Preparation of Monolithic LaFeO3 and Catalytic Oxidation of Toluene

Abstract

Porous LaFeO₃ powders were produced by high-temperature calcination of LaFeO₃ precursors obtained by hydrothermal treatment of corresponding nitrates in the presence of citric acid. Four LaFeO₃ powders calcinated at different temperatures were mixed with appropriate amounts of kaolinite, carboxymethyl cellulose, glycerol and active carbon for the preparation of monolithic LaFeO₃ by extrusion. Porous LaFeO₃ powders were characterized using powder X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, nitrogen absorption/desorption and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Among the four monolithic LaFeO₃ catalysts, the catalyst calcinated at 700 °C showed the best catalytic activity for the catalytic oxidation of toluene at 36,000 mL/(g∙h), and the corresponding T_10%, T_50% and T_90% was 76 °C, 253 °C and 420 °C, respectively. The catalytic performance is attributed to the larger specific surface area (23.41 m²/g), higher surface adsorption of oxygen concentration and larger Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ ratio associated with LaFeO₃ calcined at 700 °C.

1. Introduction

Volatile organic compounds, abbreviated as VOCs, are compounds with a low boiling point at ambient temperature and pressure [1]. VOCs are a large class of carbon-based compounds, most of which are diffusible, flammable, explosive or toxic. VOCs are considered to be the main sources of atmospheric pollution, posing serious ecological and human health hazards [2,3,4,5]. Such pollutants are produced either naturally or by human activities. Pollution due to human activities can be divided into two types: indoor and outdoor. Outdoor sources account for a large proportion of pollution from chemical plants, power plants, pharmaceutical plants, refineries and gas stations, as well as food processing, automobile manufacturing, furniture and textiles [6,7,8]. Volatile organic compounds are also harmful pollutants indoor air [9]. The main sources of indoor VOCs are solvents, glues, insulation materials, cooking and smoking waste [10,11,12]. When VOCs are emitted into the atmosphere, these high concentrations of VOCs can cause nausea, dizziness and headaches, some damage to human organs as well as the nervous system and even chronic or acute poisoning, leading to cancer in severe cases [13,14]. Decomposition of VOCs into non-toxic compounds is important for our environment.

Typical methods to deal with VOCs are condensation [15], adsorption [16], absorption [17], plasma technology [18], catalytic oxidation [19,20,21,22] and biodegradation [23]. Among these methods, catalytic oxidation technology converts volatile organic compounds directly into water and carbon dioxide without causing secondary pollution to the environment. The catalysts that have been used for environmental purposes are noble metal catalysts and metal oxide catalysts. Although noble metal catalysts show high catalytic activity for VOCs, their use is limited due to the high price and low availability [24]. Based on this situation, metal oxide catalysts are regarded as a good alternative to the noble metal catalyst due to their low price, ease of preparation, stability and good resistance to toxicity [25]. Perovskite oxides have been extensively studied in the catalytic oxidation of VOCs and have shown high catalytic activity during the oxidation process [26,27]. LaFeO₃ is a typical perovskite that is widely used for catalytic oxidation [28,29,30,31] and gas and biosensors [32,33,34] due to its good catalytic activity and high stability. It is also used in solid oxide fuel cells [35] by virtue of its excellent catalytic activity, high electrical conductivity and oxygen mobility. To achieve a high catalytic performance, the LaFeO₃ catalyst with a porous structure is desirable since porous materials possess a higher specific surface area. At the same time, monolithic catalysts have advantages over powder catalysts, such as better thermal conductivity and lower reactor pressure [36]. Therefore, the rational design of a monolithic catalyst with porous structure, high stability and good catalytic activity is of great significance.

