Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
Abstract
The photocatalytic properties of commercialized self-cleaning glasses have been evaluated by the degradation of stearic acid C17 H35 COOH
(SA), selected as a model molecule representative of fatty dirt. The relative amount of SA has been determined by measuring the FTIR peak area
in the range 2752 and 2992 cm1 corresponding to the CH stretching bands. In order to estimate the thickness of one layer, the deposit of SA has
been performed using the LangmuirBlodgett (LB) method, which allows obtaining organized monomolecular layers of amphiphilic organics on
a substrate. The thickness of one SA layer, obtained by LangmuirBlodgett deposition, has been correlated to the FTIR signal. The photocatalytic
degradation of a SA layer of a controlled thickness was carried out in a double jacket Pyrex reactor equipped with a UV Philips HPK 125 lamp.
The photocatalytic degradation rate of the SA layer with different thicknesses was determined. The SA degradation rate was investigated under
UV-A and UV-B irradiations to determine the influence of the photon wavelength range on efficiency.
2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Stearic acid; Photocatalytic degradation; Irradiation wavelength; Self-cleaning glass; LangmuirBlodgett; Fatty acid
The hydrophilic properties of thin films TiO2 , which were 18 carbons has been chosen, as a model molecule for photo-
early discovered in 1986 by Nihon Itagarasu K.K. Company catalytic degradation by UV-irradiated titania on self-cleaning
[18], play also an important role on self-cleaning properties as glasses.
thoroughly described by Fujishima and co-workers [19].
Several groups in USA [3,14,17], Japan [6,19], France 2. Experimental
[12,15], UK [10,16] have thoroughly studied, since more than 10
years, the self-cleaning properties of TiO2 thin-film, the includ- 2.1. Reactants
ing effect of different parameters such as humidity, temperature,
thickness of fatty acids layers and light intensity. All these stud- Stearic acid (purity 97%) was purchased from Acros Organics
ies showed the efficiency of TiO2 thin film in the removal of thick (France). Buffer solutions were prepared with ultra-pure water
layers of fatty acids or of other stains. Actually, the results in the (resistivity 18.2 M) obtained from a Milli-Q four-cartridge
literature concerning the photocatalytic activities of deposited purification system (Millipore, France). Chloroform of analyti-
titania can vary in a large range from a removal rate of 1.9 nm/h cal grade was provided by Normapur (France). All other reagents
of a layer of stearic acid deposited on ActivTM commercial glass were of analytical grade.
using an intensity of 6.9 mW/cm2 , to about 60 nm/h of palmitic
acid using a TiO2 thin layer with an intensity of 1 mW/cm2 . 2.2. Substrates
The objectives of the present paper (i) a better understand-
ing of the kinetics of removal of fatty acids layers obtained by The self-cleaning glass SCG, Bioclean, was provided by Saint
using Langmuir Blodgett method and (ii) the determination of Gobain Recherche (France) [23]. The employed photocatalyst
the influence of light intensity and of the wavelength on the is titanium dioxide (TiO2 ) in its nanocrystalline anatase form.
kinetic, to better define a standard test. TiO2 anatase was deposited on a 4 mm thick float glass as a thin
A potential approach to obtain a well-defined thickness of film (typically 1520 nm) by an atmospheric pressure chemical
the pollutant layer at the glass surface is the LangmuirBlodgett vapour deposition (APCVD). A barrier layer of silica is nec-
(LB) method [20,21]. The LB technology is based on the proper- essary between the soda-lime silicate glass substrate and the
ties of amphiphilic molecules. These molecules are constituted deposited titanium dioxide layer to prevent alkaline metal ion
of an hydrophobic tail and an hydrophilic (polar) head group, migration between these two layers.
having for result the capacity to form an organised monomolec- The titania-free glass sample, Planilux, was provided by Saint
ular film after spreading and compression of the molecules at an Gobain Recherche (France).
air/water interface. This interfacial film can be then transferred
regularly and homogeneously onto a solid support after dipping 2.3. Substrate pre-treatment
it through the compressed monolayer maintained at a constant
surface pressure (Fig. 1). Before use, the substrates were washed with a detergent
The total thickness of the deposit can be controlled by (Gigapur 05 2%, purchased from Shimitek, France), rinsed
the number of deposited layers. Fatty acids are amphiphilic with pure water and dried under filtered air flow. Especially
molecules [22], Stearic acid (SA), a C18 carboxylic acid with for SCG, deposited TiO2 has been irradiated with a UV-lamp
(254/365 nm) during 1 h. This pretreatment is very important
to obtain a good transfer of the monomolecular film onto the
solid support. The LB deposition must be carried out just after
UV-irradiation of the glass sample to guarantee a good repro-
ducibility of the deposited layer thickness.
