Weiran Wang and
Dongxiang Zhang*
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, P. R. China. E-mail: boris@bit.edu.cn; Fax: +86-10-68941331; Tel: +86-10-68914503
First published on 17th September 2018
Reduced graphene oxide/metal ferrite (rGO/MFe2O4, M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids are successfully prepared through a simple, one-step hydrothermal method. The rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids are characterized by XRD, TEM, FT-IR, XPS, Raman and BET surface area measurements. The rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids demonstrate amazing catalytic activities on the thermal decomposition of ammonium perchlorate (AP). DSC results indicate that rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids (3 wt%), could decrease the decomposition temperature of pure AP from 424.7 °C to 329.1 °C, 338.3 °C, and 364.8 °C, respectively. This enhanced catalytic performance is mainly attributed to the synergistic effect of NPs and rGO. The activation energy (Ea) of AP mixed with nanohybrids is investigated by two isoconversion methods, Flynne–Walle–Ozawa (FWO) and Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS), on a conversion degree (α) range from 0.05 to 0.95. The values of Ea calculated from the above two methods matched with each other. A strong dependence of Ea on α is observed, indicating a complex decomposition process.
Enormous attention has been attracted on graphene due to its excellent special surface properties, high conductivity and thermal stability.13,14 It has been proved that the two-dimensional structure of graphene sheets allows them to be the perfect dispersing-substrate for the NPs and acts as efficient solid conductive supporters for enabling good contact between nanoferrites.15
Herein, we prepared rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids in a facile one-pot way. We demonstrated a comparative study about the catalytic activities of nanohybrids on thermal decomposition of AP. As far as we know, no study involving rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids as a series of catalysts for the decomposition of AP has been reported.
The rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids, rGO and pure MF NPs were fully mixed with AP in the mass ratio of 1 wt%, 3 wt% and 5 wt%, respectively. The thermal properties of the above mixtures were investigated using a differential thermal analyzer (TGA-DSC, METTLER, 1/1600HT) with nitrogen gas (flow rate 50 mL min−1).
The morphology of the as-synthesised rGO/CuF, rGO/CoF, rGO/NiF nanohybrids and GO were characterized by TEM. As shown in Fig. 2a–c, MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) NPs are uniformly dispersed on rGO sheets. There are no NPs fell off the rGO sheets after long time sonication of the samples, indicating the strong interaction between NPs and rGO sheets. Fig. 2g shows a wrinkled waves-like textures of GO sheets. The HRTEM images of CuF, CoF, NiF NPs, presented in Fig. 2d–f, display a clear crystal lattice with a spacing of 0.25 nm, 0.31 nm, 0.31 nm, respectively, corresponding to (311), (111), (111) plane of MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) cubic structure.
Fig. 2 TEM images of (a) rGO/CuF, (b) rGO/CoF, (c) rGO/NiF nanohybrids and (g) GO; HRTEM images of (d) rGO/CuF, (e) rGO/CoF, (f) rGO/NiF nanohybrids. |
Fig. 3 represents FTIR spectra of GO and rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni). For GO (Fig. 3a), the broad absorption at 3411 cm−1 is ascribed to O–H stretching mode. The other peaks are due to the stretching vibration of carboxylic CO (1735 cm−1), aromatic C–C (1617 cm−1), C–OH (1407 cm−1), C–O–C (1214 cm−1) and alkoxy (1049 cm−1), respectively.18 For rGO/MFe2O4 (Fig. 3b–d), peak intensity of oxygen-containing groups decreased obviously or disappeared gradually indicating that GO has been successfully reduced to rGO.19 The peak at 1574 cm−1, is due to the skeletal vibration of rGO sheets. A new absorption at around 600 cm−1 is assigned to the metal oxygen bonds.
Fig. 4 displays the XPS spectra of rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids and GO. Fig. 4a is clearly indicated that the C/O ratios in the rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids increase obviously compared with that of GO. In Fig. 4b, the peaks at around 723.0 and 710.6 eV corresponds to Fe2p1/2 and Fe2p3/2, respectively.20 In Fig. 4c–e, two peaks at 932.9 eV and 952.7 eV are assigned to Cu2p1/2 and Cu2p3/2, respectively.21 Two peaks at 779.2 eV and 880.8 eV is ascribed to the Co 2p3/2 and Co2p1/2, respectively.22 Two peaks at 855.0 and 872.7 eV corresponds to Ni2p3/2 and Ni2p1/2, respectively.23 In Fig. 4f, four peaks at 284.1, 286.3, 287.5, 288.7 eV assigned to aromatic CC/C–C, C–OH, CO, OC–O bonds, respectively.24 Fig. 4g–i show that peak intensities of the epoxide and hydroxyl functional groups are remarkably decreased, suggesting the successful reduction of GO.