In this study, powder LaFeO₃ was synthesized by conventional high temperature calcination of LaFeO₃ precursors, which were obtained using a simple hydrothermal route. Monolithic LaFeO₃ catalysts were then prepared by mixing with kaolinite, carboxymethyl cellulose, glycerol and active carbon followed by a single extrusion method. Four monolithic LaFeO₃ catalysts were prepared using LaFeO₃ powders calcinated at 500 °C, 600 °C, 700 °C and 800 °C. The flow chart of powder LaFeO₃ preparation is shown in Figure 1. The structure and physical and chemical properties of each catalyst were investigated using techniques including powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) analysis. The monolithic 700 °C LaFeO₃ catalyst with a large specific surface area, a high Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ ratio and an abundant concentration of adsorbed oxygen exhibits excellent catalytic activity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Ferric nitrate hydrate (Fe(NO₃)₃·9H₂O) was purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co. Lanthanum Nitrate Hexahydrate (La(NO₃)₃·6H₂O) was supplied by Shanghai Aladdin Biochemical Technology Co. Citric acid monohydrate (C₆H₈O₇·H₂O) was purchased from Shanghai Lingfeng Chemical Reagent Co. Sodium Carboxymethyl cellulose ([C₆H₇O₂(OH)₂OCH₂COONa]n) was provided by Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co. Glycerol (C₃H₈O₃) was provided by Shanghai Lingfeng Chemical Reagent Co. Kaolin (Al₂O₃·2SiO₂·2H₂O) was bought from Henan Plutonium Casting Material Co. Carbon (C) powder was provided by Tianjin Lihua Jin Chemical Co. All chemical reagents are of analytical grade and used without further purification.

2.2. Synthesis of LaFeO₃ Powders

The powder LaFeO₃ perovskite catalyst was synthesized by a hydrothermal method. Next, 1.299 g La(NO₃)₃·6H₂O, 2.424 g Fe(NO₃)₃·9H₂O, and 3.78 g citric acid monohydrate were added to 60 mL of deionized water with a molar ratio of n(La):n(Fe):n(citric acid) = 1:1.5:6 molar ratio and stirred for 30 min to yield a clear solution. The solution was transferred to a 100 mL PTFE-lined stainless-steel autoclave and kept at 180 °C in an oven for 8 h. The resulting solid yellow product was filtered and washed several times with distilled water and anhydrous ethanol. The resulting yellow product was dried at 80 °C for several hours and ground followed by calcination at appropriate temperatures. The final product calcinated at 500 °C, 600 °C, 700 °C and 800 °C, is denoted as 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO, respectively. The digits in the symbol indicate the calcination temperature, while LFO means LaFeO₃.

2.3. Synthesis of Monolithic Catalysts

The mixture of 7 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (binder), 3 wt% glycerol (moisturizer), 41 wt% kaolinite (carrier), 7 wt% active carbon powder (perforation agent), 5 wt% LaFeO₃ powder prepared at different temperatures and 30 mL of distilled water was prepared and stirred for 30 min. The mixture was kneaded for 30 min to form a dough and then wrapped with PE thin films to age under dark conditions for 12 h (this can enhance the uniformity of the distribution of soluble active components in the clay degree and enhance the catalytic activity of the molding catalyst). After aging, the dough was extruded using a mold and then placed in an electric heating blast drying oven at 100 °C for 30 min. The dried sample was then placed into a muffle furnace and warmed to 280 °C at a heating rate of 5 °C/min for 2 h. Then, the monolithic LaFeO₃ catalyst was obtained after cooling to ambient temperature naturally. The monolithic catalyst is a cylinder with a diameter of 46 mm and a height of 15 mm, with a total of 12 through-holes, each with a diameter of 5 mm. Finally, the specific preparation path is shown in Figure 1.

2.4. Characterizations

Powder X-ray diffraction patterns were recorded using a Rigaku Smart Lab diffractometer with Cu Kα (λ = 1.5418 Å, 40 kV, 100 mA) at a scanning speed of 5°/min in the 2θ range of 10–80°. X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS) were obtained with a KRATOS AXIS SUPRA. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used to confirm the microstructure and morphology with a JSM-6510.

The catalyst pore structure, pore size distribution were assessed by N₂ adsorption and desorption test at −196 °C using a Micromeritics ASAP 2020 instrument. Total pore volume (Vp) was determined from the amount adsorbed at a relative pressure of around 0.99. The pore size distribution and average pore diameter (Dp) were determined by the BJH (Barrett–Joyner–Halenda) method from the adsorption branch of the isotherm.

