Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Photocatalysis is an attractive technology with potential applications in various disciplines, such as chemical synthesis, environmental technology
and medicine, and receives an impressive amount of exposure in the open literature. However, industrial implementation remains limited due to
scale up problems and the design of photoreactors. In this paper an overview is presented of recent advances in the design and application of novel
reactors and devices.
Two issues are essential: photon transfer limitations and mass transfer limitations (in the case of liquid phase reactions). In the field of mass
transfer optimisation, spinning disc reactors, monolithic reactors and microreactors have been investigated for their use in photocatalysis. Significant
advances are reported compared to conventional reactors. Studies focusing on performance improvement by optimising photon transfer, however,
remain limited. While optical fibers and LEDs have been explored, major breakthroughs are still lacking. More focus on the introduction of a
multitude of micro- or even nanoscale light emitting sources close to the catalyst particles is likely to be the way forward.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Photocatalysis; Photoreactor; Process intensification; Microreactor; Spinning disc reactor; Monolithic reactor; Optical fibers; Nanoscale illumination
1. Introduction
Ox1 + Red2
0255-2701/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cep.2007.05.012
semiconductor
lightEbg
Red1 + Ox2
(1)
The most widely used semiconductor catalyst in photoinduced processes is titanium dioxide (TiO2 ), because it is
chemically and biologically inert, photocatalytically stable, relatively easy to produce and to use, able to efficiently catalyse
reactions, cheap and without risks to environment or humans
[2]. To enhance the performance of TiO2 , promoters have been
used, such as Pt and Ru [1,3]. The only disadvantage of TiO2 is
that it is not activated by visible light, but only ultraviolet (UV)
light. Other photocatalysts include ZnO, ZnS and CdS, but these
are much less active [3].
The use of light, either artificial or solar, for carrying out
chemical and biochemical reactions may render the process
more sustainable for two reasons [2,4]:
process selectivity to the required products can drastically
increase (e.g., due to a different chemistry, or low/ambient
process temperature);
782
Table 1
Comparison of different photoreactor configurations
Photocatalytic
reactor
Reference
Slurry reactorb
[9]
[58]
2631c
8500170,000d
(Multi)annular/immersion reactor
[9]
[8]
[9]
[38]
[47]
[9]
27c,e
69c,e
133c,e
170
340
2667c,e
[59]
[60]
[26]
[19]
[8]
[18]
[9]
46
53
112
210
1087c,e
1920
2000c,e
Monolith reactor
[48]
[12]
943
1333f
[10]
[43]
50130
20,00066,000
Microreactor
[53]
[29]
[31]
[54]
7300
12,000c
14,000c
250,000c
a The catalyst coated surface does not take into account the catalyst specific
surface.
b The illuminated surface per volume () will be much lower than this value
due to the small penetration depth of light.
c This value is explicitly given in the reference, all other values are calculated
by the authors of the present article based on the data given in the reference.
d The ratio of values is due to the variety of tested catalyst concentration in
the slurry.
e This value is explicitly equalled to the illuminated surface per volume () in
the reference.
f The illuminated surface per volume () will be lower than this value due to
the progressive extinction of light along the fiber length.
g The ratio of values is due to the varying film thickness of the reaction liquid
as a function of the spinning velocity.
Plamp
l2
(2)
P0
= lc
P
(3)
with P0 is the radiant power before absorption (W), P the radiant power after absorption (W), the molar absorptivity of the
absorbing species (l mol1 m1 ), l the path length through the
material containing the absorbing species (m) and c is the concentration of the absorbing species (mol l1 ).
In many photoreactor designs the light has to travel through
the fluid or gas containing reagents and other species, and also
through a transparent wall. Part of the originally emitted light can
be absorbed by these components before it reaches the catalyst.
