The role of exposed facets in the Fenton-like reactivity of CeO 2 nanocrystal to the Orange II

Designing a 0D/2D S‐Scheme Heterojunction over Polymeric Carbon Nitride for Visible‐Light Photocatalytic Inactivation of Bacteria

“…The binding energies of the latter two N atoms in CeO 2 /PCN composite are higher (N−(C) 3 : 399.9 eV; C=N−C: 398.5 eV) than pristine PCN without illumination but lower (N−(C) 3 : 399.5 eV; C=N−C: 398.1 eV) under illumination, suggesting that these N elements actually act as the electron donor in the absence of illumination but electron acceptor under illumination. Additionally, the high‐resolution Ce XPS spectra of pure CeO 2 can be fitted into several peaks at 881.9, 886.3, 900.2, and 904.8 eV, which can be assigned to the V, V′, V′′′, and U′ states of Ce elements, respectively . Figure c shows that after the formation of close contact between CeO 2 and PCN in darkness, the binding energies (V 881.5 eV, V′ 885.8 eV, V′′′ 899.8 eV, U′ 904.3 eV) of Ce atoms in the CeO 2 /PCN composite decrease compared to the pure CeO 2 , revealing that it is the electron acceptor in the absence of illumination.…”

Perylene diimide‐modified magnetic γ‐Fe2O3/CeO2 nanoparticles as peroxidase mimics for highly sensitive colorimetric detection of Vitamin C

“…0.31, 0.27 and 0.19 nm are assigned to the (111), (200) and (220) crystal plane of fluorite‐type CeO 2 , respectively . Actually, due to (111) facets are the most stable low‐index surface of CeO 2 , the formation of oxygen vacancies (regeneration of Ce (III)) on the highly active (220) and (200) facets is easier than that on (111) facets . Meanwhile, the associated migration of lattice oxygen from the bulk to the surface is also much easier in (220) and (200) surfaces .…”

CO 2 hydrogenation over differently morphological CeO 2 ‐supported Cu‐Ni catalysts

“…According to reports in the literature, when CeO 2 is served as a catalyst or catalyst support, many factors, such as particle size, morphology, exposed facets, and additives, have profound effects on its properties and further influence the catalytic performance. For instance, Zang et al demonstrated that NiO/CeO 2 nanorod showed a better catalytic performance than pure NiO or pure CeO 2 nanorod in NH 3 ‐selective catalytic reduction of nitric oxide.…”

“…Actually, different morphological CeO 2 have a great influence on exposed facets and further influences the catalytic performance. Zang et al found that CeO 2 nanotube with (100) facets showed more excellent catalytic performance than CeO 2 nanorod surrounded by (100) and (110) facets in Fenton‐like reactions. Zhang et al demonstrated that both CeO 2 nanorod‐ and CeO 2 nanorod‐supported Fe 2 O 3 catalyst was surrounded by (110) and (100) facets, while CeO 2 nanopolyhedra and Fe 2 O 3 /CeO 2 nanopolyhedra were surrounded by (111) facets.…”