4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of rhodamine B degradation under UV irradiation by two phases of titania nano-photocatalyst

Journal

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
Volume 110, Issue 2, Pages 847-855

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-011-1852-7

Keywords

Nanocatalyst; TiO2 photocatalyst; UV photodegradation; Rhodamine B (Rh B)

Funding

  1. University of Johannesburg, DST/Mintek NIC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Titania (TiO2) nano-photocatalysts, with different phases, prepared using a modified sol-gel process were employed in the degradation of rhodamine at 10 mg L-1 concentration. The degradation efficiency of these nano-photocatalysts was compared to that of commercial Degussa P25 titania. It was found that the nanocatalysts calcined at 450 degrees C and the Degussa P25 titania had similar photoreactivity profiles. The commercial Degussa P25 nanocatalysts had an overall high apparent rate constant of (K-app) of 0.023 min(-1). The other nanocatalyst had the following rate constants: 0.017, 0.0089, 0.003 and 0.0024 min(-1) for 450, 500, 550 and 600 degrees C calcined catalysts, respectively. This could be attributed to the phase of the titania as the anatase phase is highly photoactive than the other phases. Furthermore, characterisation by differential scanning calorimetry showed the transformation of titania from amorphous to anatase and finally to rutile phase. SEM and TEM characterisations were used to study the surface morphology and internal structure of the nanoparticles. BET results show that as the temperature of calcinations was raised, the surface area reduced marginally. X-ray diffraction was used to confirm the different phases of titania. This study has led to a conclusion that the anatase phase of the titania is the most photoactive nanocatalyst. It also had the highest apparent rate constant of 0.017 min(-1), which is similar to that of the commercial titania.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available