C. R. Acad. Sci.

Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411

© 2000 Académie des sciences/Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved
S1387-1609(00)01169-5/REV

Surface chemistry and catalytics/Chimie des surfaces et catalyse

Minimisation des rejets par catalyse sélective et traitement des effluents

Photocatalytic purification and remediation of
contaminated air and water

Waste minimisation by selected catalysis and waste treatment

David F. Ollis*

Chemical Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7905, USA

Received 3 April 2000, accepted 30 June 2000

Communicated by François Mathey

Abstract – Among the catalytic approaches to environmental remediation, that of heterogeneous photoassisted catalysis,
known as ‘photocatalysis’, is the sole example involving utilization of light along with a catalytic solid. This paper surveys the
broad range of emerging potential applications for water (contaminant destruction and removal, metal deposition and
recovery, sterilization and disinfection) then for air (purification, decontamination, deodorization, bioaerosol removal,
self-cleaning surfaces) and presents approaches to increase the efficiency of light and catalyst utilization via periodic
illumination and oxidant (ozone, peroxide) addition. © 2000 Académie des sciences/Éditions scientifiques et médicales
Elsevier SAS
photocatalysis / water treatment / air purification

Résumé – Purification photocatalytique et assainissement de l’air et de l’eau contaminées. Parmi les approches
catalytiques visant à assainir l’environnement, la catalyse hétérogène photoassistée, connue sous le nom de « photocatalyse »,
constitue l’unique exemple d’utilisation combinée de la lumière et d’un catalyseur solide. Cet article brosse un panorama du
large éventail d’applications potentielles émergentes pour l’eau (destruction et extraction des contaminants, déposition et
récupération des métaux, stérilisation et désinfection), puis pour l’air (purification, décontamination, désodorisation,
extraction des bioaérosols, surfaces autonettoyantes) ; il présente enfin des approches visant à accroı̂tre l’efficacité de
l’utilisation de la lumière et du catalyseur à travers l’illumination périodique et l’addition d’oxydants (ozone, peroxyde).
© 2000 Académie des sciences/Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS
photocatalyse / traitement de l’eau / purification de l’air

1. Introduction ized at ambient temperature using molecular oxy-

Among the catalytic approaches to environmental
remediation, that of heterogeneous photoassisted
catalysis, known as ‘photocatalysis’, is the sole exam-
ple involving utilization of light along with a catalytic
solid. The literature in this field has now produced
two concrete results [1 – 6]:
“ broad demonstration that most common water
and air contaminants can be completely mineral-
gen as the oxidant;
“ an equivalently broad demonstration of only
modest utilization of photons, as reflected by
apparent photoefficiencies or the more funda-
mental quantum yield, when measurable.
We first survey the broad range of emerging po-
tential applications for water (contaminant destruc-
tion and removal, metal deposition and recovery,
sterilization and disinfection) then for air (purifica-

* Correspondence and reprints.

E-mail address: ollis@eos.ncsu.edu (D.F. Ollis).
405
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
tion, decontamination, deodorization, bioaerosol re-
moval, self-cleaning surfaces).
We close with approaches to increase the effi-
ciency of light and catalyst utilization via perio-
dic illumination and oxidant (ozone, peroxide) addi-
tion.
2. Origins
The photoactivity of semiconductor metal oxides
has long been known. Earlier examples include the
self-oxidation of early house paints wherein the near
UV solar photoactivation of titania (TiO2) pigments
generated oxidizing species which attacked the or-
ganic binder of the paint, leading to discoloration
and eventual pigment loss from the surface [7]. Te-
ichner et al. [8] in France explored the photoactivity
of numerous oxides for hydrocarbon partial oxida-
tion in gas phase, finding that near-UV (B 360 nm)
light could activate titania photocatalysts, and that
most metal oxides were inactive, with the active trio
involving titania, zinc, and tungsten ranked in the
activity sequence: TiO2 (anatase) \ ZnO \ WO3.
Gusten and colleagues [9] in Germany demonstrated
gas –solid photoactivity of solar illuminated Sahara
sand for halide transfer between adsorbed hydrocar-
bon moities. In aqueous phase, Corey, Lawrence and
Tosine [10] in Canada reported that titania-containing
river sediments could dehalogenate chlorinated aro-
matics in water.
3. Green (photo)chemistry?
The process attractiveness of photocatalysis stems
from several ‘green’ characteristics.
a) GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe): the dom-
inant photocatalyst is anatase TiO2, an n-type semi-
conductor oxide which is also a component of some
toothpastes and pharmaceutical suspensions.
b) Mild oxidant: Kinetic studies demonstrate that
the ultimate source of oxygen during oxidations is
molecular oxygen, a far milder oxidant than hydro-
gen peroxide or ozone, etc.
c) Ambient temperature: photocatalysis appears to
be maximally active at or near room temperature;
thus catalyst heating is not required (the energy used
to create the light is important, however, and the
cost of energy, reflected in the apparent photoeffi-
ciency or quantum yield, remains an issue for com-
mercialization, as discussed later).
406
d) General: while several mechanistic pathways
for oxidation have been proposed, the dominant
view is that hydroxyl radicals (or some other equally
strong oxidant) is photogenerated on the titania sur-
face; the potency of this oxidant is responsible for
the titania’s broad activity toward various contami-
nant classes (aromatics, alkanes, olefins, halogenated
hydrocarbons, odor compounds (amines, mercap-
tans), dissolved metal complexes, etc.).
4. Water treatment
We demonstrated in 1983 [11] that two of the most
common contaminants in US drinking water,
trichloroethylene (from industry via contaminated
water wells) and trichloromethane (water chlorina-
tion by-product) could be quantitatively dehalo-
genated, i.e., chloride ion selective electrodes
recorded release of all chlorine as free chloride ion.
Subsequent work established the generality of de-
halogenation of chlorinated species of most kinds,
with the exceptions of the recalcitrant trichloroacetic
acid and carbon tetrachloride (these may be dehalo-
genated reductively, however). Chloroaromatics
have been extensively studied, especially by Serpone
(Montreal) and Pelizzetti (Torino) [12], and shown to
be totally degradable. Use of photocatalysis for pesti-
cide removal from water has been examined fre-
quently; target compound removal is routinely
achieved.
Not only target compound removal, but also min-
eralization is often desired. The complete oxidation
of hydrocarbons, etc, to CO2, H2O, and other ulti-
mate forms (nitrate, sulfate, etc.) for heteroatoms has
been explored. Simple compounds produce mineral-
ization readily; thus for example we demonstrated
[13] for individual and simultaneous photocatalytic
oxidation of perchloroethylene and benzene the
complete eventual recovery of all carbon as CO2.
5. By-products
Total oxidation of any contaminant proceeds
through one or more intermediates, according to the
complexity of the initial reactants. Some of these
may be problematic, in which case further treatment
time may destroy the intermediates: an early exam-
ple is the appearance, and disappearance, of vinyl
bromide during the photocatalytic destruction of the
fumigant (now discontinued) ethylene dibromide
(EDB) [14]. A few apparent intermediates are quite
recalcitrant, and become unwelcome byproducts: an
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
example again is trichloroacetic [15] which is a trace
byproduct during trichloroethylene destruction in
water. In this area, as with the handling of products
of incomplete combustion (PICs) in the incinerative
approach to waste treatment, levels of undesired
byproducts can be minimized through appropriate
choice of process conditions (e.g., contact time).
6. Kinetics
The nearly universal Langmuir – Hishelwood rate
form is successful in correlating much steady state
photocatalysis data. For example, we showed early
[16] that plots of reciprocal rate vs. reciprocal reac-
tant concentration produced the necessary linear
plots for perchloroethylene, dichloroacetic acid,
monochloroacetic acid, and dichloroethane. A novel
result was the observation that most such plots
tended toward a common maximum rate of reaction,
independent of reactant structure. This behavior pre-
sumably reflects the arrival at a rate limiting photon
supply when reactant was present in great excess.
The fit of this function provides little indication of
mechanism per se; Turchi et al. [17] showed that four
different liquid–surface mechanisms all led to satura-
tion functions of the Langmuir – Hinshelwood type.
Ultimately, photocatalysis involves kinetic pro-
cesses within the photoexcited semiconductor, at the
surface, and perhaps in solution as well. Key events
[18] are: catalyst photoexcitation, migration and trap-
ping of the photoproduced electron (e – ) and hole
(h+), surface charge transfer reactions between
trapped electron or hole and (presumably) adsorbed
species, and undesired volume and surface elec-
tron–hole recombination. The kinetic relaxation
times for these processes are short; Hoffman et al.
[19] have reviewed the literature and cite femtosec-
ond excitation, pico- and nano-second trapping
times, and nanosecond recombination times. The
slowest steps involve interfacial charge transfer: hole
transfer occurs in hundreds of nanoseconds, and
electron transfer is often slowest of all, with transfer
times estimated in milliseconds. Actual reaction rates
during periodic illumination show even slower relax-
ation times, up to one second, perhaps due to
species adsorption or diffusion rates.
The influence of intensity upon reaction rate dis-
plays two domains of behavior. Early work by
Egerton and King [20] demonstrated for several TiO2
pigments that low illumination intensities produce a
reaction rate (e. g., oxidation of neat isopropanol to
acetone) which is first order in intensity; at intensi-
ties near one-sun equivalent, the reaction order in
intensity shifts to a square root (0.5), this latter
regime has been interpreted as dominance by elec-
tron–hole (second order) recombination. The first
order region corresponds to a constant quantum
yield (near unity in their case); half order depen-
dence gives a quantum yield which declines as the
inverse square root of intensity. This rate behavior is
also found in some gas phase photocatalysis studies;
others (over small ranges of intensity variation) find
orders between 0.5 and 1.0, probably a result of
simple lamps which provide approximately one sun
equivalent of near-UV output.
7. Disinfection and sterilization
The cell killing power of illuminated titania sus-
pensions has been noted since 1988. While Mat-
sunaga [21] associated cell death with a suggested
destruction of active intracellular component, (coen-
zyme A), Saito et al. [22] showed that potassium
release from cells correlated strongly with loss of %
viability; this result argues for loss of membrane
ionic controls as the cause of death. Increasing the
photocatalyst concentration provides a maximum
cell killing rate at about 0.01 vol %; higher levels
caused a decreased cell killing rate, probably due to
a catalyst optical (shading) density effect: at higher
levels, not all suspension is sufficiently illuminated.
Many questions remain in this area [23]: is the cell
death usually due to weakening of the cell wall
(leading to osmotic bursting), to membrane disrup-
tion leading to loss of ionic strength and pH controls
within the cell, or to oxidation of intracellular con-
stituents? Are the active forms of oxidant the radicals
hydroxyl (OH) and perhydroxyl (HO2), the longer-
lived, diffusible hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), or the
original holes (h+)? Are colloidal interactions impor-
tant: is cell–photocatalyst contact, or merely proxim-
ity, required? What is the importance of electrostatic
interactions between charged cell and charged pho-
tocatalyst particles, and how does the presence of
cell lytic products affect the ongoing reaction rate?
Finally, what reactor configuration provides satisfac-
tory, or optimal, disinfection rates? Microbes in air
are also treatable (see later Air section)
Animal cells can also be killed via photocatalysis.
An interesting demonstration of anti-tumor photocat-
alyst activity comes from Fujishima’s group [24], who
showed that subcutaneous titania injection into skin
tumors followed by 40 min of UV illumination pro-
duced a ten-fold tumor volume reduction after three
weeks, whereas catalyst or light alone controls all
showed tumor increase in volume by a factor of
about 30–50.
407
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
Virus destruction is achievable: Armon et al. [25]
found a thousand fold reduction in viral titer after
5 min illumination of titania slurries, and eventually a
105 fold reduction after one hour. Light and dark
controls showed little effect.
Microbial toxins are also of concern. Sunada et al.
[26] showed that endotoxin released upon the killing
of particular E. coli strain could be destroyed
photocatalytically.
8. Metal deposition and recovery;
remediation of metal-contaminated
soils
Observed half cell reactions at illuminated photo-
catalyst surfaces include reductions of many metal
cations, in free or complexed states. Two observa-
tions are of particular note. Serpone et al. [27] found
that a mixture of noble metals in solution could be
reductively deposited, in sequence, on to the photo-
catalyst. These metals could be subsequently recov-
ered by dissolution in acids which regenerated the
original titania particles. Thus, a potential process for
precious metals recovery from spent plating solu-
tions was shown. Prairie et al. [28] and Borrell [29]
and Chen and Cerrilos [30] have demonstrated that
metal–EDTA complexes may be freed of the com-
plexing ligand and deposited on the photocatalyst.
This last application is of interest for soil decontami-
nation by chelation and extraction, followed by pho-
tocatalytic recovery [29].
9. Air purification and remediation
Photocatalyzed destruction of individual air con-
taminants has been actively studied over the last
decade. Following early work on partial oxidation of
hydrocarbons by Teichner (France), Stone (England)
and Cunningham (Ireland), the exploration of photo-
catalysis for the total oxidation of air contaminants
began. Key early papers here were those for
trichloroethylene [31], ammonia [32], and odor com-
pounds [33], and aromatics [34 – 36]. Batch recircula-
tion studies showed total eventual recovery of
carbon as CO2 i.e., complete oxidation of ethanol
and acetaldehyde [37].
Air handling in buildings and exhausts usually
requires low pressure drop flow configurations [38].
The use of ceramic honeycombs, ceramic monoliths,
and glass fiber filters as photocatalyst supports has
been reported; developments continue in this area.
408
Kinetic models of two types have been developed
to date. The first one involves batch kinetics and
demonstrates the ability to model the entire course
of photocatalyzed reaction from reactant disappear-
ance through one or several intermediates, to final
products of carbon dioxide and water. Examples
here are provided by Sauer [39] for acetone (simple
network, no intermediates) and Sauer [37] and Mug-
gli [39] for ethanol (intermediates acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, formic and acetic acids).
The second class is represented by reactor models
of the reaction and the catalyst configuration, includ-
ing the illumination and concentration non-uniformi-
ties routinely present in most photoreactors of any
size. Examples of useful efforts here include models
of monoliths [40, 41] and reticulates [42].
10. Photocatalyst lifetime,
deactivation, and regeneration
Gas–solid photocatalyst activity is observed to
vary, usually decreasing, with time on stream during
steady flow, single pass operation, that configuration
which most sensitively detects catalyst deactivation
[43]. Such decrease may be due to several individual
influences, or a combination of them. Initially, the
catalyst is clean, but considerable time is required for
the slow reaction rate, treating only parts per million
by volume (ppmv) of contaminant, to build-up a
steady state inventory of adsorbed reactant and inter-
mediates. This time may take minutes to hours, and
the resultant site blockage may reduce the reaction
rate vs. original rate of reactant disappearance, lead-
ing to the appearance of deactivation. This type of
rate reduction appears to be completely general, and
includes reports for toluene, trichloroethylene,
dimethylsulfide, and trichloropropene [43]. Second,
some species may photopolymerize on the surface,
especially in the absence of water: benzene conver-
sion seems to provide such an example [44]. Finally,
species with heteroatoms such as N and S may
undergo strong or complete photooxidation, leading
to oxidized inorganic forms of nitrogen and sulfur
which accumulate on the surface; this behavior was
demonstrated by Peral for indole and pyrrole re-
moval from air.
The nature of the deactivated surfaces has hardly
been examined. Larson and Falconer [45] demon-
strated through temperature programmed desorption
(TPD) that approximately monolayer equivalents of
both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide could be
desorbed at temperatures between 400 and 1 200 K
from spent catalyst. Since carbon dioxide adsorbs
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
only weakly on fresh catalyst, it is possible that the
deactivated surface contains carbon oxides in other
forms such as a surface carbonate, which decom-
poses thermally during TPD. Nitrogen [43] and chlo-
