Research PaperNo Access

Materials and Chemical Engineering School, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450007, P. R. China

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-8819

Materials and Chemical Engineering School, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450007, P. R. China

E-mail Address: baoyanl@126.com

Search for more papers by this author

Xinyang Zheng

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2557-6785

Materials and Chemical Engineering School, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450007, P. R. China

Search for more papers by this author

Yitong Luo

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5893-0959

Materials and Chemical Engineering School, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450007, P. R. China

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Mingli Jiao

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7437-5939

Materials and Chemical Engineering School, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450007, P. R. China

E-mail Address: 357827404@qq.com

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2251237324500187Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Reduced graphene oxide (rGO)/TiO₂ nanocomposites were prepared by low-temperature and low-pressure heat treatment. The structure and photocatalysis performance of the composites were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and UV-visible diffuse reflectance spectrum (UV-Vis DRS). The photocatalytic degradation performance of methyl orange (MO) by composites with different raw material ratios was studied under simulated solar-irradiation conditions. Results indicated that graphene oxide (GO) was reduced to graphene during heat treatment and bonded well with TiO₂. Compared with TiO₂, GO addition greatly improved its photocatalytic efficiency. Under simulated sunlight irradiation, the samples exhibited good photocatalysis performance. Within 50min, MO can be rapidly degraded by TiO₂/40% rGO composite.

Keywords:

References

1. L. Jiang, Y. Wang and C. Feng, Procedia Eng. 45, 993 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
2. D. Vaya and P. K. Surolia, Environ. Technol. Innov. 20, 101128 (2020). Crossref, Google Scholar
3. T. Velempini, E. Prabakaran and K. Pillay, Mater. Today Chem. 19, 100380 (2021). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. N. Madkhali, C. Prasad, K. Malkappa, H. Y. Choi, V. Govinda, I. Bahadur and R. A. Abumousa, Results Eng. 17, 100920 (2023). Crossref, Google Scholar
5. A. V. Karim and A. Selvaraj, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 146, 136 (2021). Crossref, Google Scholar
6. N. R. Khalid, A. Majid, M. B. Tahir, N. A. Niaz and S. Khalid, Ceram. Int. 43, 14552 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
7. C. P. M. de Oliveira, I. F. Farah, K. Koch, J. E. Drewes, M. M. Viana and M. C. S. Amaral, Sep. Purif. Technol. 280, 119836 (2022). Crossref, Google Scholar
8. N. N. T. Ton, A. T. N. Dao, K. Kato, T. Ikenaga, D. X. Trinh and T. Taniike, Carbon 133, 109 (2018). Crossref, Google Scholar
9. S. Jin, Y. Yang, J. Zhang and H. Zheng, Mater. Chem. Phys. 263, 124339 (2021). Crossref, Google Scholar
10. J. Li et al., Chem. Eng. J. 219, 486 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
11. A. Fattahi, R. Liang, A. Kaur, O. Schneider, M. J. Arlos, P. Peng, M. Servos and N. Zhou, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 7, 103366 (2019). Crossref, Google Scholar
12. P. T. N. Nguyen, C. Salim, W. Kurniawan and H. Hinode, Catal. Today 230, 166 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
13. A. G. de Oliveira, J. P. Nascimento, H. de, F. Gorgulho, P. B. Martelli, C. A. Furtado and J. L. Figueiredo, J. Alloys Compd. 654, 514 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
14. D. S. Nipom, G. K. Koustav and C. Avijit, Mater. Today: Proc. 76, 160 (2023). Crossref, Google Scholar
15. E. S. Drewniak, R. Muzyka and L. Drewniak, Photonics Lett. Pol. 12, 52 (2020). Crossref, Google Scholar
16. P. Viprya, D. Kumar and S. Kowshik, Eng. Proc. 59(1), 84 (2023). Google Scholar
17. Y. Bouachiba et al., Int. J. Nanoparticles 6(2–3), 169 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar