4.7 Article

Sonocatalytic degradation of organic dyes and comparison of catalytic activities of CeO2/TiO2, SnO2/TiO2 and ZrO2/TiO2 composites under ultrasonic irradiation

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 642-648

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.12.016

关键词

Sonocatalytic degradation; CeO2/TiO2; SnO2/TiO2; ZrO2/TiO2; Composites; Acid Red B

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Liaoning Province Natural Science Foundation of Education Department
  3. Liaoning Province Natural Science Foundation of Science and Technology Department

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CeO2/TiO2, SnO2/TiO2 and ZrO2/TiO2 composites were prepared by dispersing various nano-sized oxides (CeO2, SnO2, ZrO2 and TiO2) with ultrasound and mixing TiO2 with CeO2, SnO2 and ZrO2, respectively, in boiling water in a molar ratio of 4.1, followed by calcining temperature 500 degrees C for 60 min Then a series of sonocatalytic degradation experiments were carried out under ultrasonic irradiation in the presence of CeO2/TiO2, SnO2/TiO2 and ZrO2/TiO2 composites and nano-sized TiO2 powder Also, the influences of heat-treatment temperature and heat-treatment time on the sonocatalytic activities of CeO2/TiO2, SnO2/TiO2 and ZrO2/TiO2 composites, and of irradiation time and solution acidity on the sonocatalytic degradation of Acid Red B were investigated by UV-vis spectra It was found that the sonocatalytic degradation of Acid Red B shows significant variation in rate and ratio that decreases in order. CeO2/TiO2 > SnO2/TiO2 > TiO2 > ZrO2/TiO2 > SnO2 > CeO2 > ZrO2, and the corresponding ratios of Acid Red B in aqueous solution are 91.32%, 67.41%, 65.26%, 41.67%, 28.34%. 26.75% and 23.33%, respectively And that the degradation ratio is only 16.67% under onefold ultrasonic irradiation Because of the good degradation efficiency, this method may be an advisable choice for the treatment of non- or low-transparent wastewaters in the future. (C) 2009 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