rine [46] have been observed with Auger and X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopies, respectively after pho-
tocatalyst treatment of indole and of TCE, respec-
tively, but identification of surface species was not
reported.
11. Photocatalyst regeneration
Regeneration, or recovery, of catalyst activity has
been reported. The first involves a simple illumina-
tion in UHP air; here the catalyst presumably com-
pletes the oxidation of adsorbates, and is
self-cleaning (e.g. [47]). The rate of recovery de-
pends upon illumination time, intensity, and even
the presence of water vapor. Not all photocatalysts
may be thus regenerated, and both reversible and
irreversible deactivation have been observed on the
same catalyst Peral [43, 48]
12. Self-cleaning surfaces
The fact that some partially deactivated photocata-
lysts may be regenerated by illumination in fresh
(contaminant-free) air suggests that the illuminated
surface can be viewed as self regenerative, or self
cleaning. This arena of applicability has been taken
up intensively in Japan, with self cleaning tiles,
window and auto glass, and rear view mirrors
among candidate products. Fundamental examples
studies are those of Sitkiewicz and Heller [44], and of
the group of Pichat [49] in France. The former
demonstrated that even ultrathin (transparent) layers
of titania, laid down by sol – gel deposition, absorbed
sufficient light to convert a film of adsorbed stearic
acid to ultimate products CO2 and H2O. The reaction
was zero order in stearic acid and half order in
intensity over the limited range examined. Pichat et
al. [49] showed that the related compound, palmitic
acid, also deposited as a thin film of about 600 nm
thickness, could be removed at a rate of approxi-
mately 60 nm·h – 1, again in a zero order fashion
(constant rate of removal). Operation in a small
batch container indicated that CO2 was at least 72 %
of the primary product, with saturated aldehydes
C1 –C6 constituting another twenty percent of initial
products. Continued illumination produced nearly
100 % carbon recovery as carbon dioxide.
13. Temperature
Increasing temperature has modest or no affect on
photocatalytic rates. One important finding during
TCE oxidation was the change in the molar ratio of
exit CO2 to inlet TCE from about 1.0 at ambient to
about 2.0 at 64 °C, suggesting that a modest temper-
ature rise could help clean the surface and aid
product desorption [50].
14. Reactant structure
Hall et al. [51] compared the photocatalytic con-
version in air of a substantial number of individual
reactants under identical conditions, finding that for
the linear 4 carbon family the reaction rates varied
as: alcohol\ (ketone, aldehyde) \ alkene \
alkane.
A comparison of reaction rates between 0.1 to
100 ppmv for toluene, n-butane, 1,3-dichloroethene,
n-hexane, methyl-ethyl-ketone, n-decane, propanal,
1-butanol, trichloroethylene, ethylene, ammonia and
phosgene showed that the rates from most to least
reactive differed by about a factor of fifteen at any
particular concentration. However, very little work
has been published on the simultaneous conversion
of contaminants in mixtures; the substantial binding
ability of alcohols vs. other components could cer-
tainly enlarge the apparent differences in reaction
rates found above. Further work is needed here.
15. Full scale air remediation
photoreactor
United Technologies of Connecticut [51] com-
pleted an initial study for the design and expected
performance of a multibed photocatalytic reactor for
treatment of recirculated air in a large plane such as
an Airbus. For this treatment problem, they first
surveyed the extant concentrations of known con-
taminants in aircraft atmospheres. Next, they iden-
tified the maximum allowed exposure limit for each
identified contaminant, and defined a tolerance in-
dex, Ti for each compound as
Ti = (actual concentration/max. exposure level).
This approach led to identification of formalde-
hyde, ammonia, and acrolein as the only contami-
nants with individual Ti values in excess of 10 %.
The final photoreactor, involving about six banks of
1’’ thick 14’’ × 14’’ ceramic reticulates coated with
titania, and intervening pairs of lamps, provided
409
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
about 50–60 % conversion per pass for formalde-
hyde, the most important contaminant from the tol-
erance index vantage point.
The percent conversions of other contaminants
also present was less, due mainly to the fact that
formaldehyde is the most reactive of all reactants
studied by them. The overall air purification was
predicted to allow a smaller fresh air intake, leading
to a fuel savings up to 2 % on every flight. The
cumulative impact on a large airline’s operating costs
could be substantial in absolute terms.
16. The photoefficiency and quantum
yield problem
For convenience, we can define two terms which
relate the effectiveness with which the photons are
used for the reaction of interest. The most funda-
