4.5 Article

Synthesis and comparative photocatalytic activity of Pt/WO3 and Au/WO3 nanocomposites under sunlight-type excitation

期刊

SOLID STATE SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 1748-1754

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2011.07.002

关键词

Photocatalysis; WO3; Platinum; Gold; Nanocomposite

资金

  1. Center of Excellence in Nanotechnology (CENT)
  2. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article deals with the synthesis of highly active visible-light-driven nanocomposite for the decontamination of water hazards under sunlight-type excitation. The surface of visible-light-active nanostructured photocatalyst tungsten oxide (WO3) was modified with noble metals, such as platinum (Pt) and gold (Au) nanoparticles, and the resulting photocatalytic activity of the nanocomposites was investigated by studying the removal of Methyl Orange and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) under sunlight-type excitation. The study revealed that the deposited noble metals are not always favorable for the enhancement of photocatalytic response of catalysts; the activity of WO3 was enhanced manyfold (similar to 8 times) by depositing an optimum amount of Pt nanoparticles after certain photodeposition time whereas the presence of Au nanoparticles onto the WO3 surface, under identical experimental conditions, affected the removal process negatively. The variation in the photocatalytic activity of nanocomposites was attributed to the size of the deposited metals; Pt nanoparticles were uniformly dispersed with narrow size distribution (2-4 nm) while the size distribution of Au nanoparticles was found to be 10-15 nm for similar preparation conditions. The effects of critical parameters, such as metal deposition time and metal contents, on the photocatalytic activity of WO3 were investigated. Furthermore, Pt/WO3 nanocomposites showed good stability and recyclability under the conditions studied. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.5
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