Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Visible-light (λ ≥ 420 nm) active fluorine (F) doped composite photocatalyst Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 3.69 F 0.31 was prepared through substitution method. In this process, cobaltic oxide, Co 3 O 4 was synthesized first; subsequently, F was introduced into Co 3 O 4 . The prepared Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 4-x F x heterocomposite photocatalysts were characterized through X-ray Diffractometry (XRD), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), EDX-mapping, UV–visible Spectrophotometry, X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). Zeta potential indicates that the photocatalysts carrying negative charge on its surface which make the catalyst more suspended compare to undoped Co 3 O 4 . The Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 4-x F x composite with several atom % of F demonstrated better photocatalytic activity compare to Co 3 O 4 and TiO 2 nanoparticles towards the decomposition of methyl blue (MB) and phenol in aqueous medium under visible light irradiation. The composition of Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 4-x F x was optimized to 0.31 atom% (i.e., x = 0.31) of F doping with respect to degradation of organics in aqueous medium. After 2 h of visible irradiation, 33% decomposition MB and 45% degradation of phenol were achieved with Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 3.69 F 0.31 composite photocatalyst whereas, Co 3 O 4 and TiO 2 demonstrated negligible decomposition efficiency. Due to F doping, the valence band (VB) level of Co 3 O 4 was up-lifted which enhanced the absorption of visible light and made possible excitation of more and more VB electrons Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 3.69 F 0.31 towards its conduction band (CB) and, thus CB electrons (e − ) and VB holes (h + ) are spatially separated. Experimental study proved that both the excited electrons (e − ) and holes (h + ) of Co 3 O 4 /Co 3 O 3.69 F 0.31 composite took part in degrading photocatalytic reactions as well as enhanced photocatalytic efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akter et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: