4.5 Article

Investigation of mechanism and kinetics in the TiO2photocatalytic degradation of Indigo Carmine dye using radical scavengers

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-020-02842-6

关键词

Heterogeneous photocatalysis; Advanced oxidative processes; Factorial experiment design; Wastewater treatment

资金

  1. Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) [201488/2016-7]
  2. Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [131639/2017-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the influence of different scavenger species of radicals on the TiO2/UVA photocatalytic degradation of Indigo Carmine dye. The main degradation mechanism was found to be oxidation in the positive hole (h(+)) followed by singlet oxygen action, with a minor contribution from hydroxyl radicals. The use of radical scavengers helped verify the mechanism and kinetics of Indigo Carmine dye through TiO2 heterogeneous photocatalysis.
This study is aimed at investigating the influence of different scavenger species of radicals that might possibly be involved in the TiO2/UVA photocatalytic degradation of Indigo Carmine dye. The effect caused by the presence of hydroxyl radicals (1-butanol and 2-propanol), positive holes (h(+)) (potassium iodide) and singlet oxygen (azide) was studied. Kinetics and optimal degradation conditions were evaluated using a factorial experiment design. The highest pseudo-first-order kinetics (k = 5.22 x 10(-2) +/- 0.002 andt(1/2) = 13.25 +/- 0.49 min) was achieved at pH 4.0, 6 mg L(-1)of Indigo Carmine dye and 12 mg L(-1)of TiO2. Mineralization was not achieved, and direct photolysis was not observed under the studied conditions. Indigo Carmine degradation occurs mainly due to oxidation in the positive hole (h(+)) followed by singlet oxygen action and on a smaller scale by hydroxyl radical. The use of the aforementioned radical scavengers made it possible to verify the mechanism and kinetics of Indigo Carmine dye through TiO(2)heterogeneous photocatalysis.

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