4.7 Article

Heterogeneous UV-Switchable Au nanoparticles decorated tungstophosphoric acid/TiO2 for efficient photocatalytic degradation process

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 281, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130795

关键词

TiO2; Polyoxometalate; Gold nanoparticle; Nitrobenzene; Photodegradation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, gold nanoparticles were well-decorated on the surface of TiO2 using HPW as reducing intermediate linkers, thereby enhancing the photocatalytic performance compared to anatase TiO2 and HPW/TiO2. The photocatalytic rate of the prepared nanocomposites increased by 6.5-fold and 4.6-fold, and the reusability study confirmed their high photocatalytic activity after three cycles.
In the present study, gold nanoparticles were locally well-decorated on the surface of TiO2 using the tungstophosphoric acid (HPW), as UV-switchable reducing intermediate linkers. The prepared Au NPs/HPW/TiO2 nanostructure was characterized using FTIR, XRD, EDS, SEM and TEM, which confirmed the successful attachment of quasi-spherical Au NPs in the range of 20-30 nm on the surface of HPW modified TiO2. Also, the FTIR results show that the Au NPs were binded to TiO2 through the terminal the oxygen atoms HPW. The photocatalytic performance of prepared nanostructures was assessed in degradation of nitrobenzene. The nitrobenzene photodegradation kinetic study revealed that it well followed the Langmuir-Hinshelwood kinetic model with the apparent rate constant of 0.001 min(-1) using anatase TiO2, 0.0004 min(-1) using HPW, 0.0014 using HPW/TiO2, while it was obtained 0.0065 min(-1) using Au NPs@HPW/TiO2 nanostructure. It shows that the photocatalytic rate of the prepared nanocomposites increased by 6.5- and 4.6-fold compared to photoactivity of anatase TiO2 and HPW/TiO2 respectively. Also, the photocatalytic mechanism of process was proposed. Moreover, the reusability study confirmed that its photocatalytic activity still remained high after three cycles.

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