mental is the quantum yield (QY), which is the ratio:
QY
= reaction rate observed/photon absorption rate.
This is a fundamental quantity, as it considers only
photons ‘consumed’ by semiconductor absorption,
and thus utilized for photoexcitation in the simplest
case.
In larger scale reactors, other phenomena operate
which make determination of quantum yield prob-
lematic. The entering light may also be scattered by
the small photocatalyst particles, it may be transmit-
ted partially, it may be absorbed by photoinactive
components in the reactor, such as the catalyst sup-
port. In consequence, a less fundamental but
nonetheless useful measure is the photoefficiency
(PE) which is defined as the ratio:
PE
=reaction rate observed/photon flux into the reactor
This last quantity has validity as an economic
measure, but from a mechanistic point of view is less
informative than the quantum efficiency.
Photons are relatively cheap. In the US, 1 kW·h of
electricity costs about 5 cents, and when passed
though a low pressure lamp with actinic coating
yielding near-UV emission only (300 – 400 nm) can
produce about one mole of near UV photons. Thus,
the electrical cost to convert one mole of contami-
nant assuming no recombination losses is 5 cents at
100 % QY, 50 cents at 10 % QY, and $ 5 at 1 % QY.
Inasmuch as quantum yields for gas phase photo-
catalysis range from 1 to 50 %, and those for liquid
phase may range from 0.1 to 10 %, the achievement
410
of good use of photons, and the drive for lamp
efficiency, and lifetime, are clearly important here, as
they are in most areas of applied photochemistry.
17. Increasing the photocatalytic rate
Various approaches have been found to increase
the gas–solid rate over that present with contami-
nant only. First, modest increase in temperature may
increase the rate, albeit not greatly, as the apparent
activation energy is small. Second, the addition of
ozone at the inlet has been found by NREL re-
searchers to lead to an increased rate and to longer
catalyst lifetime, the latter due presumably to the
oxidation of adsorbed intermediates or polymerized
byproducts by the ozone or an active species
derived therefrom [52]. Finally, the coaddition of
trichloroethylene, or other chlorine source
(perchloroethylene, trichloropropene) has been
shown [53] to increase the rate of conversion of
many hydrocarbons and oxygenates, presumably by
an enhanced initial attack through chlorine, rather
than the less reactive hydroxyl, radicals. Catalyst
prechlorination displays a similar reactant enhance-
ment pattern [46].
In liquid phase systems, the reaction rates have
been increased often through addition of the oxi-
dants, metal ions, or periodic illumination. Hydrogen
peroxide addition was often observed to enhance
reactions rates, presumably through increasing the
slow step of trapped electron removal, thus dimin-
ishing electron–hole recombination and increasing
the selective consumption of holes for surface oxida-
tions. Addition of metal ions, such as silver, which
can easily undergo one-electron oxidation and re-
duction, appears to increase some rates, presumably
through a similar path, in this case of catalyzing the
electron transfer to molecular oxygen. Finally, use of
periodic illumination [54] as noted by Szechowski et
al. [54] provides an increased photoefficiency by
factors of up to 5–10 fold. This phenomenon has
been ascribed to and modeled by slow adsorption of
molecular oxygen (or slow electron transfer to ad-
sorbed oxygen) [55], but the current understanding
remains incomplete.
18. Overview
Photocatalysis is a chemical oxidation phe-
nomenon looking for applications. Current needs in
the remediation of lightly contaminated air and water
will provide opportunities for further development
 D.F. Ollis / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série IIc, Chimie / Chemistry 3 (2000) 405 – 411
of photocatalysis technology in these fields. While
progress is being reported annually, there is not yet
a substantial number of installed full scale photore-
actor units. What will the future provide to render a
meaningful verdict on this intriguing chemistry?
These references are but a sampling of the photo-
catalysis literature. An excellent list of references
categorized by compounds, applications, patents,
etc., has been published by D. Blake, NREL, Golden,
CO, USA. Comprising over 3000 citations (see http: //
www.doe.gov/bridge/home.html).
References
[1] Ollis D.F., Environ. Sci. Technol. 19 (1985) 480; Ollis D.F.,
Pelizzetti E., Serpone N., Environ. Sci. Technol. 25 (1991)
1523.
[2] Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H., Photocatalytic Purification and Treat-
ment of Water and Air, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993.
[3] Legrini O., Oliveros E., Braun A.M., Chem. Rev. 93 (1993)
671.
[4] Hoffman M.R., Martin S.T., Choi W., Bahnemann D.W.,
Chem. Rev. 95 (1995) 69.
[5] Peral J., Domenech X., Ollis D.F., J. Chem. Biotechnol. 70
(1997) 117.
