4.7 Article

Carbon-modified titanium oxide materials for photocatalytic water and air decontamination

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 387, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124099

关键词

Titanium oxide; Graphene oxide; Carbon nanotubes; Photocatalysis; Rhodamine B; Benzene

资金

  1. FCT/MEC [UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020, POCI-01-0247FEDER-007678]
  2. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement
  3. COST action [15107, 101016-080937]
  4. FCT, I.P.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Titanium oxide-based materials with different physical and chemical features were synthesized aiming at removing organic pollutants from both water and air media. The materials were produced employing two different heating methodologies (thermal, T and hydrothermal, H) at distinct temperatures resulting in porous materials. These materials were also modified with either graphene oxide (GO) or carbon nanotubes (CNT), using an in-situ approach. All materials were tested as photocatalysts using ultra-violet (UV), visible (Vis) and solar radiation. Rhodamine B (RhB) and benzene were used as representative pollutants in water and air, respectively. The addition of carbon to the catalysts improved the removal of both pollutants. In the case of the photocatalytic degradation of rhodamine B, under both UV and Vis light, it was found that, the materials containing carbon nanostructures allowed the highest degradation degree, while the photosensitisation phenomenon became negligible. The best catalyst is the one containing CNT (2.98 wt% of C) and thermally treated at 300 degrees C (T300_CNT). This material showed higher degradation ability than the commercial TiO2 nanopowder Degussa P25 (P25) under Vis light. Regarding benzene removal, the samples thermally treated at 300 degrees C and modified with CNT and GO (T300_CNT and T300_GO, respectively) outperformed Degussa P25. The former material was successfully reused in the photocatalytic degradation of benzene over 6 consecutive cycles.

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