Is truly necessary to the operation of the rGO-CeO2 nanocomposite as photo-emitter or photo-catalyst that rGO is of good quality? Could similar results be obtained directly using GO? What will the possible difference between the results?
Materials Letters Volume 137, 15 December 2014, Pages 229–232
CeO2 hollow nanospheres decorated reduced graphene oxide composite for efficient photocatalytic dye-degradation
CeO2HS/rGO exhibits significantly enhanced photocatalytic performance in methylene orange (MO) degradation in comparison with that of unsupported CeO2HS, pure graphene oxide (GO) or rGO.
The photocatalytic activity will be more in case of rGO based composite rather GO based system as rGO shows an ideal support material for metal
oxides with large surface area and high electrical conductivity and high electrical conductivity. Interestingly, photocatalysis research (Chemical Engineering Journal 170 (2011) 226–232) shows a good photocatalytic performance on the TiO2–graphene oxide composite systems irrespective of light sources.
Yes, rGO should be of good quality. Otherwise, low photocatalytic activity will be observed as a result of low mobility and/or quick recombination of photoproduced charge carriers. rGO is mostly better than GO.
- Badges
- Science topic