In addition, it is very difficult to achieve uniform irradiance
of the entire catalyst surface. Uniformity is important because a
minimum energy level is needed to activate the catalyst. Dionysiou et al. [10] have measured the light irradiance distribution
of two low pressure mercury UV tubes positioned horizontally at a distance of 10 cm from a TiO2 coated surface of a
disc in a spinning disc reactor. They observe a highly nonuniform illumination with light irradiance varying from 30 to
1500 W/cm2 and an average value of 895 W/cm2 . Raupp et
al. [11] have modelled the UV light irradiance field from three
UV lamps positioned horizontally at 5 cm from a monolith surface of 32 cm 48 cm. It appears that the variation on the surface
is substantial. Greater uniformity can be achieved by increasing
the distance between the lamps and the monolith surface (but
decreasing average irradiance) or by adding more lamps (but
increasing energy costs).
We propose the illumination efciency, ill , as a new parameter (Eq. (4)), taking into account the illuminated surface per
volume (, m1 ), the average power efficiency (defined as a ratio
of average incident radiant power on the catalyst, measured with
a radiometric probe at different sites, to emitted radiant power),
and the incident uniformity. The latter issue needs further investigation to measure and quantify. One might think of defining
uniformity as a factor of the catalyst surface that receives at least
the minimum energy (i.e., the band-gap energy), to the total catalyst surface area. Clearly, to date quantifiable results for this
parameter cannot be calculated from the data given in literature
for the specific designs proposed, due to the fact that not all data
has been measured for each reactor configuration. However, it
is anticipated that its use would make a comprehensive comparison possible between the different configurations proposed in
literature:
Amin E
Pcat
ill =
Plamp
Acat
783
(4)
784
per unit reactor volume and scale-up potential [12]. The optical
fiber monolith reactor that Lin and Valsaraj [12] developed gives
a 10-fold increase on the illuminated catalyst surface per unit
of reactor volume compared to an annular reactor, and a 100
times increase of the apparent quantum efficiency. An improved
variation of the design of Lin and Valsaraj [12] could be that
the catalyst is only coated on the monolith wall and not on the
fibers, in order to maximize light emission from the fibers and
avoiding back-irradiation. This is currently under evaluation in
the Delft laboratories.
Finally it has been reported that the light intensity is inversely
related to the quantum efficiency of photocatalytic reactions
[20,28], due to the high recombination rate of charge carriers at high intensity. A lower intensity is thus preferred to
decrease recombination, but this obviously will decrease catalyst activation as well, with consequently a lower rate of
charge pair generation and thus will lower overall photocatalytic reaction rate. It appears that optical fibers can overcome
this problem by decreasing the light intensity but increasing the number of fibers [20]. However, this will then again
have a negative effect on the reactor volume available for the
reagents.
Research on the specific area of micro- or nanoscale illumination in photocatalysis is rather scarce. The concept can
be considered as new with only a handful papers present in
the literature. Microscale illumination has been investigated in
the papers of Gorges et al. [29], Chen et al. [30] and Matsushita et al. [31] with encouraging results for the oxidation
of 4-chlorophenol and PCE, and the reduction of benzaldehyde
and nitrotoluene. They use commercially available UV emitting
LED devices. In Gorges et al. [29] the light source consists of
11 LEDs producing a current of 30 mA each and a potential of
3.7 V, whereas Chen et al. [30] use 16 LEDs producing a current
of 20 mA each and a potential of 3.7 V. Matsushita et al. [31] do
not specify details of the used array. Chen et al. [30] report that
the LEDs have an optical output power of 12 mW each, which is
16% of the electric input power (i.e., current intensity times electric potential, 74 mW each). This is comparable to the ratio range
of 7% (black light) to 23% (germicidal lamp) for traditional gas
charge UV light sources. However, when taking into account the
absorbed photon energy on TiO2 to electric input ratio the figure
of 23% decreases to 15%, because one-third of the optical output
in the germicidal lamp is lost as heat (due to the unnecessary high
energy level ( = 254 nm), much higher that that used for catalyst activation ( = 387 nm, equivalent to the 3.2 eV band-gap)).
Other advantages are that these devices are small (miniaturisation of equipment), robust, and long lasting (hundred thousands
of hours compared to thousands of hours in the case of classical lamps). The use of microscale illumination in microreactors
provides both a large catalyst surface area per unit or reactor
volume and a high illumination efficiency, also related to the
small angle of emittance of the UV-LEDs. However, catalyst
surface and light source remain physically separated, thus still
leaving potential for improvement (even more increase of the
illumination efficiency).
Nanoscale illumination does explore this as yet unharvested
potential [3235]. In addition, the integration of light source and
785
catalyst surface enhances the options for other reactor types (e.g.,
monolithic reactor, spinning disc reactor), which are otherwise
difficult to combine with microscale illumination. It remains
to be verified whether nanoscale UV sources can provide sufficient energy (i.e., the required wavelength and intensity) for
the desired reaction to occur. Gole et al. [34] suggest the introduction of nitrogen doped titania nanostructures into the pores
of porous silicon (PS) in order to develop a device to produce
visible light by electroluminescence of PS thus activating the
photocatalyst particles. This device could then be incorporated
in a microreactor. A scheme of this promising photoreactor principle is shown in Fig. 2. Porous silicon emits visible light, hence
the necessity of using nitrogen doped TiO2 samples to shift the
absorption spectrum from UV to the visible spectrum. Stability
of this modified titania is, however, an issue to be evaluated more
in detail.
4. Overcoming mass transfer limitations
In order to overcome the mass transfer limitations in fluid systems, several intensified reactor types have been proposed. The
most reported and investigated types of reactor for photocatalysis are slurry systems, spinning disc reactors, monolithic reactors
and microreactors. Slurry systems are by far the most used in
photocatalysis research, mainly with respect to the potential of
photocatalysis for specific oxidation or reduction reactions. An
obvious advantage of these systems is the good contact between
reactants and catalyst, illustrated by the high surface area per volume that can be achieved (Table 1). However, scaling up such a
device implies a separation step of the catalyst from the reaction
products, with major technical and economical problems as a
result. Also, it is difficult to uniformly irradiate suspended particles, although some configurations may (partly) overcome this
disadvantage (Fig. 3). In the fluidised bed reactor, for example,
the catalyst is placed on supporting beads. These beads form the
bed material and are fluidised by way of an air stream. An aqueous or gaseous pollutant flow can be introduced in the fluidised
reactor, either in batch or in continuous set-up [3638]. Although
the fluidised bed reactor is a dispersed-phase reactor with all its
associated problems with respect to illumination [9], the generation of bubbles in the fluidised bed reactor will enhance light
penetration compared to the conventional slurry reactor [38]. A
similar aim is achieved in a cocurrent downflow contactor photocatalytic reactor [39]. The fountain photocatalytic reactor is
another configuration building on the conventional slurry reactor design that combines minimal mass transfer limitations with
a very large illumination surface area per unit volume catalyst
[40].
786
Fig. 3. Examples of improved slurry reactors: (a) fluidised bed reactor and (b) fountain reactor (after [38,40]).
that a high catalyst surface area per reaction liquid volume can
potentially be attained. It is also easy to scale up [10], either by
increasing the disc diameter (although this is technically not an
infinite option) or by installing multiple discs (although costs
would increase simultaneously). The spinning disc reactor can
be operated in two ways (Fig. 4): horizontally [42,43] with the
liquid introduced in the center of the disc, which then spreads
over the top surface of the disc until it falls off at the edges of
the disc, or vertically [10,44] with half of the disc immersed
in the liquid and the top half entraining the reactor liquid and
exposed to the UV-source. The difference in efficiency between
787
the thickness of the TiO2 coating. Sauer and Ollis [48] refer to
a reported light absorption of 99% within a 4.5 m thick TiO2
coating. Third, although limited absorption was present in the
investigated case of PCE pollution in air, this geometry is disadvantageous when UV-radiation is absorbed by the pollutant
or by the medium in which they are present (e.g., liquid). Sauer
and Ollis [48] suggest using two light sources, one on either
end of the monolith reactor. This would roughly double the illumination efficiency. The optical fiber monolith reactor that Lin
and Valsaraj [12] developed gives a 10-fold increase on the illuminated catalyst surface per unit of reactor volume compared
to an annular reactor, and a 100 times increase of the apparent
quantum efficiency.
