4.8 Article

Engineering high-defect densities across vertically-aligned graphene nanosheets to induce photocatalytic reactivity

期刊

CARBON
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 32-41

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2020.05.058

关键词

Graphene morphology; Vertically-aligned graphene; Photocatalysis; Defect engineering

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE180100130]
  2. RMIT Microscopy & Microanalysis Facility (RMMF), a linked laboratory of Microscopy Australia
  3. Australian Research Council [DE180100130] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fabrication of graphene nanostructures, with a variety of morphologies and densities of defective sites, can be a promising tool to tune their characteristics towards photocatalytic applications, without the need for external dopants. In this study, the impact of morphological properties in terms of the orientation and defect concentrations of graphene nanostructures is demonstrated to support the development of active photocatalytic sites across graphitic structures. Vertically-aligned graphene nanosheets were grown across carbon fibres via electron cyclotron resonance microwave plasma chemical vapour deposition, to yield a range of different wall densities and edge functionalities. The variation of growth conditions was correlated to the photocatalytic activity for the degradation of methylene blue dye under ultra-violet and visible light. The chemical state of oxygen content hybridized with nanosheets was studied by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and correlated to the growth conditions and photocatalytic performance. The fastest degradation rate of dye was found on the graphene samples which were grown at 800 degrees C for 240 min, with a kinetic constant of 46.6 x 10(-4) min(-1). Such performance has not been observed to date for any graphitic materials and is shown to be on the same order of performance as the conventional photocatalytic materials. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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