2.5. Catalytic Oxidation of Toluene

Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the toluene catalytic system. Air diluted toluene gas (101 ppm) from the storage tank is fed into the gas supply system using a gas flow meter to maintain an inlet toluene concentration of 101 ppm when entering the tube furnace. The diluted toluene gas and the air are mixed in the gas supply system and then enter the stationary reactor. The diluted toluene gas entering the stationary reactor reacts with oxygen on the monolithic LaFeO₃ catalyst. The rear gas was collected using a gas sampling bag. The toluene concentration for the inlet and outlet gas was measured using a Honeywell-Warren PGM-7340ppb RAE3000 VOC gas detector. The weight hourly space velocity of inlet toluene gas is 36,000 mL/(g∙h). The conversion of toluene can be calculated as follows:

φ(C₇H₈) (%) = 100 × ([C₇H₈]_in − [C₇H₈]_out)/[C₇H₈]_in(1)

where [C₇H₈]_in (%) and [C₇H₈]_out (%) denote the inlet and outlet toluene concentrations, respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. XRD Characterization

Figure 3 shows the powder X-ray diffraction patterns of the synthesized LaFeO₃ powders at different calcination temperatures (500 °C, 600 °C, 700 °C and 800 °C). The XRD patterns match the standard diffraction pattern of the orthorhombic phase (JCPDS No. 74-2203). The sharp diffraction peaks indicate that LaFeO₃ has a high crystallinity. No signals of other diffraction peaks were found, indicating that the LaFeO₃ powders were successfully synthesized at these temperatures. The reflections located at 22.61°, 32.17°, 39.70°, 46.16°, 51.95°, 57.41°, 67.30° and 76.53° correspond to (002), (112), (022), (004), (114), (204), (040) and (116) reflection plane, respectively. Meanwhile, the X-ray diffraction patterns showed that the reflection peaks of LaFeO₃ became sharper with the increase in calcination temperature, indicating improved crystallinity. According to Scherrer’s formula, the particle size of 500 LFO particles is 156 nm, the particle size of 600 LFO particles is 168 nm, the particle size of 700 LFO particles is 266 nm and the particle size of 800 LFO particles is 278 nm.

3.2. Morphology Analysis

The morphological characteristics of the LaFeO₃ powders were analyzed by SEM. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the 5000 and 50,000 magnification images of LaFeO₃ synthesized at different calcination temperatures. Figure 4 shows that the morphology of LaFeO₃ synthesized at four temperatures is characterized by spherical particles about 2–3 μm in diameter with pits and pores on the surface. The grain size derived from the SEM image is basically the same as that calculated earlier. It can be seen from Figure 5 that with the increase in calcination temperature, the surfaces of microspheres gradually become smooth and flat, the pore size becomes smaller and the number of pores increases. When the calcination temperature increases to 800 °C, the surface of microspheres gradually becomes smooth, the pores gradually decrease and it can be clearly observed that the calcination temperature changes the morphological structure of these microspheres.

3.3. BET Measurements

In order to investigate the effect of calcination temperature on the specific surface area and pore size distribution of LaFeO₃, the prepared catalysts were tested for N₂ adsorption–desorption. The nitrogen adsorption–desorption curves and BJH pore size distribution curves are shown in Figure 6, and the specific data are shown in Table 1. The nitrogen adsorption–desorption curves of the LaFeO₃ catalysts are type IV isothermal curves with H4−type hysteresis loops, and the pore size distribution plots better prove the existence of mesoporous structures for the four of LaFeO₃ catalysts [37]. For the other three catalyst groups, 700 LFO has the largest specific surface area, followed by 600 LFO. The pore size distribution of the four LaFeO₃ catalysts was found to be in a wide range based on the Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) method calculation in Figure 6b, with the pore size of the 500 LFO catalyst being around 2.7–52 nm, the 600 LFO catalyst being around 2.7–170 nm, the 700 LFO catalyst being around 2.7–52 nm and the pore size of the 800 LFO catalyst around 2.2–93 nm. It is well known that the specific surface area size of catalysts has a large influence on the catalytic activity, and a larger specific surface area exposes more active sites on the surface, prompting more pollutant molecules to be adsorbed on the catalyst surface. The results showed that 700 LFO had the largest specific surface area of 23.41 m²/g.

3.4. Structural Composition Analysis of Materials

In order to determine the surface elemental composition and oxidation state of several samples, surface X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy was performed to analyze the LaFeO₃. Figure 7 shows the full XPS spectra of synthetic LaFeO₃ at different calcination temperatures (Figure 7a) and narrow spectra of O1s, Fe 2p and La 3d energy levels (Figure 7b–d). In addition, the C 1s binding energy of 284.8 eV is often used as a charge correction for other elements [38].