Fig. 4 XPS spectra of the rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids and GO (a) survey, (b) Fe 2p, (c) Cu 2p, (d) Co 2p, (e) Ni 2p, (f) C 1s, (g) C 1s, (h) C 1s, (i) C 1s. |
Fig. 5 displays Raman spectra of GO and rGO/MF (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids. As can be seen in Fig. 5a, two peaks at around 1356 cm−1 and 1597 cm−1 corresponding to D and G band, respectively. In Fig. 5b and c, small shifting was seen in D and G bands suggesting oxygen-containing functional groups of GO are remarkably removed. The calculated intensity ratios of D and G band (ID/IG) of rGO/CuF, rGO/CoF, rGO/NiF and GO are 1.07, 1.09, 1.04, 0.90, respectively. The higher ID/IG values of rGO/MF nanohybrids suggest that GO sheets are successfully reduced.25
N2 adsorption/desorption isotherms tests are done to calculate specific surface area of pure NPs and rGO/MF (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids. As shown in Table 1, the BET value of rGO/MF (M = Cu, Co, Ni) is much higher than that of pure NPs, indicating that rGO sheets improved the dispersion of the NPs, which may resulting its improved catalytic activity.
Sample | BET surface area (m2 g−1) |
---|---|
rGO/CuF | 94.60 |
rGO/CoF | 74.79 |
rGO/NiF | 73.92 |
CuF | 33.01 |
CoF | 26.74 |
NiF | 26.53 |
Fig. 6 DSC curves of (a) pure AP, AP mixed with (b) rGO/CuF, (c) rGO/CoF, and (d) rGO/NiF (1 wt%, 3 wt%, 5 wt%) nanohybrids. |
However, Fig. 6b–d show the endothermic peak has no shifts, indicating that rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids have no impact on the endothermic process but obvious peak temperature decreasing is taken place in LTD and HTD process.
In Fig. 6b, LTD peak has no significant changes. As shown in Fig. 6c and d, only one exothermic peak (HTD peak) is obvious for 5 wt%, compared with two exothermic peaks for 1 wt% and 3 wt%. The HTD peak temperature of AP/rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) mixtures are reduced by 90.2 °C, 67.4 °C, 40.9 °C (1 wt%), 95.6 °C, 86.4 °C, 59.9 °C (3 wt%), 98.1 °C, 97.2 °C, 64.2 °C (5 wt%), respectively. Meanwhile, the released energy of the mixtures (3% wt) is 1523.5 J g−1, 1376.7 J g−1 and 1248.3 J g−1, increased remarkably compared to 598.3 J g−1 of pure AP. The rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids demonstrate excellent catalytic effects in decreasing the HTD temperature and increasing the energy release of AP. However, the rGO/CuF nanohybrids showed the best catalytic effects and the rGO/NiF nanohybrids the least. The thermal catalytic performance of catalysts on the decomposition of AP is content dependent. As seen from Fig. 6, increasing the mass ratio of rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids in mixtures can decrease HTD peak temperature and the catalytic performance of rGO/CuF shows less relative to amounts compared to that of rGO/CoF and rGO/NiF nanohybrids.
For comparison, TG-DSC tests were further conducted to study the catalytic activity of the as-prepared MF (M = Cu, Co, Ni) NPs and rGO sheets at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1. As can be seen in Table 2, rGO/MFe2O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni) nanohybrids demonstrated better catalytic effect than that of pure NPs and rGO.
Catalyst | ΔT (°C) |
---|---|
a T: decreased HTD peak temperature. | |
CuFe2O4 | 71.5 |
CoFe2O4 | 45.4 |
NiFe2O4 | 38.2 |
rGO | 0.9 |
rGO/CuFe2O4 | 95.6 |
rGO/CoFe2O4 | 86.4 |
rGO/NiFe2O4 | 59.9 |
In Fig. 7a, there are two weight loss steps for pure AP, 23.1% of the first and 76.9% of the second. In Fig. 7b, two weight loss steps take place in all three mass ratio and the weight loss are almost the same, 35.5% of the first and 64.5% of the second. In contrast, Fig. 7c and d show that the weight loss of catalyst (5 wt%) is taken only in one step, which are consistent with their DSC results. Thus the mixtures (5 wt%) exhibit the best catalytic effects in decreasing the HTD temperature of AP compared to other mass ratio. However, for rGO/CuF, it is the most difficult to further decrease the HTD temperature of AP with addition of higher concentration.
