1 / 15

REEL Pigment Research Project

REEL Pigment Research Project. Laura Cook, Sarah Hetterscheidt, Kelli Mohr, Aroh Pandit. The Ohio State University Chemistry 123 June 1 st , 2012. The goal of the REEL research is to synthesize and characterize potential non-toxic inorganic pigments, by using XRD and UV-Vis spectroscopy.

mandell
Download Presentation

REEL Pigment Research Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REEL Pigment Research Project Laura Cook, Sarah Hetterscheidt, Kelli Mohr, ArohPandit The Ohio State University Chemistry 123 June 1st, 2012

  2. The goal of the REEL research is to synthesize and characterize potential non-toxic inorganic pigments, by using XRD and UV-Vis spectroscopy. • Our project goal was to alter the color of the pigment by varying the amount of dopant added to the ZnWO4 structure.

  3. Hypotheses • It was hypothesized that the increased amount of the dopant within the structure would produce a more vibrant color in comparison to the Phase I compounds. • The increased amount of dopant provides an increase in atoms able to absorb wavelengths in the visible light spectrum, reflecting a more vibrant color. • The more dopant added, more d-to-d transitions will occur corresponding to the each dopant metal’s UV-Vis spectrum.(higher peaks) • The structure of the compound was predicted to remain unchanged with the increased amount of dopant added. The dopant should merely take the place of Zinc, retaining the same structure.

  4. Phase I vs. Phase II • In Phase I, a small amount of the dopant was added to each compound, between 5 and 10 percent of the compound. • In Phase II, a larger amount of the dopant was added to each compound, 20 percent of the compound. 5%-10% 20%

  5. Phase I Synthesis • All reactions were carried out using traditional solid state synthesis for 12 hours at 1100°C • .95ZnO(s)+.05MnO(s)+WO3(s)Zn.95Mn.05WO4(s) • .9ZnO(s)+.1CoO(s)+WO3(s)Zn.9Co.1WO4(s) • .95ZnO(s) +.05NiO(s) +WO3(s)  Zn.95Ni.05WO4(s) • .95ZnO(s)+.05CuO(s)+WO3(s)Zn.95Cu.05WO4(s)

  6. Phase II Synthesis • All reactions were carried out using traditional solid state synthesis for 12 hours at 1100°C. • .8ZnO(s) + .2MnO(s) + WO3(s)  Zn.8Mn.2WO4(s) • .8ZnO(s) + .2CoO(s) +WO3(s)Zn.8Co.2WO4(s) • .8ZnO(s) + .2NiO(s) +WO3(s)  Zn.8Ni.2WO4(s) • .8ZnO(s) + .2CuO(s) + WO3(s)Zn.8Cu.2WO4(s)

  7. Percent Yields • Phase I • Zn.95Mn.05WO4(s)= 99.72% • Zn.90Co.10WO4(s)=93.62% • Zn.95Ni.05WO4(s)= 92.07% • Zn.95Cu.05WO4(s)= 95.51% • Phase II • Zn.80Mn.20WO4(s)= 85.92% • Zn.80Co.20WO4(s)=98.99% • Zn.80Ni.20WO4(s)= 99.45% • Zn.80Cu.20WO4(s)= 97.97%

  8. XRD Pattern Phase I

  9. XRD Patterns Phase II

  10. Comparison of XRD Patterns • All the peaks were accounted for by using the Jade program to compare the patterns to known XRD patterns. • The one exception occurred with 20% Nickel doping in Phase II. There was an error in the computer system and Zinc was unable to be identified. Based on the validity of the other substances, the doping should not have caused an error. • Zn.8Ni.2WO4 should have shown a pattern where all the Nickel was incorporated into the existing structure. • When doping was increased in all of the other compounds, the peaks remained accounted for. From this information, one can conclude that the dopants were integrated into the existing structure, without alteration. • The known structure of ZnWO4is octahedral, remaining unchanged with the dopants added.

  11. Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis Phase I

  12. Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis Phase II

  13. Comparison of Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis • The position of the peaks on each of the graphs remained the same between the two phases. However, the peaks shifted upward. This indicates that the color did not change, but merely the intensity of the color. • An inconsistency in data was present with the Copper dopant. This may have been due to a failure to combine well with Tungsten Oxide. Copper has a significantly larger melting point compared to the other dopants added. • The d-to-d transitions occurred at the same wavelengths. This is seen in the Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis spectra as there is no horizontal shift observed.

  14. Conclusions from the Research • The projected hypothesis was proved to be correct. The physical appearance of each of the substances as well as the Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis spectra point to the validity. • Each of the appearances were brighter and more vibrant with the increased amount of the dopants. This trend was paralleled as the peaks shifted upwards in each of the Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis spectra. • The XRD patterns showed the peaks were accounted for, and no unaccounted phases were present. This information allows a conclusion to be drawn that the dopants were incorporated into the existing crystal structure rather than altering it.

  15. Conclusions from the Research • Two inconsistencies were observed. Firstly, an error occurred with the Jade program when producing the XRD pattern for Zn.8Ni.2WO4. Secondly, Copper produced an error in the trend of the upward shifting of the Diffuse Reflectance UV-Vis spectrum. • In the procedure of the research, 20% dopant was added. The XRD patterns showed the dopant was able to be integrated into the existing structure. However, there is a point where too much dopant can cause an alteration of the octahedral structure. ZnWO4 structure

More Related