The high−resolution spectra of O 1s are shown in Figure 7b. For 500 LFO, the binding energy at 529.6 eV and 531.9 eV is assigned to lattice oxygen (La-O and Fe-O) and adsorbed oxygen on the surface of chemically absorbed hydroxyl or carbonate groups [39,40]. For 600 LFO, the binding energy at 529.5 eV and 531.8 eV is assigned to lattice oxygen (La-O and Fe-O) and adsorbed oxygen on the surface of chemically absorbed hydroxyl or carbonate groups. For 700 LFO, the binding energy at 529.4 eV and 531.7 eV is assigned to lattice oxygen (La-O and Fe-O) and adsorbed oxygen on the surface of chemically absorbed hydroxyl or carbonate groups. For 800 LFO, the binding energy at 529.3 eV and 531.6 eV binding energy is assigned to lattice oxygen (La-O and Fe-O) and adsorbed oxygen on the surface of chemically absorbed hydroxyl or carbonate groups. Comparing the four catalysts, the binding energy peak of O 1s shifts to lower binding energy with increasing calcination temperature, which proves that oxygen ions contribute significantly to the electron transfer within LaFeO₃ [41]. Among the four LaFeO₃ catalysts, 700 LFO has a higher O_ads (adsorbed oxygen)/O_latt (surface lattice oxygen) value (1.62), and the specific O_ads/O_latt values are shown in Table 2.

In Figure 7c, the two sets of peaks in 500 LFO are at 834.6, 838.4 eV and 851.5, 855.2 eV, respectively, the two sets of peaks in 600 LFO are located at 834.2, 838.1 eV and 851.1, 855 eV, respectively, and the two sets of peaks in 700 LFO are at 834.3, 838.2 eV and 851, 854.9 eV, with the two sets of peaks in 500 LFO, 600 LFO and 700 LFO correlated with the spin-orbit splitting characteristic binding energy of La 3d_5/2 and La 3d_3/2 of La³⁺, while the peaks in La 3d_5/2 and La 3d_3/2 of 800 LFO are located at 834, 837.8 eV and 850.9, 854.8 eV. These two correlated peaks in each spin orbit are further split into two parts, attributed to the presence of energy loss phenomena or electron configuration mixtures caused by strong O 2p-La 4f charge events (“shock-excited” satellites) [42]. Moreover, the splitting voltages corresponding to 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO are 16.9 eV, 17 eV, 16.7 eV and 16.9 eV.

In the Fe 2p spectrum of Figure 7d, the peaks at 710.9 and 725.2 eV and two satellite peaks (714.9 and 722.4 eV) in the 500 LFO indicate the presence of Fe³⁺ in the LaFeO₃, and the binding energies at 709.9 and 713.1 eV are consistent with the Fe²⁺ match in the LaFeO₃. The two satellite peaks (716.1 and 723.1 eV) of the peak at 710.7 and 724.2 eV in 600 LFO indicate the presence of Fe³⁺ in LaFeO₃, and the binding energy at 709.7 and 713.1 eV indicates the presence of Fe²⁺ in LaFeO₃. The two satellite peaks of the peak at 710.6 and 724 eV (716.2 and 723 eV) in the 700 LFO indicate the presence of Fe³⁺ in the LaFeO₃, and the characteristic binding energy at 709.7 and 712.9 eV indicates the presence of Fe²⁺ in the LaFeO₃. The two satellite peaks of the peak at 710.7 and 724.2 eV in the 800 LFO (715.9 and 723.2 eV) indicate the presence of Fe³⁺ in the LaFeO₃, and the characteristic binding energies at 709.6 and 713.2 eV indicate the presence of Fe²⁺ in the LaFeO₃. This implies that two mixed Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ states exist in the octahedra of LaFeO3 sharing prismatic positions, while the presence of Fe²⁺ oxidation states can be attributed to the generation of oxygen vacancies. In addition, the spin-orbit splitting of the 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO samples was 13.6 eV, 13.5 eV, 13.4 eV and 13.5 eV, respectively. Finally, the 700 LFO catalyst had the highest surface Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ molar ratio (0.78), and the order of Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ molar ratios for the four catalyst groups was: 700 LFO > 800 LFO > 600 LFO > 500 LFO. The specific Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ molar ratios are shown in Table 2. From XPS, the content ratios of Fe, La and O in 500 LFO were 6.2%, 12.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The content ratios of Fe, La and O in 600 LFO were 11.1%, 15.4% and 73.5%, respectively. The content ratios of Fe, La and O in 700 LFO were 9.6%, 16.7% and 73.7%. The content ratios of Fe, La and O in 800 LFO were 11.2%, 14.7% and 74.1%, respectively.

