the ratio base/acid sites in the catalyst samples ((A)—IC initial concentration 0.03 mM, 25 °C, 2 h, 150 rpm, 1 wt% catalyst; (B)—molar ratio H2O2/IC = 32.6, 25 °C, 2 h, 150 rpm, 1 wt% catalyst).
Figure 7DR % during five reaction cycles on Fe-hbnc and Cu-hbnc (IC initial concentration 0.03 mM, molar ratio H2O2/IC = 32.6, 25 °C, 2 h, 150 rpm, 1 wt% catalyst).