Fig. 7 TG curves of (a) pure AP, AP mixed with (b) rGO/CuF, (c) rGO/CoF and (d) rGO/NiF (1 wt%, 3 wt%, 5 wt%) nanohybrids. |
Two model-free methods, Flynn–Wall–Ozawa (FWO) and Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS) were applied for obtaining Ea,α values.26–33 The two methods allows the activation energy to be evaluated without making any assumptions about the reaction model. Therefore, for the first order reaction, extent of reaction conversion (α) is calculated using the following eqn (1):
(1) |
The m0 and mt are the mass of the sample at the starting and ending time; while m∞ is the mass at arbitrary time or temperature.
The FWO method shown in eqn (2) is:
(2) |
The KAS method shown in eqn (3) is:
(3) |
Fig. 8 The curves of ln(βi) by 1000/Tα for thermal decomposition of (a) pure AP, AP mixed with (b) rGO/CuF, (c) rGO/CoF and (d) rGO/NiF (3 wt%) nanohybrids. |
Fig. 9 The curves of by 1000/Tα for thermal decomposition of (a) pure AP, AP mixed with (b) rGO/CuF, (c) rGO/CoF and (d) rGO/NiF (3 wt%) nanohybrids. |
The relationship of Ea to extent of conversion are calculated by FWO and KAS methods in HTD process. The Ea values and its corresponding linear correlation coefficient (R2) for conversion values from 0.05 to 0.95, are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The dependence of Ea on α using FWO and KAS method is shown in Fig. 10, respectively. Since the Ea,α values of mixtures have increased, HTD process of AP is done harder and slower.
α | AP | AP + rGO/CuF | AP + rGO/CoF | AP + rGO/NiF | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | |
0.05 | 165.43 | 0.9696 | 70.29 | 0.9503 | 94.03 | 0.96339 | 116.43 | 0.8725 |
0.10 | 173.36 | 0.9924 | 72.14 | 0.9504 | 93.19 | 0.96468 | 115.84 | 0.8910 |
0.15 | 172.27 | 0.9965 | 73.70 | 0.9541 | 93.07 | 0.96687 | 115.63 | 0.9018 |
0.20 | 169.93 | 0.9905 | 74.58 | 0.9548 | 92.85 | 0.96735 | 115.52 | 0.9082 |
0.25 | 166.51 | 0.9790 | 75.54 | 0.9548 | 92.47 | 0.9683 | 115.74 | 0.9139 |
0.30 | 164.59 | 0.9668 | 76.19 | 0.9542 | 92.10 | 0.96921 | 116.19 | 0.9210 |
0.35 | 165.33 | 0.9585 | 77.03 | 0.9515 | 91.74 | 0.96797 | 116.12 | 0.9290 |
0.40 | 160.27 | 0.9501 | 77.78 | 0.9526 | 91.60 | 0.96761 | 116.65 | 0.9362 |
0.45 | 159.37 | 0.9427 | 79.05 | 0.9490 | 91.52 | 0.96962 | 116.76 | 0.9396 |
0.50 | 157.77 | 0.9308 | 79.58 | 0.9489 | 91.30 | 0.96995 | 117.19 | 0.9448 |
0.55 | 157.12 | 0.9270 | 80.32 | 0.9466 | 91.08 | 0.97026 | 118.24 | 0.9495 |
0.60 | 156.00 | 0.9281 | 81.07 | 0.9441 | 91.00 | 0.97008 | 118.23 | 0.9540 |
0.65 | 153.58 | 0.9225 | 81.93 | 0.9437 | 91.06 | 0.97147 | 119.19 | 0.9607 |
0.70 | 153.27 | 0.9219 | 82.57 | 0.9418 | 90.66 | 0.97029 | 120.85 | 0.9628 |
0.75 | 151.90 | 0.9165 | 83.45 | 0.9397 | 90.85 | 0.97112 | 123.23 | 0.9710 |
0.80 | 150.99 | 0.9251 | 83.87 | 0.9383 | 90.52 | 0.97035 | 125.31 | 0.9732 |