Only very recently microreactors (Fig. 6) have been investigated in performing photochemical and photocatalytic reactions.
The main advantage of microreactors is the high surface-tovolume ratio. In the case of photochemical reactions this leads to
an efficient illumination [4952]. In the case of photocatalytic
reactions, this implies efficient catalytic exposure to radiation
[29], but in addition it also leads to maximized reagent/catalyst
contact [53,54]. The small size of the channel also provides
greater control over variables such as temperature control and
flow rates [53], due to the fast heat and mass transfer, and
the presence of laminar flow [49,50]. The light source itself
can also be UV-LED, thus miniaturizing the whole photocatalytic set-up [29,31]. The patented configuration of Barthe et al.
[53] can contain 23 g/l TiO2 , which is 11 times more catalyst
per unit of volume than in a conventional batch reactor [55].
Gorges et al. [29] and Matsushita et al. [31] report a (illuminated) catalyst area-to-reactor volume of almost 12,000 m2 /m3
and 14,000 m2 /m3 , respectively, while this value in Takei et al.
[54] even reaches 0.25 m2 /ml (i.e., 250,000 m2 /m3 ). These numbers are among the highest in Table 1. Takei et al. [54] found a
70-fold increase in conversion rate compared to a slurry reactor with the same selectivity and yield. Li et al. [56] report
a 60 (530 m diameter capillary)- to 160 (200 m diameter
capillary)-fold increase in conversion rate compared to a slurry
reactor. Obvious drawback is the relatively small throughput
of microreactors [57]. The flow-rate in Takei et al. [54] is
1 l/min (i.e., 526 ml/year), although this was evidently performed in a lab set-up without focus on scale up. Microreactors
currently implemented in industry can produce up to 5000 or
even 20,000 tonnes/year. It is clear that microreactors have large
potential.
788
5. Conclusions
The most important developments in the last 10 years in the
area of photoreactors were the novel configurations for maximizing the reactant-catalyst contact, which is also the subject of
research outside photocatalysis, with fruitful cross-fertilization
thus enhancing development. Overall it appears that the microreactor, the spinning disc reactor, and, to a lesser extent, the (optical
fiber) monolith reactor are the most promising configurations to
date reported in literature. Less successful results were achieved
with respect to the maximization of the illumination efficiency,
most likely because this research line is undertaken only by
the smaller photo(catalyst) community, with limited input from
other engineering disciplines. Use of fibers is the main development to date, but suffers from obvious drawbacks. Availability of
a multitude of low-intensity light emitting sources on the microor even nanoscale near the catalyst particles appears to be a novel
and promising approach to achieve uniform and maximized illumination. Combination of the latter approach with equipment
to overcome the mass transfer limitations may prove to be the
significant improvement that photoreactors need for industrial
implementation.
Acknowledgements
T. Van Gerven acknowledges a postdoctoral research grant
from the Research Fund K.U.Leuven. He also would like to
express his gratitude to the Research Council of the K.U.Leuven
and to Prof. B. Van der Bruggen and Prof. J. Van Impe from the
Department of Chemical Engineering (K.U.Leuven) for supporting his research visit at the Delft University of Technology.
Appendix A. Nomenclature
Acat
Amin E
c
e
Ebg
h+
H
Hc
l
P
Pcat
Plamp
P0
Greek symbols
molar absorptivity
(l mol1 m1 )
of
the
absorbing
species
ill
References
[1] A. Mills, S. Le Hunte, An overview of semiconductor photocatalysis, J.
Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 108 (1997) 135.
[2] O. Carp, C.L. Huisman, A. Reller, Photoinduced reactivity of titanium
oxide, Progr. Solid State Chem. 32 (2004) 33177.
[3] H. de Lasa, B. Serrano, M. Salaices, Photocatalytic Reaction Engineering,
Springer, New York, 2005.