Table 1
FTIR areas of FTIR signals of SA as a function of the number of SA LB layers
Total number of SA LB layersa 2 6 10 14
FTIR SA initial area (cm1 ) 0.132 0.370 0.606 0.882
TR (transfer ratio) 1.07 0.92 0.88 0.84
Corrected area (cm1 )b 0.123 0.401 0.689 1.048
Area of one monolayer (cm1 ) 0.062 0.067 0.069 0.075
a Number of SA LB layers for both sides of substrates.
b Corrected area corresponds to FTIR initial area transfer ratio (TR).
in cm1 min1 for the vertical chains (lv ) and the tilted chains degradation rate of deposited LB layer remains constant. Simi-
(lt ), as followed: larly, the degradation rate is independent of the initial thickness
of SA. These results are in agreement with those ref. [16]. The
1 ri (cm1 min1 ) constancy of the photocatalytic rate indicates a zero kinetic
ri (nm min ) =
0.072 order. This is in line with a full coverage ( = 1) in fatty acid
li (lv = 2.5 and lt = 2.16nm). (3) as explained by the apparent zero order at high reactant con-
centration. The value of SA-LB film degradation rate is around
From the both limit removal rates obtained as a function of (li ), of 0.004 0.001 cm1 min1 . By using Eq. (3), the degradation
an average could be calculated, as followed: rate of SA-LB layer (3, 5 or 7 layers) is 0.14 0.04 nm min1 for
[rv (lv ) + rt (lt )] vertical chains and 0.12 0.03 nm min1 for tilted chains. Fig. 6
r (nm min1 ) = . (4) shows the photocatalytic degradation for each SA-LB layer
2
in both SA chains orientations. The difference between both
3.2. Photocatalytic degradation of stearic acid degradation rates is comprised in the experimental error limits.
Therefore, Eq. (4) could be used to obtain the medium value
The same UV radiant flux and wavelength range were used of the degradation rate: 0.13 0.03 nm min1 , i.e. 0.08 mol/h,
for photochemistry and photocatalysis tests indicating that the for a SA layer deposited onto the self-cleaning glass. By compar-
photochemistry contribution is negligible, as observed on the ison with the amount of fatty acid deposited on glass by a finger
TiO2 -free, Planilux by glass. print (from 0.0015 to 0.0045 mol) which has been determined
The correlation between FTIR SA area and the thickness of in our laboratory, this indicates that ca. 12 min only would be
a SA layer deposited by the LangmuirBlodgett method can be necessary to remove this finger print.
assimilated, as previously suggested by Mills et al. using a depo- The removal rate has been determined using a high-pressure
sition by dip-coating [16], in order to determine the thickness of mercury lamp (with = 317 and 365 nm) with a UV-radiant
a layer deposited by another method. flux equal to (5.4 mW cm2 ). Interestingly, Mills et al. [16]
The SA photochemical degradation rate is very slow, 0.013 report a stearic acid degradation rate of 1.9 nm h1 using six
and 0.011 nm min1 for vertical and tilted chains respectively, 8W blacklight bulbs ( = 360 20 nm) with a radiant flux of
and can be neglected. (6.9 mW cm2 ) for the self-cleaning glass Activ (Pilkington,
The photocatalytic degradation of the stearic acid LB film UK). The SA film initial thickness was 153187 nm, i.e. 6175
has been performed in the Pyrex photoreactor for each number monolayers. This rate discrepancy could be due to the differ-
of deposited LB layers. Only one side of the self-cleaning glass ence in the emission spectrum of the two UV lamps, which are
is covered with TiO2 . The SA film on the other side of SCG has presented in Fig. 7. Considering that both commercialized self-
been cleaned with acetone. The TiO2 side with the SA film has cleaning glasses (Activ and Bioclean) have similar efficiencies,
been directed towards the UV lamp and the FTIR investigation the difference in rates observed indicate that UV-B photons is
of the LB film thickness has been performed. The correlation more efficient than UV-A ones.
between FTIR SA area and SA-LB film thickness at different The UVvis spectra of titanium dioxide TiO2 films deposited
times of UV irradiation enables one to estimate the efficiency on Activ [10] and Bioclean, have the same absorption profile.
of the self-cleaning phenomenon by quantifying the SA degra- As shown in Fig. 7, Bioclean has a higher absorbance in UV-B
dation rate, expressed in nm min1 (Eq. (3)). The degradation (317 nm) than in UV-A (365 nm). This decreasing absorbance
results measured by FTIR spectroscopy (cm1 ) and converted at wavelengths above 360 nm could explain the higher activity
in thickness (nm) are presented in Fig. 6 for 3, 5 and 7 deposited of SCG with a Philips HPK125 lamp than with blacklight bulbs.
