4.7 Article

A comparative study of CuO deposition methods on titania nanotube arrays for photoelectrocatalytic ammonia degradation and hydrogen production

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 46, 期 53, 页码 26873-26885

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.05.149

关键词

Titania nanotube; CuO-deposited; SILAR; Ammonia degradation; Hydrogen

资金

  1. DRPM Universitas Indonesia (Hibah Q1Q2 grant) [NKB-0324/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CuO nanoparticles were deposited into titania nanotube arrays via two methods, with CuO-TiNTAs SILAR showing lower bandgap and better photoelectrochemical activity than other samples, efficiently removing ammonia and producing hydrogen under illumination. Therefore, CuO-TiNTAs SILAR is concluded as a better photoanode in the given experimental conditions for photoelectrochemical processes.
In this study, the deposition of CuO nanoparticles into titania nanotube arrays (TiNTAs) was prepared via two methods, i.e an in-situ anodization (AND) and a successive ionic layer adsorption reaction (SILAR). The two methods were compared in terms of their properties as efficient photoanodes in photoelectrocatalytic processes. FESEM and TEM imaging showed that the nanotubular structure was successfully generated. The bandgap energy was probed by UV-DRS analysis, revealing that CuO-TiNTAs SILAR had a lower bandgap than other samples. The photoelectrochemical responses of CuO-TiNTAs SILAR exhibit better activity compared to its counterpart. The maximum ammonia removal was achieved at 50.1% while as high as 235.7 mmol of hydrogen was generated over 120 min under Hg lamp illumination, by the use of CuO-TiNTAs SILAR. We thereby conclude that, for the given experimental conditions, CuO-TiNTAs SILAR is a better photoanode than CuO-TiNTAs AND concurrently eliminate ammonia and produce hydrogen in a photo electrochemical setup. (c) 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by 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

4.7
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