4.7 Article

Microstructure and photocatalytic property of TiO2 and Fe3+:TiO2 films produced by micro-arc oxidation

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 315, 期 -, 页码 196-204

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.02.043

关键词

Micro-arc oxidation; TiO2; Fe3+:TiO2; Impregnation; Photocatalytic activity

资金

  1. Research on Public Welfare Technology Application Projects of Zhejiang Province [2017C31039]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51275477, 61572438, 51371039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

First, the TiO2 films prepared by micro-arc oxidation (MAO) were formed in phosphate based electrolyte on pure titanium; after that, they were impregnated with Fe3+-containing electrolyte to produce the Fe3+:TiO2 composite films. Effects of the applied current density and impregnation time and concentration on physical and chemical properties of TiO2 and Fe3+:TiO2 composite films were investigated by Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), stereoscopic microscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). A UV-vis spectrophotometer was also used to study photocatalytic properties of both films. It is indicated that the film formed in, phosphate-based electrolyte were composed of anatase phase with varying fraction depending on the applied current density. XPS results revealed that Ti2p spin-orbit components of Fe3+:TiO2 composite films are shifted towards higher binding energy, with respect to TiO2 films, suggesting that some of the Fe3+ ions are incorporated into TiO2 lattice. Photocatalytic activity of the films was studied by measuring the degradation rate of methylene blue on their surface under simulated sunlight irradiation. The Fe3+:TiO2 composite 'films showed an obvious enhanced photocatalytic activity than the pure layers under UV-irradiation, while their photocatalytic degradation was much higher than that of the TiO2 film under the irradiation. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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