[4] A. Stankiewicz, Energy matters, alternative sources and forms of energy
for intensification of chemical and biochemical processes, Trans IChemE:
A Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84 (2006) 511521.
[5] D.M. Blake, Bibliography of work on the heterogeneous photocatalytic
removal of hazardous compounds from water and air, update number 2 to
October 2006, NREL/TP-430-22197, 2006.
[6] P.R. Gogate, A.B. Pandit, Sonophotocatalytic reactors for wastewater treatment: a critical review, AIChE J. 50 (2004) 10511079.
[7] A. Mills, S.K. Lee, in: S. Parsons (Ed.), Advanced Oxidation Processes
for Water and Wastewater Treatment, IWA Publishing, London, 2004, pp.
137166.
[8] A.K. Ray, A.A.C.M. Beenackers, Development of a new photocatalytic
reactor for water purification, Catal. Today 40 (1998) 7383.
[9] P.S. Mukherjee, A.K. Ray, Major challenges in the design of a large-scale
photocatalytic reactor for water treatment, Chem. Eng. Technol. 22 (1999)
253260.
[10] D.D. Dionysiou, G. Balasubramanian, M.T. Suidan, A.P. Khodadoust, I.
Baudin, J.M. Lane, Rotating disk photocatalytic reactor: development,
characterization, and evaluation for the destruction of organic pollutants in
water, Water Res. 34 (2000) 29272940.
[11] G.B. Raupp, A. Alexiadis, M.M. Hossain, R. Changrani, First-principles
modeling, scaling laws and design of structured photocatalytic oxidation
reactors for air purification, Catal. Today 69 (2001) 4149.
[12] H. Lin, K.T. Valsaraj, Development of an optical fiber monolith reactor
for photocatalytic wastewater treatment, J. Appl. Electrochem. 35 (2005)
699708.
[13] A.A. Yawalkar, D.S. Bhatkhande, V.G. Pangarkar, A.A.C.M. Beenackers,
Solar-assisted photochemical and photocatalytic degradation of phenol, J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 76 (2001) 363370.
[14] D.S. Bhatkhande, V.G. Pangarkar, A.A.C.M. Beenackers, Photocatalytic
degradation for environmental applicationsa review, J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 77 (2001) 102116.
[15] R.E. Marinangeli, D.F. Ollis, Photoassisted heterogeneous catalysis with
optical fibers. 1. Isolated single fiber, AIChE J. 23 (1977) 415426.
[16] R.E. Marinangeli, D.F. Ollis, Photoassisted heterogeneous catalysis with
optical fibers. 2. Non-isothermal single fiber and fiber bundle, AIChE J. 26
(1980) 10001008.
[17] R.E. Marinangeli, D.F. Ollis, Photoassisted heterogeneous catalysis with
optical fibers. 3. Photo-electrodes, AIChE J. 28 (1982) 945955.
[18] K. Hofstadler, R. Bauer, S. Novalic, G. Heisler, New reactor design for
photocatalytic wastewater treatment with TiO2 immobilized on fused-silica
glass fibers: photomineralization of 4-chlorophenol, Environ. Sci. Technol.
28 (1994) 670674.
[19] N.J. Peill, M.R. Hoffmann, Development and optimisation of a TiO2 -coated
fiber-optic cable reactor: photocatalytic degradation of 4-chlorophenol,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (1995) 28742981.
[20] N.J. Peill, M.R. Hoffmann, Chemical and physical characterisation of a
TiO2 -coated fiber-optic cable reactor, Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (1996)
28062812.
[21] N.J. Peill, M.R. Hoffmann, Mathematical model of a photocatalytic fiberoptic cable reactor for heterogeneous photocatalysis, Environ. Sci. Technol.
32 (1998) 398404.
[22] R.D. Sun, A. Nakajima, I. Watanabe, T. Watanabe, K. Hashimoto, TiO2 coated optical fiber bundles used as a photocatalytic filter for decomposition
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
789