3.5. Catalytic Performance

The catalytic performance of the prepared sets of monolithic catalysts for toluene was investigated below 450 °C. Figure 8a shows the performance of the four sets of monolithic LaFeO₃ catalysts for toluene oxidation at a toluene concentration of 101 ppm and an air rate of 100 mL/min (WHSV = 36,000 mL/(g∙h)). Figure 8b shows the reaction temperatures corresponding to the conversion of toluene at 90% for the three LaFeO₃ catalysts. It is well known that catalysts for catalytic oxidation performance of gases are usually evaluated using T_10%, T_50% and T_90% (corresponding to the reaction temperatures required to reach 10%, 50% and 90% toluene conversions).

According to Figure 8a, the monolithic catalysts with the addition of LaFeO₃ all showed higher catalytic activity than the monolithic catalysts without the addition of LaFeO₃. The catalytic activities of the monolithic catalysts with LaFeO₃ were ranked as follows: 700 LFO > 800 LFO > 600 LFO > 500 LFO. Obviously, the monolithic catalysts without LaFeO₃ did not show high degradation of toluene, and the thermal degradation of toluene was only 31.2% at 450 °C, while 700 LFO with LaFeO₃ catalyst showed the best catalytic activity for toluene with T_10%, T_50% and T_90% of 76 °C, 253 °C and 420 °C, respectively, which were 7 °C, 32 °C and 30 °C lower than those of 600 LFO with T_10%, T_50% and T_90%, respectively. Table 3 shows the reaction temperatures of the monolithic catalyst with and without the addition of LaFeO₃ at 10%, 50% and 90% conversion of toluene. Undoubtedly, the specific surface area, pore structure, surface active center and surface adsorbed oxygen concentration of the catalysts are significantly related to their catalytic activity. From the experimental data and characterization, it is clear that 700 LFO has the largest specific surface area, the most active centers and the most abundant surface adsorbed oxygen concentration compared to 500 LFO, 600 LFO and 800 LFO, which results in better catalytic performance in the toluene oxidation experiments.

Figure 9 demonstrates the reaction mechanism of catalytic oxidation of toluene gas by the LaFeO₃ catalyst. Fe²⁺ is trapped by oxygen molecules when transferring electrons, and oxygen molecules are adsorbed to oxygen vacancies and activated. Negatively charged oxygen anions (O⁻, O²⁻) fill the oxygen vacancies and provide oxygen resources for the catalytic reaction. At the same time, the transfer of electrons leads to the transformation of Fe²⁺ to Fe³⁺. Toluene molecules are adsorbed on Fe³⁺, and the coordination between them allows electrons to be transferred from the toluene to the Fe³⁺ position. Regeneration of Fe²⁺ and positively charged toluene occurs due to electron transfer. Negatively charged oxygen and positively charged toluene react to produce carbon dioxide and water through the breaking of old chemical bonds and the formation of new ones [43].

4. Conclusions

Porous powder LaFeO₃ was readily prepared using the conventional high temperature calcination of precursors obtained from hydrothermal syntheses. Finally, the honeycomb LaFeO₃ catalysts were prepared by the one-shot molding method. From the experimental results, it was shown that the calcination temperature from 500 °C to 800 °C had a significant effect on the morphology, structure, specific surface area and the concentration of adsorbed oxygen on the surface of the LaFeO₃ catalysts. According to the SEM results, comparing the morphology of the other three groups of LaFeO₃ catalysts, the 700 LFO catalyst has more pits on the surface, forming more pores and smaller pores, resulting in more active sites exposed on the catalyst surface, which has a greater impact on the performance of the porous catalyst. Among the prepared groups of LaFeO₃ catalysts, 700 LFO showed the largest specific surface area (23.41 m²/g), the more abundant concentration of surface adsorbed oxygen as well as the best catalytic performance for toluene (T_10%, T_50% and T_90% at a toluene concentration of 101 ppm and an air rate of 100 mL/min (WHSV = 36,000 mL/(g∙h)), respectively 76 °C, 253 °C and 420 °C).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.P.; software, Y.L. (Yunfei Liu) and Y.L. (Yinong Lu); data curation, S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H.; writing—review and editing, Z.P. and Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance from Zhigang Pan and Yaqiu Tao from NJTECH, and the staff from State Key Laboratory of Materials-Oriented Chemical Engineering.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Preparation process of monolithic LaFeO3 catalysts.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of catalytic oxidation of toluene.