0.85 | 149.98 | 0.9184 | 84.10 | 0.9396 | 90.32 | 0.96907 | 126.96 | 0.9733 |
0.90 | 148.55 | 0.9259 | 84.53 | 0.9397 | 90.02 | 0.96887 | 125.21 | 0.9779 |
0.95 | 145.19 | 0.9299 | 84.55 | 0.9420 | 89.82 | 0.9679 | 119.40 | 0.9764 |
α | AP | AP + rGO/CuF | AP + rGO/CoF | AP + rGO/NiF | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | Ea,α | R2 | |
0.05 | 154.31 | 0.9649 | 60.10 | 0.9320 | 83.43 | 0.9534 | 105.87 | 0.8725 |
0.10 | 162.15 | 0.9913 | 61.91 | 0.9327 | 82.58 | 0.9549 | 105.21 | 0.8910 |
0.15 | 160.99 | 0.9961 | 63.44 | 0.9381 | 80.89 | 0.9535 | 104.94 | 0.9018 |
0.20 | 158.58 | 0.9892 | 64.30 | 0.9391 | 82.22 | 0.9582 | 104.78 | 0.9082 |
0.25 | 155.10 | 0.9760 | 65.23 | 0.9394 | 81.84 | 0.9593 | 104.94 | 0.9139 |
0.30 | 153.12 | 0.9620 | 65.85 | 0.9387 | 81.45 | 0.9604 | 105.35 | 0.9210 |
0.35 | 153.80 | 0.9524 | 66.67 | 0.9353 | 81.08 | 0.9588 | 105.24 | 0.9290 |
0.40 | 148.69 | 0.9426 | 67.40 | 0.9370 | 80.94 | 0.9583 | 105.73 | 0.9362 |
0.45 | 147.73 | 0.9340 | 68.64 | 0.9325 | 80.85 | 0.9608 | 105.81 | 0.9396 |
0.50 | 146.10 | 0.9201 | 69.15 | 0.9325 | 80.62 | 0.9612 | 106.20 | 0.9448 |
0.55 | 145.40 | 0.9156 | 69.87 | 0.9296 | 80.39 | 0.9616 | 107.22 | 0.9495 |
0.60 | 144.23 | 0.9168 | 70.59 | 0.9266 | 80.30 | 0.9613 | 107.18 | 0.9540 |
0.65 | 141.77 | 0.9091 | 71.43 | 0.9262 | 80.35 | 0.9631 | 108.11 | 0.9607 |
0.70 | 141.43 | 0.9093 | 72.06 | 0.9239 | 79.93 | 0.9615 | 109.76 | 0.9628 |
0.75 | 140.02 | 0.9029 | 72.91 | 0.9215 | 80.12 | 0.9625 | 112.11 | 0.9710 |
0.80 | 139.07 | 0.9128 | 73.31 | 0.9198 | 79.77 | 0.9615 | 114.17 | 0.9732 |
0.85 | 138.02 | 0.9048 | 73.52 | 0.9214 | 79.56 | 0.9598 | 115.80 | 0.9733 |
0.90 | 136.55 | 0.9134 | 73.93 | 0.9216 | 79.24 | 0.9594 | 114.02 | 0.9779 |
0.95 | 133.15 | 0.9177 | 73.92 | 0.9245 | 79.01 | 0.9581 | 108.17 | 0.9764 |
Fig. 10 Dependence of Ea,α with α according to (a) FWO method, (b) KAS method for the decomposition of AP mixed with rGO/MFe2O4 nanohybrids. |
NH4ClO4 → NH4+ + ClO4− | (4) |
MFe2O4 → MFe2O4 (h+ + e−) | (5) |
Fe3+ + ClO4− → Fe2+ + ClO4 | (6) |
Fe2+ + NH4+ → Fe3+ + NH4 | (7) |
MFe2O4 (e−) + rGO → MFe2O4 + rGO (e−) | (8) |
Once the mixture of AP and rGO/MFe2O4 is heated, electrons in the valence band (VB) of MFe2O4 can jump to its conduction band (CB), meanwhile the generation of holes (h+) in the VB is coming. MFe2O4 provide easy access to transfer electrons from ClO4− to NH4+. Because rGO are known as good electron acceptors,35 the electrons are transferred to the rGO rapidly via a percolation mechanism. rGO/MFe2O4 were used as catalysts for the decomposition, which can prevent the electrons and holes of MFe2O4 recombining, and then boost the dissociation of ClO4−, thus leading to the enhanced catalytic effect.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |