| Literature DB >> 36131999 |
Nur Farahain Binti Khusnun1, Aishah Abdul Jalil1,2, Arshad Ahmad1,2, Muhammad Ikram3, Nurul Sahida Hassan1, Walid Nabgan4, Mahadi Bahari5, Rafiziana Kasmani1,2, Norafneeza Norazahar1,2.
Abstract
The effect of the copper (Cu) content on Cu oxide loaded onto a carbon nanotube (CuO/CNT) catalyst on the mechanistic, kinetic, and photonic efficiency of the photodegradation of p-chloroaniline (PCA) under visible (Vis) and ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation has been explored. For low-loading (1-5 wt%) CuO/CNTs, photodegradation performed better under UV (>84%) rather than the Vis system; this may be due to the presence of abundant defect sites on both CuO and CNTs, which allowed the multielectron reduction of oxygen at their impurity levels to generate more hydrogen peroxide and subsequent ·OH radicals. The active species under UV were in the following order: h+ ≫ e- > ·OH, while it was vice versa for the Vis system with a well-balanced 50 wt% CuO/CNT catalyst that exhibited a similar performance. The kinetic study showed the transition of the kinetic order from the zeroth to the first order on increasing the PCA concentration under the Vis system and vice versa for the UV system. The Thiele modulus (ϕ) further confirmed that the effect of internal mass transfer was negligible under UV light. In contrast, the transition from mass transfer to kinetic control limitation was observed under the Vis system. The optimum PCA degradation predicted from the response surface analysis was 97.36% at the reaction pH of 7.3, catalyst dosage of 0.45 g L-1, and initial PCA concentration of 11.02 mg L-1. The condition obtained was fairly close to the forecasted value with an error of 0.26%. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36131999 PMCID: PMC9418641 DOI: 10.1039/d2na00216g
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Fig. 1Schematic of the photoreactor.
Fig. 2(A) Performance of the CuO/CNT catalyst toward the photodegradation of PCA under both light irradiation systems. (B) Summary of ESR peaks for all catalysts.
Fig. 3Proposed mechanism of the reaction under (A) UV and (B) Vis light irradiation systems.
Fig. 4Effect of the initial concentration on the reaction order under (A) UV and (B) Vis light irradiation systems.
Fig. 5Thiele Modulus of each catalyst for both light irradiation systems.
Rates and photonic efficiency for each catalyst
| Catalyst | Initial rate, | Photonic efficiency, |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 1 wt% CuO/CNTs | 1.50 | 0.96 |
| 3 wt% CuO/CNTs | 2.10 | 1.34 |
| 5 wt% CuO/CNTs | 1.26 | 0.83 |
| CuO | 0.81 | 5.27 |
|
| ||
| 10 wt% CuO/CNTs | 1.83 | 2.01 |
| 50 wt% CuO/CNTs | 2.14 | 6.39 |
| 90 wt% CuO/CNTs | 1.39 | 45.7 |
| CuO | 2.17 | 21.0 |
Fig. 6(A) The evolution of methanol oxidation as a function of time and (B) pseudo-first order Langmuir–Hinshelwood model fitting.
Rates and photonic efficiency for each parameter under both UV and Vis light irradiation
| Condition | UV 3 wt% CuO/CNTs | Vis 50 wt% CuO/CNTs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial rate, (×10−5 mmol L−1 s−1) | Photonic efficiency, | Initial rate, | Photonic efficiency, | |
|
| ||||
| 3 | 1.08 | 0.69 | 1.63 | 4.86 |
| 5 | 1.18 | 0.75 | 1.68 | 5.02 |
| 7 | 2.10 | 1.34 | 2.14 | 6.39 |
| 9 | 1.89 | 1.21 | 1.79 | 5.37 |
| 11 | 2.06 | 1.31 | 1.22 | 3.64 |
|
| ||||
| 0.125 | 1.78 | 1.15 | 1.40 | 4.19 |
| 0.25 | 2.15 | 1.37 | 2.14 | 6.39 |
| 0.375 | 2.10 | 1.34 | 2.14 | 6.39 |
| 0.5 | 1.65 | 1.05 | 1.55 | 4.63 |
| 0.625 | 1.93 | 1.23 | 1.14 | 3.41 |
|
| ||||
| 10 | 2.10 | 1.34 | 2.14 | 6.39 |
| 30 | 2.83 | 1.81 | 6.69 | 2.00 |
| 50 | 4.00 | 2.55 | 6.76 | 2.02 |
| 70 | 4.13 | 2.64 | 7.17 | 2.14 |
| 100 | 4.46 | 2.85 | 7.22 | 2.16 |
Fig. 7Response surface plots for the photodegradation of PCA showing interaction between (A) catalyst dosage and pH, (B) initial concentration and catalyst dosage, (C) initial concentration and pH, and (D) Pareto chart of the standardized effect estimate.