Figure 3. Powder X-ray diffraction patterns of LaFeO3 powders calcinated at different temperatures.

Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope image of 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO catalysts at 5000 magnification; (a) 500 LFO, (b) 600 LFO, (c) 700 LFO and (d) 800 LFO.

Figure 5. Scanning electron microscope image of 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO catalysts at 50,000 magnification; (a) 500 LFO, (b) 600 LFO, (c) 700 LFO and (d) 800 LFO.

Figure 6. N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms (a) and pore size distribution curves (b) of LaFeO3 synthesized at different calcination temperatures.

Figure 7. XPS diagram of 500 LFO, 600 LFO, 700 LFO and 800 LFO catalysts, and (a–d) show the complete XPS spectra, narrow spectra of O 1s, Fe 2p and La 3d energy levels of LaFeO3, respectively.

Figure 8. (a) Toluene conversions as function of reaction temperature over LaFeO3 perovskite catalysts sintered at different temperatures (b) The temperature required for each catalyst at a conversion of T90% for toluene.

Figure 9. Catalytic oxidation of toluene mechanism diagram.

Table 1

BET analysis of LaFeO₃ synthesized by different calcination temperatures.

Catalysts	BET SurfaceArea (m2/g)	Average PoreSize (nm)	Total Pore Volume(cm3/g)
500 LFO	13.42	8.99	0.04
600 LFO	18.91	13.66	0.08
700 LFO	23.41	27.32	0.09
800 LFO	6.03	33.12	0.05

Table 2

XPS parameters of different elements in LaFeO₃ catalysts synthesized at different calcination temperatures.

Catalysts		Binding Energy (eV)
	La3+	La3+	Fe3+	Fe3+	Fe2+	Oads	Olatt	Fe2+/Fe3+	Oads/Olatt
	3d 5/2	3d 3/2	2p 3/2	2p 1/2	2p 3/2	1 s	1 s
500 LFO	834.2/838.4	851.5/855.2	710.9/719.8	724.5/725.5	709.9/713.1	529.6	531.9	0.68	2.63
600 LFO	834.1/838.1	851.1/855	710.7/719.5	724.2/726.3	709.7/713.1	529.5	531.8	0.70	1.21
700 LFO	834.3/838.2	851/854.9	710.6/719.3	724/726.5	709.7/712.9	529.4	531.7	0.78	1.62
800 LFO	834/837.8	850.9/854.8	710.7/719.1	724.2/726.7	709.6/713.2	529.3	531.6	0.71	1.26

O_ads stands for adsorbed oxygen. O_latt stands for surface lattice oxygen.

Table 3

Reaction temperature of the different LaFeO₃ catalyst for toluene conversion up to T90%.

Catalysts	Toluene Oxidation Activity (°C)
	T10%	T50%	T90%
500 LFO	87	383	/
600 LFO	83	285	450
700 LFO	76	253	420
800 LFO	79	259	436
Without catalyst	241	/	/

References

1. Morales Torres, S.; Carrasco Marin, F.; Perez Cadenas, A.F. Coupling Noble Metals and Carbon Supports in the Development of Combustion Catalysts for the Abatement of BTX Compounds in Air Streams. Catalysts; 2015; 5, 0774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/catal5020774]

2. Li, W.B.; Wang, J.X.; Gong, H. Catalytic combustion of VOCs on non-noble metal catalysts. Catal. Today; 2009; 148, pp. 81-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2009.03.007]

3. Qiu, K.; Yang, L.; Lin, J. Historical industrial emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds in China for the period of 1980–2010. Atmos. Environ.; 2014; 86, pp. 102-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.12.026]

4. Rajabi, H.; Hadi, M.M.; Mandal, P. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from crude oil processing–Global emission inventory and environmental release. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 727, 138654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138654]

5. Kamal, M.S.; Razzak, S.A.; Hossain, M.M. Catalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—A review. Atmos. Environ.; 2016; 140, pp. 117-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.05.031]

6. Thepanondh, S.; Varoonphan, J.; Sarutichart, P. Airborne Volatile Organic Compounds and Their Potential Health Impact on the Vicinity of Petrochemical Industrial Complex. Water Air Soil Pollut.; 2011; 214, pp. 83-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0406-0]

7. Luo, D.; Yi, P.; Chen, A. Indoor Pollution Caused by Building and Decorative Materials and Their Preventive Measure. China Saf. Sci.; 2003; 13, pp. 66-68.