LB layers, respectively. Actually, black light lamps emit about half of photons above
The SA layer thickness decreases proportionally with the UV 360 nm, which cannot activate TiO2 thin films.
irradiation time. Whatever the number of deposited layers, the
Acknowledgement [14] Y. Paz, Z. Luo, L. Rabenberg, A. Heller, J. Mater. Res. 10 (11) (1995)
28422848.
[15] V. Romeas, P. Pichat, C. Guillard, T. Chopin, C. Lehaut, New J. Chem. 23
The work described in this paper is supported by the European
(1999) 365373.
Union through the NMP3-CT-2003-505952 project SELF- [16] A. Mills, A. Lepre, N. Elliott, S. Bhopal, I.P. Parkin, S.A. ONeill, J.
CLEANING GLASS. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 160 (3) (2003) 213224.
[17] S. Sitkiewitz, A. Heller, New J. Chem. 20 (1996) 233241.
References [18] S. Kume, T. Nozu, Japanese Patent-JP 63-100042, 1986.
[19] N. Sakai, A. Fujishima, T. Watanabe, K. Hashimoto, J. Phys. Chem. B 107
(2003) 1028.
[1] C.H. Ao, S.C. Lee, J.C. Yu, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 156 (13)
[20] A. Ulman, An Introduction to Ultra Thin Organic Films from Langmuir-
(2003) 171177.
Blodgett to Coil-Assembly, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1991, Chapter
[2] S.B. Kim, S.C. Hong, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 35 (4) (2002) 305315.
2.
[3] A. Heller, Acc. Chem. Res. 28 (1995) 503508.
[21] K.B. Blodgett, I. Langmuir, Phys. Rev. 51 (1937) 964.
[4] D.A. Tryk, T. Watanabe, K. Hashimoto, A. Fujishima, Int. Glass Rev. 2
[22] J.B. Gilman, T.L. Eliason, A. Fast, V. Vaida, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 280
(2001) 3437.
(2004) 234243.
[5] T. Nuida, N. Kanai, K. Hashimoto, T. Watanabe, H. Ohsaki, Vacuum 74
[23] Patent Saint Gobain Glass France Rhodia Chimie, EP 1087916, 2001.
(2004) 729733.
[24] A.P. Girard-Egrot, R.M. Morelis, P.R. Coulet, Langmuir 9 (11) (1993)
[6] A. Fushishima, K. Hashimoto, T. Iyoda, S. Fukayama, Europe Pat. Appl.,
31073110.
0737513A1, 1996.
[25] A.P. Girard-Egrot, R.M. Morelis, P.R. Coulet, Thin Solid Films 292 (1997)
[7] Saint Gobain Vitrage, Fr Pat. 95 10839, published in BOPI no 12, March
282289.
1997.
[26] P. Sawunyama, L. Jiang, A. Fujishima, K. Hashimoto, J Phys. Chem. B
[8] http://www.saint-gobain-glass.com.
101 (1997) 1100011003.
[9] http://www.toto.co.jp/products/hydro/genri.en.htm.
[27] A. Bonnerot, P.A. Chollet, H. Frisby, M. Hoclet, Chem. Phys. 97 (1985)
[10] A. Mills, G. Hill, S. Bhopal, I.P. Parkin, S.A. ONeill, J. Photochem.
365377.
Photobiol. A: Chem. 160 (3) (2003) 185194.
[28] F. Kimura, J. Umemura, T. Takenaka, Langmuir 2 (1986) 101105.
[11] J.-M. Herrmann, Catal. Today 53 (1999) 115129.
[29] M.A. Brusa, M.A. Grela, J. Phys. Chem. B 109 (2005) 19141918.
[12] V. Romeas, P. Pichat, C. Guillard, T. Chopin, C. Lehaut, Ind. Eng. Chem.
[30] A.V. Emeline, N. Serpone, J. Phys. Chem. B 106 (2002) 1222112226.
Res. 38 (1999) 38783885.
[13] J.P. Vicente, T. Gacoin, P. Barboux, J.P. Boilot, M. Rondet, L. Gueneau,
Int. J. Photoenergy 5 (2) (2003) 9598.