[6] Ollis D.F., Cat. Tech. 2 (1998) 149.
[7] Egerton T.A., King C.J., J. Oil Coll. Chem. Chem. Assoc.
(1979) 386.
[8] Formenti M., Meriaudeau P., Teichner S., Chem. Tech. 1
(1971) 680.
[9] Ausloos P., Rebbert R.F., Glasgow L., J. Res. Nat. Bur Stan-
dards 1 (1977) 82; Filby W., Mintos M., Gusten H., Ber.
Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 85 (1981) 189.
[10] Corey J.H., Lawrence J., Tosine H., Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 16 (1976) 697.
[11] Pruden A.L., Ollis D.F., Environ. Sci.Technol. 17 628; J. Catal.
82 (1983) (1983) 404.
[12] Pelizzetti E., Serpone N. (Eds.), Homogeneous and Heteroge-
neous Photocatalysis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988.
[13] Turchi C.S., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 122 (1990) 178.
[14] Nguyen T., Ollis D.F., J. Phys. Chem. 88 (1984) 3386.
[15] Kennecke J.F., Ferry J.L., Glaze W., in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H.
(Eds.), Photocatalytic Purification and Treatment of Water
and Air, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993.
[16] Ollis D.F. et al., J. Catal. 88 (1984) 96.
[17] Turchi C., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 122 (1990) 178.
[18] Gerischer H., in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H. (Eds.), Photocatalytic
Purification and Treatment of Water and Air, Elsevier, Amster-
dam, 1993.
[19] Hoffman M.R., Martin S.T., Choi W., Bahnemann D.F., Chem.
Rev. 95 (1995) 69.
[20] Egerton T.A., King C.J., J. Oil Coll. Chem. Assoc. (1979) 386.
[21] Matsunaga T. et al., FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 29 (1985) 211.
[22] Saito T. et al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 14 (1992) 369.
[23] Ollis D.F., 3rd TiO2 Photocatalytic Purification and Treatment
of Water and Air, Orlando, Florida, 1998.
[24] Kubota Y., Fujishima A., Brit. J. Cancer Res. 70 (1994) 1107.
[25] Armon R., 2nd Int. TiO2 Conference on Photocatalytic Purifi-
cation and Treatment of Water and Air, Cincinnati, OH, 1997,
J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 3 (1998) 145.
[26] Sunada A, Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (1998) 726.
[27] Borgarello E., Inorg. Chem. 24 (1986) 4999.
[28] Prairie M. et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 27 (1993) 1776; also
in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H. (Eds.), Photocatalytic Purification
and Treatment of Water and Air, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993.
[29] Borrell-Damian L, Ollis D.F., J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 4 (1999)
125.
[30] Chen J., Ollis D.F., Colloids & Surfaces A 151 (1999) 339.
[31] Dibble L., Raupp G.B., Catal. Lett. 4 (1992) 345.
[32] Pichat P., 4th TiO2 Conference on Photocatalytic Treatment
and Purification of Water and Air, Albuquerque, NM, 1999.
[33] Suzuki K., Satoh S., Yoshida T., Oenki Kagakku 59 (1991)
521.
[34] Ibusuki T. et al., in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H. (Eds.), Photocata-
lytic Purification and Treatment of Water and Air, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1993, p. 375.
[35] Peral J., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 136 (1992) 554.
[36] Luo Y., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 163 (1996) 1.
[37] Sauer M., Ollis D.F., Catal. 158 (1996) 570.
[38] Ollis D.F., in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H. (Eds.), Photocatalytic
Treatement and Purification of Water and Air, Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, 1993.
[39] Sauer M., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 163 (1996) 215.
[40] Luo Y, PhD thesis, N.C. State University, 1995.
[41] Hossain M., Raupp G.B., Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (1998) 377.
[42] Changrani R., Raupp G.B., J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 3 (1998)
277.
[43] Sauer M., Ollis D.F., J. Catal. 149 (1994) 81.
[44] Sitkiewicz S., Heller A., New J. Chem. 20 (1996) 233.
[45] Larson S., Falconer J, Appl.Catal. B. – Environ. 4 (1994) 325.
[46] d’Hennezel O., PhD thesis, 1998, NC State University.
[47] d’Hennezel O., Pichat P., Ollis D.F., J. Photochem. Photobiol.
A – Chem. 118 (1998) 197.
[48] Jacoby W. et al., Air Waste Management Assoc. Conf., July
1995.
[49] Pichat P., 4th TiO2 Conference on Purification and Treatment
of Water and Air, Orlando, Florida, 1998.
[50] Yamazaki N. et al., J. Phys. Chem. 99 (1995) 15815.
[51] Hall R.J., Bendfelt P., Obee T.N., Sanjiovanni J.J., J. Adv.
Oxid. Technol. 3 (1998) 243.
[52] Gratson D., Nimlos M., Wolfrum E.J., Proc. 88th Ann. Air
Waste Mgmt. Assoc, 1995, p. 95.
[53] d’Hennezel O., Ollis D.F., in: Hightower J. et al. (Eds.), 11th
Int. Congr. Catal., Part A, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996, p. 435.
[54] Szechowski J. et al., in: Ollis D.F., Al-Ekabi H. (Eds.), Photo-
catalytic Purification and Treatment of Water and Air, El-
sevier, Amsterdam, 1993.
[55] Upadhya S, Ollis D.F., J. Phys. Chem. B. 101 (1997) 2625.
411