8. He, C.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, X. Recent Advances in the Catalytic Oxidation of Volatile Organic Compounds: A Review Based on Pollutant Sorts and Sources. Chem. Rev.; 2019; 119, pp. 4471-4568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00408]

9. Mo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Q. Photocatalytic purification of volatile organic compounds in indoor air: A literature review. Atmos. Environ.; 2009; 43, pp. 2229-2246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.01.034]

10. Li, G.S.; Zhang, D.Q.; Yu, J.C. An Efficient Bismuth Tungstate Visible-Light-Driven Photocatalyst for Breaking Down Nitric Oxide. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2010; 44, pp. 4276-4281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100084a]

11. Morales-Torres, S.; Maldonado-Hódar, F.J.; Pérez-Cadenas, A.F.; Carrasco-Marín, F. Design of low-temperature Pt-carbon combustion catalysts for VOC’s treatments. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2010; 183, pp. 814-822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.100] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20728988]

12. Tsai, W.T. An overview of health hazards of volatile organic compounds regulated as indoor air pollutants. Rev. Environ. Health; 2019; 34, pp. 81-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2018-0046] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30854833]

13. Niu, Q.; Li, B.; Xu, X. Research progress in catalytic combustion of volatile organic compounds. Mod. Chem. Ind.; 2013; 33, pp. 19-23.

14. Hongyan, P.A.N.; Yu, Z.; Qian, L.I.N. Advance in non-noble metal catalysts for catalytic combustion of volatile organic compounds. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog.; 2011; 30, pp. 1726–1732, 1748.

15. Wang, C.C.; Li, J.R.; Lv, X.L. Photocatalytic organic pollutants degradation in metal-organic frameworks. Energy Environ. Sci.; 2014; 7, pp. 2831-2867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C4EE01299B]

16. Zhao, X.X.; Li, J.Z.; Li, X. Design of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) -based photocatalyst for solar fuel production and photo-degradation of pollutants. Chin. J. Catal.; 2021; 42, pp. 872-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(20)63715-9]

17. Busca, G.; Berardinelli, S.; Resini, C. Technologies for the removal of phenol from fluid streams: A short review of recent developments. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2008; 160, pp. 265-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.045]

18. Shou, T.; Li, Y.; Bernards, M.T. Degradation of gas-phase o-xylene via combined non-thermal plasma and Fe doped LaMnO₃ catalysts: Byproduct control. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2020; 387, 121750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121750]

19. Hosseini, S.A.; Sadeghi, M.T.; Alemi, A. Synthesis, Characterization, and Performance of LaZn_xFe_1−xO₃ Perovskite Nanocatalysts for toluene combustion. Chin. J. Catal.; 2010; 31, pp. 747-750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(09)60083-8]

20. Lv, Y.; Cheng, B.; Yang, H. Chemical looping partial oxidation (CLPO) of toluene on LaFeO₃ perovskites for tunable syngas production. Chem. Eng. J.; 2023; 451, 138968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.138968]

21. Tarjomannejad, A.; Farzi, A.; Niaei, A. An experimental and kinetic study of toluene oxidation over LaMn_1−xB_xO₃ and La_0.8A_0.2Mn_0.3B_0.7O₃ (A = Sr, Ce and B = Cu, Fe) nano-perovskite catalysts. Korean J. Chem. Eng.; 2016; 33, pp. 2628-2637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11814-016-0108-4]

22. Zhao, L.; Jiang, L.; Huang, Y. Mechanism investigation of three-dimensional porous A-site substituted La_1−xCo_xFeO₃ catalysts for simultaneous oxidation of NO and toluene with H₂O. Appl. Surf. Sci.; 2022; 578, 151977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.151977]

23. Penuelas, J.; Asensio, D.; Tholl, D. Biogenic volatile emissions from the soil. Plant Cell Environ.; 2014; 37, pp. 1866-1891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pce.12340]

24. Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.H. Noble-Metal-Based Catalytic Oxidation Technology Trends for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Removal. Catalysts; 2022; 12, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/catal12010063]

25. Wu, P.; Jin, X.; Qiu, Y. Recent Progress of Thermocatalytic and Photo/Thermocatalytic Oxidation for VOCs Purification over Manganese-based Oxide Catalysts. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2021; 55, pp. 4268-4286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08179]

