4.7 Article

Evaluating the photocatalytic efficiency of the BiVO4/rGO photocatalyst

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52589-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund (TRF)
  2. Office of the Higher Education Commission (CHE) [MRG6280017]
  3. Chiang Mai University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study reported the preparation of BiVO4 by co-precipitation method. The as-prepared BiVO4 photocatalyst were deposited on rGO sheets to form BiVO4/rGO via the hydrothermal method. The crystalline structure, morphological, optical properties, and surface properties of the synthesized pure BiVO4 compared to BiVO4/rGO composite were studied using X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electronmicroscopy (SEM), photoluminescence (PL) spectrophotoscopy, UV-vis spectrophotometer with an integrating sphere, and N-2 adsorption-desorption isotherm based on BET theory. The photocatalytic activity of the prepared samples were evaluated by the degradation of MB dye in aqueous medium under visible light irradiation. The result showed that the BiVO4/rGO composite exhibited greater photocatalytic efficiency compared to pure BiVO4 with the photocatalytic degradation efficiency remains stable up to fifth cycle. The improved activity of the BiVO4/rGO composite might be attributed to the high surface area available to adsorb more MB molecules, and efficient charge separation of BiVO4 through pi electron on the rGO structure. According to experimental results, the possible photocatalytic mechanism of the BiVO4/rGO composite were determined and the active species hydroxyl radical were reported. Based on photocatalytic activity inhibition in the presence of both h(+) (VB) and O-2(center dot-) (CB) scavengers over the BiVO4 photocatalyst, it can be proposed that the hydroxyl radical generated during the photocatalytic degradation mechanism is mainly responsible by the main active species of h(+) and O-2(center dot-) at VB and CB positions, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据