4.5 Article

Visible light photocatalytic activity of BiVO4 particles with different morphologies

期刊

SOLID STATE SCIENCES
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 61-66

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2014.03.018

关键词

Bismuth vanadate; Spherical; Dumbbell like; Spindle like; Wheat like; Hydrothermal synthesis; Photocatalytic degradation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61308095]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M531286]
  3. Key Laboratory of Preparation and Application Environmentally Friendly Materials of the Ministry of Education of China
  4. science development project of Jilin Province [20130522071JH, 20130102004JC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bismuth vanadate (BiVO4) particles with different morphologies were synthesized by a one-step hydrothermal process and their optical and photocatalytic properties were investigated. Their crystal structure and microstructures were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM). XRD patterns demonstrate that the as-prepared samples are monoclinic cell. FESEM shows that BiVO4 crystals can be fabricated in different morphologies by simply manipulating the reaction parameters of hydrothermal process. The UV-visible diffuse reflectance spectra (UV-vis DRS) reveal that the band gaps of BiVO4 photocatalysts are about 2.07-2.21 eV. The as-prepared BiVO4 photocatalysts exhibit higher photocatalytic activities in the degradation of rhodamine B (Rh B) under visible light irradiation (lambda > 420 nm) compared with traditional N-doped TiO2 (N-TiO2). Furthermore, wheat like BiVO4 sample reveals the highest photocatalytic activity. Up to 100% Rh B is decolorized after visible light irradiation for 180 min. The reason for the difference in the photocatalytic activities for BiVO4 samples obtained at different conditions were systematically studied based on their shape, size and the variation of local structure. (C) 2014 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