26. Tang, Y.; Tao, Y.; Zhou, T. Direct Z-scheme La_1−xCe_xMnO₃ catalyst for photothermal degradation of toluene. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2019; 26, pp. 36832-36844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06856-7]

27. Padilla, O.; Munera, J.; Gallego, J. Approach to the Characterization of Monolithic Catalysts Based on La Perovskite-like Oxides and Their Application for VOC Oxidation under Simulated Indoor Environment Conditions. Catalysts; 2022; 12, 168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/catal12020168]

28. Gao, B.; Deng, J.; Liu, Y. Mesoporous LaFeO₃ catalysts for the oxidation of toluene and carbon monoxide. Chin. J. Catal.; 2013; 34, pp. 2223-2229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(12)60689-5]

29. Zhao, S.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y. Hierarchically porous LaFeO₃ perovskite prepared from the pomelo peel bio-template for catalytic oxidation of NO. J. Phys. Chem. Solids; 2018; 116, pp. 43-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpcs.2017.12.057]

30. Kajama, M.N.; Shehu, H.; Okon, E. VOC oxidation in excess of oxygen using flow-through catalytic membrane reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2016; 41, pp. 16529-16534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.164]

31. Wu, M.; Chen, S.; Xiang, W. Oxygen vacancy induced performance enhancement of toluene catalytic oxidation using LaFeO₃ perovskite oxides. Chem. Eng. J.; 2020; 387, 124101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.124101]

32. Kumar, M.; Thapa, K.B.; Singh, P. Long-range surface plasmon resonance biosensors with cytop/Al/Perovskite and cytop/Al/MoS₂ configurations. Phys. Scr.; 2022; 97, 055501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac5e5b]

33. Ayesh, A.I.; Alghamdi, S.A.; Salah, B. High sensitivity H₂S gas sensors using lead halide perovskite nanoparticles. Results Phys.; 2022; 35, 105333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105333]

34. Lee, K.Y.; Hsieh, J.C.; Chen, C.A. Ultrasensitive detection of hydrogen sulfide gas based on perovskite vertical channel chemo-sensor. Sens. Actuators B Chem.; 2021; 326, 128988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2020.128988]

35. Orera, A.; Slater, P.R. New Chemical Systems for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Chem. Mater.; 2009; 22, pp. 675-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cm902687z]

36. Azalim, S.; Brahmi, R.; Agunaou, M. Washcoating of cordierite honeycomb with Ce-Zr-Mn mixed oxides for VOC catalytic oxidation. Chem. Eng. J.; 2013; 223, pp. 536-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.03.017]

37. Thommes, M.; Kaneko, K.; Neimark, A.V. Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the evaluation of surface area and pore size distribution. Pure Appl. Chem.; 2015; 87, pp. 1051-1069. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pac-2014-1117]

38. Guo, Y.; Chen, C.; Ling, L. Visible-light-driven photo-Fenton degradation of ceftriaxone sodium using SnS₂/LaFeO₃ composite photocatalysts. New J. Chem.; 2021; 45, pp. 18933-18946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1NJ03639D]

39. Wang, X.T.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.Q. Design and fabrication of NiS/LaFeO₃ heterostructures for high efficient photodegradation of organic dyes. Appl. Surf. Sci.; 2020; 504, 144363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.144363]

40. Manchala, S.; Gandamalla, A.; Vempuluru, N.R. High potential and robust ternary LaFeO₃/CdS/carbon quantum dots nanocomposite for photocatalytic H₂ evolution under sunlight illumination. J. Colloid Interface Sci.; 2021; 583, pp. 255-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2020.08.125]

41. Wiranwetchayan, O.; Promnopas, S.; Phadungdhitidhada, S. Characterization of perovskite LaFeO₃ synthesized by microwave plasma method for photocatalytic applications. Ceram. Int.; 2019; 45, pp. 4802-4809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.11.175]

42. Lv, C.; Chen, H.; Hu, M. Nano-oxides washcoat for enhanced catalytic oxidation activity toward the perovskite-based monolithic catalyst. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 37142-37157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13354-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33709317]

43. Cui, X.; Yang, H.; Zhang, J. Characterization and performance of Ca-substituted La_1−xCa_xCoO_3−δ perovskite for efficient catalytic oxidation of toluene. Catal. Lett.; 2021; 151, pp. 3323-3333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10562-021-03566-z]